Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Craig Whittaker

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Indeed, so we might well get on to that Bill again today. I will maintain a distinction between the two Bills, however, because there clearly is one. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has made a point that shows how powerful contributions can be when we are discussing such details. He said:

“I had the sad duty of discharging a man administratively from my battalion. I really regretted it happening at the time, but I must urge caution about our going back in time to try to put right what was apparently right at the time but which was clearly wrong.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 602.]

He put that very neatly, and I agree. There are plenty of ugly and wrong parts of our past in this country, but we cannot rewrite what happened or impose our beliefs on past generations, just as we would not want people in 100 years’ time to judge what we do today.

[Craig Whittaker]

On pardoning, does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is not as simple as he has just outlined? In our past, the age of consent has been 21; today it is 16. Someone might have had sex with a 14-year-old minor way back when, and that would still be illegal today. Does he therefore agree that it is very difficult to give a blanket pardon in such cases?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but my point is that I would be nervous about in effect giving pardons on the basis of what the law is today as against what the law was back then; we have to accept that the law was what it was at the time.

In 1994, Lord Craig of Radley said:

“Finally, am I right in my concern that we no longer have complete confidence that European law may not one day attempt to rule that discharge on the grounds of homosexuality is discriminatory and illegal, and that this could apply whether discharge was by court martial or administratively and, even worse, be made retrospective and/or liable to compensation?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 90.]

Bill Walker, a former colleague of ours, said the following in this House:

“Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that if existing law is changed as a result of these amendments, anyone dismissed from the service under the existing legislation will not be able to appeal to the European Court and receive large sums of public money ?”—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 172.]

This raises something that has not really been spoken about in this debate, but I hope that the Minister will address it. As I say, I am all for changing the law on this, and I support the Bill and will do what I can to secure its passage through the House. However, I hope that if we change the law, we will not have any unintended consequences whereby we open ourselves up to retrospective claims for compensation just because we are putting right today what was clearly wrong in the past. I genuinely do not know whether that needs to be made clear in the Bill, but perhaps the Minister will reflect on it. It might be something to consider in Committee or on Report, because that would allow us to be clear about whether that matter should be addressed by the Bill and if we might be opening ourselves up to unintended consequences.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on his Bill for many of the reasons that have already been given, but especially those cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. I would advise anyone inside or outside the House to read the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South if they did not hear it first time round. He made it perfectly clear why we should all support the Bill, whether it is technically necessary in law or not. It certainly should be supported, and I hope that it will pass into law.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Craig Whittaker

Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Before the urgent question, I was making the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said that the challenge in drafting the Bill was where to stop. I am sure he knows where he wants to stop, but, as with so many things, once something has started it is very difficult to stop because people always want to extend it. There may well be the slippery slope towards including other medals and certificates. Surely the principle would be the same; it might one day be extended to long-service medals, private medals and all sorts of other things.

On who should be allowed to wear medals, clause 1(3) the Bill states:

“For the purposes of this section (subject to subsection (5)), ‘personally entitled’ means being the person to whom the award in question was made.”

Clause 1(5) states:

“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if the item is worn, or the person represents themselves as being entitled to wear it—

(a) as part of a reconstruction or representation of historical events;

(b) as part of a filmed or theatrical or other live entertainment or production; or

(c) in honour of a family member who meets the requirements of subsection (3).”

The Library briefing on the Bill quotes the Royal British Legion’s advice on the wearing or not wearing of medals:

“Can I wear medals belonging to members of my family?

The official position regarding wearing medals other than your own is that they should not be worn. However, it was generally accepted from soon after the Great War that widows of the fallen wore their late husband’s medals on the right breast on suitable occasions.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made that point in an intervention. The advice goes on:

“More recently it seems to have become the custom for any family member to wear medals of deceased relations in this way, sometimes trying to give a complete family military history by wearing several groups. Although understandable it is officially incorrect, and when several groups are worn it does little for the dignity of the original owners.”

That is the official advice from the Royal British Legion.

In its written evidence to the Defence Committee inquiry, the Naval Families Federation quoted the views of its members. It asked the question

“If criminalisation of wearing unearned medals was introduced, should there be specific safeguards for family members who wear the medals of deceased relatives?… If yes, which family members should be safeguarded? Please tick all that apply.”

It received these replies: “Husband, wife or civil partner” was the most popular; “Unmarried/civil-partnered”; “Parent”; “Guardian”; “Child”; “Step-Child”; “Grandchild”; “Extended family”; and “Other”. By the look of the chart, “Other”—not including any of the others—had about 14% of the responses.

The Royal Air Force Families Federation said in its written evidence to the Defence Committee:

“Yes, there should most certainly be safeguards for family members. The key question is who ‘qualifies’! The definition we use is ‘anyone who is a blood relation’ but this may not be appropriate in these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions. Interestingly, the MoD is struggling with its own definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any definition for these circumstances with the MoD definition if and when they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it’s probably a matter for common sense.”

In the Bill, there is an exemption for a “family member”, but we are none the wiser about who is a family member. Does it cover those categories, such as “Guardian” or someone who was “Unmarried”? Does it include someone who is married, but not a blood relation?

[Craig Whittaker]

I am sure my hon. Friend will realise, like everyone in the House, that the definition of family members will be discussed at length in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has already explained.

[Philip Davies]

I have no doubt of that, but this is a Second Reading debate. There is no reason why we should not discuss the definition at length on Second Reading as well as in Committee, which is what I am doing.

The Defence Committee states in its report:

“A number of our witnesses emphasised the importance of ensuring that relatives of deceased or incapacitated medal recipients can continue to wear their relations’ medals at commemoration events without risk of prosecution.”

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Craig Whittaker

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

It is a significant figure. All these things add up; there are many different elements. I want to come on to the cost, which has been one of the issues raised in the debate.

[Craig Whittaker]

On that same point, will my hon. Friend elaborate on what he thinks are the reasons that those awaiting deportation are sent to open prison rather than a closed prison?

[Philip Davies]

It is not for me to answer for the Ministry of Justice, but it seems that the policy it adopts is that foreign national offenders are treated just like any other prisoner and, even if they are subject to a deportation order, will be sent to an open prison if they meet the criteria. One can understand that logic, but clearly there is a flaw in the procedure when somebody has an easy way of avoiding deportation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

That might well be the case: as I say, I cannot speak for the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify.

One of the main reasons the Bill is so necessary is the cost. Interestingly, in its 2015 report the Public Accounts Committee said:

“The Home Office admitted that it did not know the cost of managing foreign national offenders and accepted that its cost data were not robust enough to enable it to make a judgment as to which of its interventions or processes were more cost-effective than others”.

The National Audit Office estimated the costs; I suspect that the Home Office probably could make a very good estimate of them but just does not want to do so, because it would be rather embarrassing for it if it did.

The NAO gave a lower estimate, a higher estimate and a most likely estimate of the cost, and broke it down into the costs before conviction and those after conviction. The lowest estimate was that the costs were £266 million up to conviction and £503 million after conviction, with a total cost of £769 million a year. The high estimate was £536 million up to conviction and £504 million after conviction, giving a total of more than £1 billion a year. The most likely estimate was £346.8 million up to conviction and £503.7 million after conviction, giving a total of £850 million. The interesting part of that information is that the costs after conviction are the same for the lowest, highest and most likely estimates—they are within £1 million of each other. So the costs after conviction are pretty clear. They are the cost of keeping people in prison, the cost of the deportation orders and so on.

[Craig Whittaker]

I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering how many British nationals abroad were sent to prison and the answer was 4,000 per year. That does not tell us how many UK nationals are physically in foreign jails. Does my hon. Friend have a figure for that?

[Philip Davies]

I can do no better than my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) did earlier with his answer. I suspect that that is about as robust as we are going to get. If the Minister has a better answer, we will accept those figures.

The costs up to conviction included police costs, which are shown as £148 million a year for dealing with foreign national offenders, CPS costs of £119 million a year and legal aid costs of £81 million a year. When we are spending £850 million to £1 billion a year on dealing with foreign national offenders, it is clear why the Bill is so important.

One of the complications for the Bill and for the whole subject is the free movement of people. As I have pointed out on many occasions, free movement of people within the EU also means free movement of criminals within the EU. My hon. Friend made a point about how many EU citizens made up the prison population. EU citizens account for about 40% of foreign inmates in England and Wales. The figures are 60% in Northern Ireland and 55% in Scotland. There is a far higher proportion of EU nationals in prisons in those two countries, which is interesting.

My hon. Friend listed by country the number of EU nationals in our prisons today, but he did not give the figures that show the scale of the problem and the fact that it is growing, which means that the Bill is probably more urgent than people give it credit for. He did not point out how many prisoners from those countries were in our prisons 10 years ago. He said that top of the list of countries whose nationals are in our prisons was Poland, and I have no information to contradict that. His figures were more up to date; mine go up to 2014.

In 2014 there were 867 Polish nationals in our prisons. In 2002 there were just 45. If we look down the list of EU countries, the figures are very similar. In 2014 there were 614 Romanian nationals in our prisons, but only 49 in 2002. There were 115 Slovakian nationals in 2014, and just four in 2002. The list goes on. I will not go through the figures for every country. The point is that since we have had the free movement of people, the growth in number of foreign national offenders from other parts of the EU has gone through the roof. That is a direct consequence of being in the European Union and having free movement of people.

Whether people want to argue for staying in or leaving the European Union is a matter for them. There are sincerely held views on both sides, but people must at least be honest about the consequences of our EU membership, and one of those is that the free movement of people has seen a massive growth in the number of foreign criminals coming to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker]

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

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

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

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend says that this matter is of concern to him and to his constituents; it is also of concern to my constituents. Is he not shocked therefore that the Scottish National party and the Green party think that this is not an important issue for debate? They do not care about foreign national offenders who cannot be kicked out of the country.

[Craig Whittaker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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