Immigration Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

It was just a point of information that deserves wider knowledge.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note the custom in the House to give notice before making personal remarks involving another Member. Does that include this case?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With respect, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has, having heard the remark, replied to it. I think we have a score draw there, so shall we continue? And that’s not a point of order, either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

I think I probably do not share her utilitarian view of what the greater good is. I probably have a slightly different view about the common good and do not think that that includes causing serious or manifest or overwhelming harm to children. That is why the UK is a signatory to the UNCRC, and why we believe that the best interests of children should always take prime consideration and that the law should be blind in that regard, irrespective of someone’s immigration status. It would be a sad day if the House legislated to say that it is okay to cause serious harm to children and indeed that it is okay to do that in order to pacify a Conservative party rebellion. That is not a good reason for legislating.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady is placing the blame on the wrong person. If someone is deported for committing a serious crime, it is the fault of that person, not of the state for following the consequence of what that person has chosen to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something else: an independent Scotland will sign up fully to the European convention on human rights and take our responsibility in that regard very seriously. We will not be cavalier, as this Government seem to be in their approach to some of these very important human rights. I look forward to the day when Scotland, as an independent nation, will take very seriously its responsibilities to protect our citizens and ensure that they are properly protected by international laws and regulations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman does not have the courage to claim that Scotland would be the successor state and would therefore inherit membership of all those bodies, leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland free from the European Union?

[Pete Wishart]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a great interest in these matters—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I must confess that the image of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary being a puppet on a string for Nigel Farage is one that is new to most Members of the House, and one that seems rather far from the truth. I wish to speak to two new clauses: new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and which I have signed; and new clause 18.

May I first say how fortunate it is that the Government and the authorities-that-be have ensured that new clause 15 has come up for debate this afternoon? It is crucial that the House of Commons should get to debate that which the House of Commons wishes to debate, and 105 signatures to a new clause is a clear statement of that desire. The business managers therefore deserve to be commended for their wisdom in allowing that to happen, and those in even higher positions of authority—I am thinking of Mr Speaker, in particular—follow in a fine tradition of Speakers who have ensured that the will of the House has been allowed to be expressed and a view come to. That is good fortune for us all.

I must confess that I disagree fundamentally with the case made by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). It seems to me that part of our system of liberty is the fact that liberty comes with responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that if a person’s actions are illegal, a punishment will follow, and that punishment is their responsibility and their fault. They cannot get out of it because other people might be indirectly affected by it. That is not what their actions have caused; their actions have caused them to go to prison, for a minimum of a year according to the new clause, and then to be deported because they were foreign criminals and therefore had no automatic right to be here in the first place. That is an important and fair principle.

If the alternative view is taken, which is that there will be knock-on effects on other people and therefore it is unfair and unreasonable to allow a punishment to take place, then no punishment can ever take place and we can have no proper rule of law in this country. Whenever somebody commits a crime and is likely to be sent to prison, they will say that their family cannot cope with that and that it will be unfair, and therefore their sentence must be brought down and they must be free to carry on their life of crime. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Brent Central and think that the provision in the new clause is both proportionate and sensible.

[Mike Thornton]

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. I believe that he has misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), because I know that he would not deliberately misinterpret her comments. She was by no means saying that someone should not be punished because they have children; she was saying that, when considering them for deportation, we should properly weigh in the balance the genuine difficulties and harm that could be done to children. By no means was she suggesting—I hope that I am right—that we should stop punishment. That was no part of her argument whatsoever.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful clarification. The problem is that deportation is part of the punishment. The logic of the argument of the Member for Brent Central is that if someone’s punishment had an effect on their children that led not to “manifest and overwhelming harm” but to either manifest harm or overwhelming harm, it would be fundamentally and in principle unfair on the children, so that part of the punishment should not be carried out. Surely, however, it might equally be said that someone’s imprisonment would have an effect of manifest but not “manifest and overwhelming” harm on the children. If such an argument was accepted, the whole criminal justice concept of punishing people who have committed offences would become extremely difficult. Deportation is therefore simply a reasonable part of the overall punishment for someone who commits a serious offence.

I listened with great interest to the debate about the status of new clause 15 in European and UK law. A principle that we should always state and restate in this House is that, by its very nature, Parliament cannot pass a law that is illegal. We can pass laws that contravene international obligations or that we may decide our diplomatic relations require us to remove or repeal, but Parliament cannot pass an illegal law.

That point is important to remember, because there is a tyranny of lawyers. They give people advice stating that they think x or y, but until it has been judged by a court, that is no more than advice, which may be right or wrong. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been advised by the Home Office lawyer that the new clause does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights, that does not question the right of this House to pass it into law: it is our right to do so, and then to consider the judgment that may or may not be made by the European Court of Human Rights. That of course leaves open the question of whether the Home Secretary can sign the declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I am delighted that she is returning to her place as I say that.

My right hon. Friend has the right to go to another lawyer. When given legal advice that they do not like, many people see whether they can find one who gives different advice. Amazingly enough, when they pay a better lawyer, they sometimes get better advice. I hope that even in an era of austerity Her Majesty’s Government may seek out some better lawyers who can give improved advice that is more in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said.

The question is therefore only one of incompatibility, not of legality. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench team will also think about that. Whether the new clause is accepted and passed into law is not fundamentally a legal decision, because the legal position is as yet unproved—it has not been tested in the courts—so it is a political decision or a political statement about what hon. Members on both sides of the House think is the right way to treat people from foreign countries who have committed serious crimes. I would take the political decision that it is right to expel them from this country, and that it would be wrong to do so only if extraordinary factors meant that they ought to have the right to stay.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

It is on exactly that point that some Opposition Members have concerns about new clause 15. As the hon. Gentleman says, there may be exceptional circumstances that mean a decision should be made not to deport somebody, but the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) would take away exactly such discretion, because it says, “If you get one year’s imprisonment, you’re out.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As always, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point, but it is a question about which bit of discretion would be taken away. The courts would retain discretion if there was a threat of harm or a threat to life and limb, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton pointed out. Discretion would be circumscribed only in very specific cases relating to article 8, and that would be done because the courts appear to have made some quite eccentric decisions. What has really brought this to the attention of the British public is the huge backlog of deportations—4,000 people are apparently waiting to be deported—and the fact that a very high number of challenges are brought purely on the basis of article 8 rights, which cannot therefore involve people in fear of torture or of harm to life and limb. I do not think that anybody in the House wants to deport people at risk to life and limb. As a nation, we believe in offering refugee status to people genuinely at threat, but we are not in favour of the exaggeration of spurious rights.

As I have said, the decision is a political decision, not a legal one. It is for this House to make a political choice about how our criminal justice system works, what rights belong to people who have committed very serious crimes and how far such rights should go. If it became a legal decision—if it were taken to the courts—we would find out at a later stage whether the European Court of Human Rights thought it was compatible with the convention. The House would then make a second choice, which would be whether to maintain today’s political decision or reverse it to be compatible with the convention. That is not the choice before us today. This is a routine exercise of parliamentary sovereignty in adding to a Bill a provision that may become law and be justiciable at a later stage.

I know that a lot of other Members want to speak, so I will be brief on new clause 18. I have some concerns about it. I am perhaps rather romantic in my view of what it means to be a British subject. I always thought that Palmerston got it right on the Don Pacifico affair—the “Civis Romanus sum” principle. Once any one of us has a passport that says we are British, we are as British as anybody else, whether they were born here or got their passport five minutes ago. It is incredibly important that there is equality before the law for all Her Majesty’s subjects who are living in this country and have right of residence here.

I worry that if we give the Government the ability to take passports away from a certain category of British subject but not from others, it will create a potential unfairness and a second category of citizen. There are Members of the House who were born abroad and have been naturalised and, on occasion, they may vote against the Government, which I hope the Whips will not consider serious enough reason to remove their passport. The fundamental underlying principle of equality of all Her Majesty’s subjects is important. I am always nervous about giving the Executive relatively arbitrary powers, because they are the ones that can be most misused. Once a passport is in somebody’s hands, they ought to be no different from anybody else in any legal respect.

Crucially, there may well already be laws that could deal with the problem in another way. If people have committed an offence so serious, important and threatening to the life of the nation that their passport should be confiscated, surely they have committed some other crime for which they could be charged, dragged through the courts, perhaps found guilty by a jury and then sentenced accordingly, with the penalty handed down in the right and proper way and their rights and liberties as subjects being maintained. They may have committed treason if they have done something so serious that they are to have their passport removed from them.

I will not oppose the new clause, but I wished to raise those concerns. I understand that the approach has been agreed because it will not affect many people. That is fine—I am glad it will not have widespread application—but what message does it send to the nation at large?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in saying that not many people will be affected immediately, but once one gives a Minister an executive power to deny someone citizenship, who knows how many citizenships will be taken away in future?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House may be surprised to know that I am in almost complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is rare—I think unique. One should always be suspicious of the arbitrary power of the state. As we saw with today’s proceedings about whether there would even be a vote on new clause 15, the arbitrary power of the state can sometimes be misused. The Executive sometimes have to come under pressure before they give way and allow the proper proceedings to take place. I much prefer a legal process, and I do not want to make the statement that people who have got their citizenship more recently than I did are in any sense lesser citizens. I fundamentally do not believe that. Anybody who is fortunate enough to be a subject of Her Majesty is an equal subject of Her Majesty with all others.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my notice that my name is on the list of those supporting the new clause and amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I would like to make it clear that I have not spoken to my hon. Friend, nor given him my written consent to be named on his amendments. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get my name excised from the record, and will you look into tightening up the rules, such as by requiring a Member’s written consent before names are added to amendments in future?

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) as he brings the passage of this Bill in this House to a conclusion. I was here during its gestation period, on Second Reading, and I am happy to be here now to support it as it is finally delivered. You were in the Chair on Second Reading, Mr Speaker, and I wearied you with a speech of nearly half an hour, so you will be pleased to hear that as this is Third Reading, my remarks will be very brief.

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

Mr Speaker, I do not believe you ever weary of listening to speeches in this Chamber.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is entirely correct in his surmise.

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have indicated that the habitual residence test will be available from 1 January, and that the measures for those people who will be removed—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked which measures would not be ready. He can work it out for himself, because I have told him which one will be in place on 1 January.

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

I am sorry to have to ask the same question for about the sixth time. It is open to the Government to abrogate their treaty obligations, and it is open to the House to legislate. The free movement of people is no longer working in the interests of this nation, so why do Her Majesty’s Government lack the political will to change the law?

[Mrs May]

I am tempted to say that I suspect my hon. Friend was not sorry to have to ask that question for a sixth time. I have answered it in relation to an earlier question. The Government are taking steps to ensure that we can do what we believe to be necessary to address the issue of the removal of transitional controls on people coming from Romania and Bulgaria. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the intentions and good faith behind what the Government have done across the immigration system over the past three and a half years. We have explored every possible avenue to do everything we can to repair the damage, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), that was done by the last Labour Government’s policies.

Psychoactive Substances

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We have had an interesting exchange of views, resulting in the Government and the Opposition agreeing with the European Scrutiny Committee’s assessment that there is a breach of the principle of subsidiarity in these matters. There are two issues: the draft regulation and the draft directive, both of which have already been described, so there is no need for me to go into them in detail.

The draft regulation would fetter the flexibility that member states currently enjoy to determine the level of risk associated with a new psychoactive substance, and to implement appropriate national control measures. The draft directive, on the other hand, would require member states to introduce criminal sanctions for a new psychoactive substance deemed by the Commission to present a severe health, social and safety risk.

The draft reasoned opinion concludes that the proposed legislation breaches the principle of subsidiarity simply because it would fetter member states’ action to an unacceptable degree. It highlighted the following concerns: the absence of reliable market information on the volume of trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate rather than recreational use; different cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs and new psychoactive substances and the need to accommodate different regulatory approaches at national level; the limited scope for unilateral action by a member state when faced with evidence of social or health harms which exceed the level of risk identified by the Commission when implementing market restrictions; and insufficient evidence of disruption to legitimate trade, or displacement of the harmful effects of the new psychoactive substances, to warrant market intervention on the scale envisaged in the proposed measures or the imposition of additional constraints on members states’ freedom of action.

We have had a number of successes in the European Scrutiny Committee’s proposals for reasoned opinions: we debated the proposal for a European prosecutor’s office and last week it was withdrawn by the Commission, and the Monti II provision in relation to small and medium-sized businesses. We are making some progress. The reality, however, is that we still have to get a substantial number of member states to agree to our proposals on the reasoned opinion. We have a decent track record and will continue to argue the case on the basis of analysis, logic and common sense. Having said that, I do not think there is anything I need to do to repeat the remarks that have already been made, because the Government, the Opposition and the ESC all agree.

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

From experience, does my hon. Friend agree that it is usually the most dangerous state of affairs when there is a consensus between my hon. Friend, Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

[Mr Cash]

I would certainly agree that it is extremely dangerous when there is collusion between the two Front-Bench teams, but when the European Scrutiny Committee comes into the equation, I think it is a virtuous circle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am constructing an argument to demonstrate precisely how the European Union has got itself into this absurd situation of what might be called a caterpillar race between the European Commission and the British Government over who can be the slowest to deal with the problem of legal highs. Frankly, my constituents’ problem is that this Government are doing nothing—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I dare not digress.

Like the Government, the European Union is doing nothing other than create an excuse for allowing the growth of legal highs without criminal sanctions. Some European Union countries think exactly the same way as this Government think. They are saying, “The more we create illegal drugs, the more criminality there will be; the less we spend on police, the more that criminality will grow, and the public will not like that.” That is the problem that the Minister should be addressing. I put it to him that he should go back to look at the origins of this proposal and withdraw the Government’s policy of going around these legalising countries to see what we can learn from them. Instead, he should be looking at the problems in areas like mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his brilliant speech, but I have a worry that he is confusing caterpillars with snails. It is snails that are notorious for their slowness, not caterpillars.

[John Mann]

rose—

Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), with whom I am in almost entire agreement.

As a brief aside, if the House will indulge me, I think one can take back the divergence between our legal system and that of the continent to the Fourth Lateran Council and Innocent III’s view that it was wrong for priests to stand and bless trial by combat. From that, our different systems developed.

On the substance of the documents in front of us, the key is that the Lisbon treaty provided that a European public prosecutor’s office should be developed from Eurojust, which article 86(1) stated could go ahead by enhanced co-operation. In coming forward with these proposals, therefore, the Commission is starting from a very good treaty base, from its point of view. Fortunately, however, we have an equally good treaty base for rejecting it—our ability to opt in or not. I raise the flag of concern about what this whole process is about, and I urge the Government, regardless of the negotiations, not to opt in at the end of them, because it is all about creating a single form of justice within the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said.

The degree of competence being created for Eurojust is extremely wide and is set out in annex 1 of the documents before us, which lists the forms of serious crime that Eurojust is competent to deal with in accordance with article 3(1). I will read the list out, as that has not yet been done, because it is important to understand how all-encompassing the list is: organised crime; terrorism; drug trafficking; money laundering; corruption; crime against the financial interests of the union; murder, grievous bodily injury, kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage taking; sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of women and children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes; racism and xenophobia; organised robbery; motor vehicle crime; swindling and fraud; racketeering and extortion; counterfeiting and product piracy; forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein; forgery of money and means of payment; computer crime; insider dealing and financial market manipulation; illegal immigrant smuggling; trafficking in human beings; illicit trade in human organs and tissue; illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters; illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiquities and works of art; illicit trafficking in arms, ammunition and explosives; illicit trafficking in endangered animal species; illicit trafficking in endangered plant species and varieties; environmental crime; ship-source pollution; crime connected with nuclear and radioactive substances; and genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. While some of those are undoubtedly extremely serious and have cross-border connotations, others are essentially national crimes that are most unlikely to have any international connotations. Tiresome though it might be, if one’s car radio is stolen, it is hard to see how that motor crime would have a particular effect on the good people of Luxembourg.

The list goes on, because the proposed regulation coming from the EU allows Eurojust to cover related criminal offences, so it has the ability to go further than this already extensive list. I would argue that the Eurojust proposal contains a very wide set of competences and that Eurojust has significant power of its own. It can exercise its tasks at the request of the competent authorities of member states or, crucially, on its own initiative; it does not require a member state to intervene to set the wheels in motion that would lead to investigations taking place.

The Commission sets out in its document that competent national authorities shall respond without undue delay to Eurojust’s requests and opinions made under article 4, which sets out the basis on which they may make such requests. What is being proposed will give Eurojust a very wide set of competences and an ability to demand responses. I am well aware that the Government’s concern over the directive is that there may be orders coming from member states to direct investigations in the UK and that they believe that that would be unsatisfactory. Eurojust itself does not get that direct power, but it is not very far from it, because national authorities have to respond without undue delay. Although they can cite operational reasons of an unspecified kind as to why they will not provide co-operation, that will be justiciable by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That seems to me to be a very major extension of the competence of the European Union into the criminal justice field.

On the composition of Eurojust—I may have misunderstood this—it is surprising that it is not composed according to the ordinary rules of qualified majority voting, but by simple majority of the members of the college. The members of the college will be one representative of each member state, each of whom will have, according to article 10, a single vote. It would mean that the UK, if we were to opt in to this set of proposals, could be outvoted without even having the benefit of the extra weighting to our vote. The college is set up to maximise the power of the centre against the countries. The proposals give enormously wide control to Eurojust even if the Government’s queries on direct orders from other members and the relationship with the European public prosecutor’s office are answered. That is a fundamental step in reversing—you will be horrified to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker— the differences that developed in 1215 with the Fourth Lateran Council.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the UK should opt out of all EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before December 2009 and seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so and invites the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Justice Select Committee to submit relevant reports before the end of October, before the Government opens formal discussions with the Commission, Council and other Member States on the set of measures in Command Paper 8671, prior to the Government’s formal application to rejoin measures in accordance with Article10(5) of Protocol 36 to the TFEU.

For 40 years, ever since the United Kingdom entered what was then just a Common Market, power flowed in one direction—from this country and this place, which ought to be sovereign but in practice is often not, to the institutions of the European Union. Since the referendum in 1975, not once was the consent of the British people sought or given for a series of treaties that gave more and more power to Europe.

The Government’s decision, which I announced in a statement last week, to opt out of around 130 European justice and home affairs measures, before seeking to opt back into those measures that we believe work in the national interest, will be the first time in the history of our membership of the European Union that we have taken such a set of powers back from Brussels. Let us be clear that, however complicated the issues we are about to debate—I will soon come to those issues—we are first and foremost talking about bringing powers back home. That is something—

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

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to finish my sentence? He is quick off the mark, as he always is on these matters.

That is something that should be celebrated by anybody who cares about national sovereignty, democracy and the role of this place in making the laws of our country.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me so early on. Is it not unfortunately the case that 43 of the measures are, in effect, defunct anyway, that the ones we opt back into come under the European Court of Justice, and that that is a much bigger give-away of power than the relatively minor removal of powers that is happening under the opt-out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Indeed, those concerns were raised by the House of Lords in its detailed and thorough report on the opt-out and opt-in process about the risks in the negotiating process. That is why it is important—I shall come on to this—to have those proper assurances in place and to have proper information about the attitude of other European member states across the Council and about the attitude of the Commission. I shall give way to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) if he still wants to intervene, but then I wish to make progress.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Accepting that it is important that there are extradition arrangements with other countries, does the right hon. Lady not think that it would be possible—since Lisbon, the European Union has legal personality—to negotiate an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU that covers this, but is not justiciable in the European Court of Justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government have said that that would not be possible and that they would have to go back to the previous convention. Under that extradition convention, we experienced some long delays, including taking 10 years to send a suspected terrorist back to France. I do not think that is acceptable, and I do not think that the public would think that it was acceptable for us to have a French terrorist, or someone wanted in France, in this country and being unable to send him back quickly to face trial and to face justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come back to the proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and the extent to which we need to scrutinise them. I accept that this is an important opportunity to mitigate the blunt edges of the EAW, but the fact is that, at the moment, its broad net sweeps up too many innocent British nationals such as Andrew Symeou, Deborah Dark, Michael Turner, Edmond Arapi and, in my constituency, the retired judge Colin Dines, who suffered a stroke as a result of the pressure and stress of being subject to the warrant. We hope and expect that it will be dropped, but he and his family will still be left to pick up the pieces.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is it not the case that if we opt back in, the European arrest warrant cannot be better in future than it is now, because at present it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice or to enforcement by the European Commission, but then it will be? Therefore, whatever laws we pass in this House will not be determinative. It will be determined by the European Court of Justice.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes his point, which I will come back to, in a powerful way. The issue has two distinct elements. We could get away with UK safeguards without amending the framework decision, but would they then be whittled away by the Luxembourg Court? My hon. Friend is right to raise that point.

I have mentioned a series of cases, all of which are appalling miscarriages of justice. The point I want to make—this is difficult for our coalition partners, who feel strongly about civil liberties and have strongly supported extradition reform when I have raised it in this House—is that if people are concerned about extradition and blunt extradition under our arrangements with the US, they cannot turn a blind eye to what has been happening under the European arrest warrant, because this is not about the odd case but systemic. Britain’s senior extradition judge, Lord Justice Thomas, stated publicly in his evidence to the Baker review—this has already been alluded to—that the EAW system has become “unworkable” and that unfairness is a “huge problem”.

This is not about a piffling, odd case here or there, or the trivial cases that get cited and bandied around left, right and centre; it is about serious cases such as that of Symeou, who was, in effect, wanted for killing someone, and Colin Dines, who was wanted for a very serious fraud. We all accept that those are extraditable crimes—that is not the issue. The question is whether we trust the investigating prosecuting authorities and courts in some of these other countries and whether we turn a blind eye to some of the appalling prison conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

It seems the Minister is saying that in substance it would be something to trigger a referendum, but there is some technicality that means it will not in this instance.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because this is a most interesting point. Is it arguable to say that Lisbon is itself a treaty change, and that what is happening is consequent to a treaty change and therefore triggers the referendum mechanism, in spite of what our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said? Might that not be worth testing at judicial review?

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend is right to say that these matters could lead to significant delays in the courts, and a test of judicial review. Some of those procedures can go on for some time, and there would be the prospect of a number of appeals. I wonder whether the Government have taken the sequencing of these issues into account in their timing.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good news that the Government, in their wisdom, have acceded to amendment (b), tabled by the Liaison Committee Chairman, to water down the initial proposal. It is none the less worth reviewing the process of parliamentary scrutiny that this has gone through, because what we had thrown at us last Tuesday was deeply unsatisfactory. I would like to record that dissatisfaction, even though the movements that have been made since are admirable.

It is worth bearing in mind that on 14 December 2012, the Home Secretary and the Lord High Chancellor wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee to say:

“We would hope to be in a position to provide you with the first of the Explanatory Memoranda by early January and to have provided all necessary Explanatory Memoranda by the middle of February. We hope that this will be acceptable to you.”

There were delays, time goes by, and the Whitehall machine did not work with that efficient Rolls-Royce nature that it has been noted for historically. On 11 February 2013, the Home Secretary and the Lord High Chancellor wrote once again—these were becoming regular billets-doux between the Lord High Chancellor, the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—and on this occasion they said:

“Each of these Explanatory Memoranda will be made available to Parliament shortly, to help inform consideration.”

Now, I do not know what view right hon. and hon. Members would take of the word “shortly”. Time is an elastic concept, but it seems to me that “shortly” does not stretch from 11 February 2013 through to last Tuesday. At that point, the elastic had long since snapped. It was broken, and there was a feeling that the urgency that had once been promised had dissipated.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend recall the words in Marlowe’s Dr Faustus:

“O lente, lente currite noctis equi!”—

“Slowly, slowly pass the horses of the night”?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The education at Stonyhurst of my hon. Friend is exquisitely fine. His quotations are better than mine, and I pay tribute to his ability to quote such fine words.

The elastic last Tuesday was firmly broken. Instead of having proper time for parliamentary scrutiny, and instead of having time when the Select Committees could do their work thoroughly and consider this matter of the greatest importance, we were told that what was going to happen was a vote today to agree to the Government’s position, with very little opportunity for any scrutiny at all. It is therefore hugely to be welcomed that the Government decided that that was not the right way to proceed, and that the views of Parliament, representing our constituents, were important in this matter to be able to see what was happening, to deliberate, to report, to take evidence and to decide what, if anything, it might be in the national interest to opt back into. While I am grateful that the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny has improved, it was really quite extraordinary that last Tuesday we were in such a situation as to have been denied parliamentary scrutiny almost altogether. There is some praise now, but it came from a position of dispraise before.

We have heard the most wonderful, glorious line repeated by a number of speakers that this is a most noble repatriation of powers: that never before in the history of the European Union have powers been repatriated to a nation state and that previously it has been a one-way street. The power has gone out: it has left the United Kingdom and gone to our friends in Brussels, but on this occasion there was a noble fight. Horatius was on the bridge standing there fending off the massed hoards coming from Europe to impose their will on brave little Blighty, and happily 98 powers have been restored to this great country. And the ones that are being given back? Well, they have them anyway, so why are we worrying about that at all? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is saying that I am leading up to a quotation. No, I am not; I am leading up to the detail.

This may be rather boring, and one might think speeches in this House unaccustomed to delving into such matters as detail. I hope that under, I think, Standing Order No. 42, this will be neither repetitious nor tedious—well, it may be tedious, but it will not be repetitious, because nobody else has mentioned the detail—but I should like to go through some of the items that we are opting out off, the repatriation of powers that we are getting.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend says that he is going to tackle a matter of detail. Before he proceeds on his new list, perhaps I can tell him that the detail we were discussing before related to when a referendum is triggered. The actual text of the European Union Act 2011 is:

“Subject to subsection (4), a treaty or an article 48(6) decision falls within this section”.

There is no comma separating

“a treaty or an article 48(6) decision”.

This can surely be described as a treaty decision, in which case it would be caught.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to the view that my hon. Friend is expressing. The view of the Government is otherwise, but when the 2011 Act was being debated it was made clear that these matters can be settled by judicial review. If there is a continuing uncertainty, that is a sensible route to go down once we know what issues will be opted into.

[Mr Cash]

The very thought of a judicial review in the name of Rees-Mogg invokes memories of the greatest of all the cases on the Maastricht treaty, in which my hon. Friend’s own dear late father was the plaintiff. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to take up the cudgels in his own right.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the activities of my late noble kinsman, who did indeed bring an action on the Maastricht treaty, supported by the late kinsman of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who was the backer of that great venture. It may be that we can fight on where our fathers once fought, with the continuing help of my hon. Friend, the seemingly immortal hon. Member for Stone.

[Chris Bryant]

I have just been cogitating on the hon. Gentleman’s earlier reference to Horatius Cocles. If I remember correctly, Tacitus admits that Rome was surrendered despite the efforts of Mr Cocles.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to refer to the geese that saved Rome and divert us with a bit of cackling of geese, but it was not that in the end.

Let me return to the exciting detail of where we are restoring powers. The first example that I shall regale you with, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the Council act of 3 December 1998, laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees. I think that staff regulations are very important and noble, but I hardly see that as a fine repatriation of powers. There are lots of other examples—I will not go through them all, because time is short and there are far too many.

However, there are eight decisions relating to classified information. If hon. Members are willing to return to the analysis by the Government, they will see that of those eight, all of which are being opted out of, the Government say:

“To our knowledge only small quantities of classified information are currently shared with third countries under these agreements. If the UK decided not to participate in the agreement, we would continue to be able to exchange UK classified data directly with any third country.”

Therefore, eight of the 98 powers that we are repatriating are so trivial that we have not used them and, crucially, the point has been made that we could do that by agreement with the third countries individually and get exactly the same benefits. Indeed, one of the classified information-sharing deals refers to Croatia before it was a member of the European Union, so that one falls automatically, even if it were useful. I am therefore agreeing, to my horror—and probably equally to her horror—with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, who made the point about the triviality of some of these matters. They are really not very important.

The Schengen measures that we are pulling out of relate to the accession of member states to Schengen, which is hardly still relevant. Those measures include—oh, this is glorious—a council decision made on 18 September 2008 on the test of the second-generation Schengen information system, to which we are no longer committed. That is a serious repatriation of power!

I was thinking of the ancient types, making a comparison to Horatius on the bridge, but it is not Horatius; it is more like Sisyphus, perhaps in both senses of the man. The rock was pushed up to the top of the hill, and he tried to get it over the top, but straight it rolled back down again. To use a cricketing metaphor—which is appropriate in the middle of an Ashes test series—the degree of spin required to say that we are seeing the repatriation of power reminds me only of that famous ball bowled by Shane Warne, when he was first visiting England, when he removed Mike Gatting. It spun so much, so far that it went down in history as one of the great balls in cricket. Even Tich Freeman at his peak, when he got 305 wickets in a season, did not bowl so much spin as this Government are bowling. Even Jim Laker in 1956 was not spinning away so much when he got 19 wickets in Manchester against the Australians, for there is no real repatriation of powers.

Unfortunately, there are two sides of most ledgers. When we look at the powers that it is intended to opt back into, we see rather the reverse. To go into more of this tedious detail, which I know hon. Members find somewhat soporific, the first area—the biggest and most important—is the arrest warrant. We have heard from the Home Secretary about how the arrest warrant will be placed under strict controls. She even mentioned that there will be some limits on the joint recognition of offences, but that will not be decided by our courts or our Parliament. Instead, it will be decided by a foreign court, by foreign judges, and it will be subject to the agreement that has already been made in Brussels.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend, who is almost always right on matters of substance, might reflect on the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, the words “judicial authority” in this context were severely criticised by the European Scrutiny Committee, and there is no guarantee that a court or a judge would be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is an important point, and we should all learn off by heart the 2001 report by the European Scrutiny Committee, I seem to remember it was—

[Mr Cash]

The 17th report of that year.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed; we should all pay great heed to that report.

[Mr Clappison]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the face of it, although the Government’s proposed amendment to the European arrest warrant seems simple, it depends on the view taken by the European Court of Justice—if this area is now to be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—and that we have no way of knowing what that view will be?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Where I part company with the Government is in believing that it would not be better to make these adjustments in the current structure, rather than under the new structure, and to negotiate to maintain the current structure with our European partners, because as it currently stands, if we change the law, that is the law of the land. Once we have opted in, it is not: the law of the land is subject to the European Court of Justice.

Then there is the issue of double criminality. The European Commission’s website, in explaining how the arrest warrant works, says quite clearly:

“If they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence of at least three years, the following offences”—

which are then listed—

“may give rise to surrender without verification of the double criminality of the act”.

Therefore, although we may pass a law saying that double criminality is a requirement before we extradite somebody, the rule of Brussels is not so. Now, in the situation we are currently in, our law is superior, but then their law will be superior.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that in the welter of information—the labyrinth that has been created by this extraordinary system—the word “xenophobia” is also mentioned? However, no definition is given, which makes things even more difficult.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This is always a complex area. I have never thought that any Briton could ever suffer from xenophobia, because no Briton has ever been frightened of any foreigner.

I should like to continue a little on the detail and look at item No. 48, which is the Council framework decision on the European Union orders freezing property or evidence. Therefore, we are potentially going to give to the European Court and the European Commission rights to freeze the property of British subjects. Item No. 59 deals with the mutual recognition of financial penalties. “Mutual recognition” is the most dangerous part of the agreement on justice and home affairs.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend’s analysis of this list of measures is absolutely scintillating, but before he moves on from that one, is he aware that, as far as the freezing of assets or evidence is concerned, the problem is that in future the Commission will have the right of initiative to propose laws? These will then be determined through the co-decision and qualified majority voting procedure in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. That provision does not currently exist, because the agreement stands on its own and is subject to our law. In future, it will be subject to amendment under European law and we cannot know where that will end.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that is quite it, because I think the process is subject to a Title V opt-out. Therefore, if any of those issues are recast, we then have to decide whether to opt into the recast decision, but the decision we have opted into will be a permanent part of the acquis communautaire and we will therefore be bound by it, even if it is recast.

There are a couple of other measures that are being maintained that it is important to mention, because the surrender of powers is so significant. They include the mutual recognition of confiscation orders, which is similar to the property issue. Then there are measures dealing with the enhancing of procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Therefore, we are going to give mutual recognition to trials that are held without the person accused being present, which I have always thought a potentially highly unjust way of proceeding.

We should be deeply concerned about the proposals to opt back in, because of the lack of sovereignty we will then have over those essential measures. In these important areas—mutual recognition, the arrest warrant, trials without the person present and many others—we are handing over to the European Court the ability to decide whether our procedures are good enough or whether they have to be changed to meet European requirements.

[Mr Cash]

I know my hon. Friend has heard this before, but does he accept that, for all the examples that could be given to demonstrate that the European arrest warrant is sometimes convenient and suits the case of those in favour of it, there are many examples that demonstrate absolutely massive deprivations of justice for those people caught up in the EAW who are most unfairly treated by it?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is certainly the case, but I have sympathy with the Government wanting to have an arrest warrant that works. I think that is a rational and sensible view for the Government to take, but I think that they should go about it in a different way.

The European Union took legal personality at Lisbon. The EU makes deals as the EU with the United States, Korea and Singapore in the free trade area, but it has not yet been tested whether the EU can use its legal personality to make deals with member states of the EU—but that does not mean that it cannot be tried. It would be a sensible thing to do by treaty obligation not within the European treaties, but by separate treaty obligation.

It seems to me that the Government are taking the path of least resistance, which requires a surrender of sovereignty. That surrender of sovereignty is clearly in contradiction of the coalition agreement, which says that there will be no further surrender of powers to the EU. It seems to me, too, that the status quo is the opt-out and not the opt back in. Why? Because the status quo is that these issues are not justiciable in the European Court of Justice, and justice—and the fount of justice—is the essence of sovereignty. Why is Her Majesty sovereign? She is sovereign because she is the fount of justice in this country. When we hand justice over, so we hand sovereignty over—and so the move in sovereignty by making things justiciable in front of the European Court is a major change and different in kind from the opting out, which retains the powers in the United Kingdom.

I am hugely encouraged that the Government have listened so much and have been willing to move so much in a correct way to have proper parliamentary oversight. I am confident that at least the Conservatives in this Government have the wisdom and the ability to negotiate what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom and not to go down the path of least resistance. We need to maintain sovereignty here. We need to have agreements that represent our interests but are not subject to the power of a foreign court that is unaccountable to our electorate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is always an enormous delight to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I always feel as if I step back in time a little and a Beaufort, Neville or Spencer is addressing the House and taking us back to the 15th century when things were simpler and a Welshman knew that he could not trust an Englishman and that was about as far as xenophobia went. The hon. Gentleman gave us a fascinating tour of spin, and it is only a shame that the Home Secretary was not in her place to hear his complete demolition of her speech earlier this afternoon.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Given that the Home Secretary now is here, I should like to say that that was not what I was trying to do.

[Chris Bryant]

The great thing about the hon. Gentleman is that he sometimes achieves that to which he does not even aspire—and on this occasion he did precisely that.

Let me start with what we all agree about. International criminals co-operate; they commit crimes in many different countries; they travel and they can commit crimes in one country from another country; and they try to get away with it. Crime does not stop at the channel, which is why co-operation on justice and home affairs across the European Union is a vital part of ensuring national security in the modern era. It is why I think Members of all parties have long supported the position of leadership that the British Government have taken in trying to improve these standards across the whole EU.

We also agree, I hope, that it makes sense to review that co-operation. That is precisely why Labour secured an opt-out—the one we are talking about using at the moment—in the first place. It is a Labour opt-out available to a coalition Government. I therefore suggest that the question before us now is really fairly simple. Is this motion right—the original Government motion, notwithstanding the intervention that the Justice Secretary was forced to make earlier when he suggested that he might accept an amendment that has not even been moved—is it necessary, and is it necessary now? Let me start with the “necessary now” question.

I suggest to hon. Members that we have heard no argument to say why the Government want this vote today. They signalled months ago that they were provisionally minded to opt out—fair enough—but their decision to seek to opt in to any measures, let alone the measures listed in the Command Paper, was announced less than a week ago. The Select Committees have been clamouring for more information for months, as has already been said by three of the Select Committee Chairs, begging for a list of potential opt-ins so that they could look at the matters in hand. They asked for explanatory memorandums and never received them. True, there were briefings to the media, particularly to The Daily Telegraph, but not to the Committees about how the Government saw each of these measures. The Government expected the House to endorse opting out and opting in, including the precise list of measures, without a single word of evidence from any outside body being taken by any Committee of this or the other House.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The decision on the form that any further vote will take in relation to these matters post negotiation is yet to be taken by the relevant House authorities and business managers. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks. Perhaps he might like to try to persuade his Front Benchers to be as clear in their position on the opt-out.

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

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has forgotten the coalition agreement, which states:

“We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament.”

Anything that we opt back into comes under the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament and might be subject to qualified majority voting. All those three items are a surrender of sovereignty, and therefore her statement is disappointing to many people.

[Mrs May]

I merely remind my hon. Friend that the matters we are seeking to rejoin are ones to which we are currently not party. I recognise that we will be seeking to rejoin them post Lisbon treaty, but we have not suddenly plucked them out of thin air.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Some people may interpret what is going on now as being a waste of time, but certainly not the Chair. I am absolutely certain that clarifications on the rules of procedure will be made. The Question could have been put before the moment of interruption, for instance at 5.29, which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has happened in the past. I think that the last time it happened was in the 1970s. On this occasion, we have clearly gone past the moment of interruption and, therefore, the Question will not be posed.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Question that this House do now adjourn cannot be put, how can we decide whether the House is to adjourn or not? Surely if we have missed the opportunity for putting that Question, we need to carry on sitting.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Rees-Mogg, for that point of order. We are past the moment of interruption. Had the Minister carried on speaking until half past 5, I would have just stood up and not put the Question.

Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has brought forward a noble Bill that, in its intention and motivation, is of the highest standards this House ever reaches. As he said, it continues in the tradition of Wilberforce’s campaign to eradicate the slave trade and then slavery throughout the British empire. I believe that the Act of Parliament that finally eradicated slavery throughout the empire was passed three days before Wilberforce’s death, so he was able to see that moment.

I hope that it will not take quite so long for this Bill to be passed and that the hon. Gentleman will see very many years go by after his aim of getting slavery taken out of the practices of multinational companies has been achieved.

As a general rule, I am not in favour of imposing extra regulations on business. We need to have a competitive and free market with companies that can trade. I am very suspicious of fair trade as against free trade. Fair trade often means protectionism by another name—choosing one’s preferred people as opposed to those who are most competitive—and cutting out the poorest in favour of those who are good at filling out bureaucratic forms. We should always be careful when we consider doing anything that might encumber free trade or put burdens on business. We must remember that when burdens are put on business, it is not the profits of the multinationals that suffer but the electorate—often the poorest of our electorate—who find that their prices go up.

Within any advocation of free trade there must be some limits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proud Christian tradition of opposing slavery in all its forms. Going back to my O-levels, I remember studying the letter of St Paul to Philemon, which sets out the Christian case for opposition to slavery. In the Roman empire, slavery was perfectly legal and legitimate. There was no reason to oppose it; it was part of the status quo. The young, burgeoning Christian community lived within that—they had to. They were persecuted enough already without taking on one of the foundations of the Roman empire. St Paul, writing in prison to Philemon, who is a Christian, about his slave who may have escaped, tells him to treat Onesimus as a Christian brother, not as a slave—not as a piece of property but as somebody of worth and value equal even to a Roman citizen. That has set the path, followed by Wilberforce and others, to ensuring that as a nation we have done whatever we can for the past 200 years—after a pretty shameful history beforehand, it has to be admitted—to ensure that slavery is not part of the system of global trade and not something from which British companies profit.

So what is the right level of burden to put on companies—multinationals—that are facing this problem? First, there is the question of their own consciences. Before legislating, we should always see whether companies already take the view that something is fundamentally wrong and has no place in their supply chains. That is a good starting point. With the growth of international trade, many big companies will have major intermediary suppliers. They will not deal with thousands and thousands of small suppliers across the globe but have intermediaries they are able to go to. Those intermediaries should be able to assure the companies that they themselves do not use any improper forms of labour—slaves or children—in the production of the goods that are sold.

We then need to go to the next stage and look at the companies that are supplying to the intermediaries. There may be many thousands of companies, some of which are very small or in very remote parts. My professional background has been in investing in emerging markets. While I have been doing this, the number of emerging markets that have come into the investable framework has been growing. Countries of extreme poverty are now beginning to come into the global system, and auditing them efficiently and properly would be a pretty onerous task to put on to businesses. However, in relation to slavery, it is almost certainly a right and moral one for us to adopt.

The situation that companies will face is one that I have faced as an investment manager in looking at the companies that we invest in for our clients—that is, going to visit them to ensure that their practices are proper. I confess that in one of my company visits I was suspicious that the company did indeed use child labour. The business was a very attractive one, but I thought that my clients, and the pension fundholders they represented and the charities they served, would be appalled to be making money on the backs of children. The individual conscience of company managers and investment managers is an important starting place, which I think helps to achieve the objective behind the Bill.

The question then remains, what are we to do about people who do not have any conscience? Is legislation appropriate, right and proper? There may come circumstances in which that is the case. Perhaps this is more a point for a Committee speech than for a Second Reading speech, but I believe the Bill needs some adjustment to achieve what it is intended to. That is partly because it is trying to do a bit too much. I would prefer it to concentrate purely on the issues of slavery and child labour, which are specific and clear. Other issues can be harder to define and can therefore place a more difficult burden on companies. I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously and see whether there is something they can do to ensure that the required standards are met.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend may not be aware that just yesterday, colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills laid draft regulations that will ensure that as part of their narrative reporting, quoted companies will have to report on any human rights issues necessary to understand their business. Perhaps we can achieve the necessary reporting standard through that avenue without the burden of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I take this opportunity to welcome him to his new post. He is the most civilised of Ministers in the Government, and I am glad that he has moved, because when he was in his last post I opposed practically everything that he did. I sincerely hope that I will now be able to support him more often. In reference to the Board of Trade’s action, the term “human rights” does not necessarily have a very good name in the House. I am slightly cautious of it as a generic term when we have a pretty awful Human Rights Act and a European Court that often gets the wrong end of the stick. There are fundamental principles of humanity in the Bill that we are discussing, not just the woolly words “human rights”. So I am sort of grateful for what the Minister says—more grateful than for a lot of what he said about the constitution when he was the Minister responsible for it—but perhaps not fully grateful.

The Government need to take up the running and take the matter out of the hands of a private Member’s Bill, which cannot necessarily be given the time and resources it needs so that we can get the phraseology as tight as it ought to be. They should find the parliamentary time to introduce a detailed Bill, which could be used to ensure the correct balance between burdens on business and benefits for people at risk.

There is also a twofold economic argument for such a Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk alluded to the first part of it, which is that companies that fail to follow the basics of humanity will be embarrassed in their marketing. They will be brought to shame in front of the nation if it is discovered that they are using child labour or slave labour in the production of their goods. That will bring the crack of the economic whip on their profits, which is a very good means of ensuring that companies behave better.

The other point that is worth making is that companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and successful. Sometimes they are very large employers. I have spoken to Hon Hai, which employs more than 1 million people and is one of the biggest suppliers to Apple. It finds itself employing so many people that it provides an almost governmental style of welfare for them, because it is in its own interests to do so. If it is to employ such large numbers of people in an environment in which there will inevitably be difficulties and disputes, it needs to take care of its employees in the round rather than simply getting the maximum out of the cheapest individual employee.

There is also the argument that if companies move away from child and slave labour, they will be able to mechanise more easily and therefore be more productive and efficient. There is a good argument, which has long been known, about the inefficiency of slave labour. The financial incentive that we talk about when discussing tax rates applies to people in routine jobs in poor countries just as much as to bankers in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there are robust economic reasons for wanting to avoid slave labour, and robust moral reasons as well. It is important—the mood of the House is almost certainly along these lines—that the Government should take the matter up.