Border Control Scheme

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask for an urgent statement on border control this summer, covering private flights.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Let me apologise for the fact that the Home Secretary cannot be here; she is attending an important meeting of the National Security Council.

It is simply not true that immigration and customs checks for all private flights were abandoned under this Government. In fact, the controls against high-risk private flights were strengthened, and that is entirely consistent with our overall approach to border security of using more intelligence-led checks against high-risk passengers and journeys. Far from weakening our border controls, those measures were aimed at strengthening our border.

Under the previous Government, it was clear that the UK Border Agency’s procedures for private flights meant that some high-risk flights were missed, and this left our country open to the risk of drug smuggling, illegal immigration and gun running. In fact, the previous Government did not even have agreed definitions of high-risk, medium-risk or low-risk private flights, and there were no standard operational procedures: flights landing in one part of the country might be met by a UKBA team; the exact same flight landing somewhere else might not.

Indeed, under the previous Government, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, called private aviation the UK’s “soft underbelly”. To get a grip on that chaotic situation, in January the UKBA developed a new strategy for private flights, with the aim of meeting 100% of all high-risk flights through the use of better intelligence and increased compliance, the greater use of the warnings index and a standardised risk-assessment procedure. It gave us for the first time a consistent national system for dealing with private aviation, and it drew on the resources of the police and other agencies to make sure that all high-risk flights were met.

The strategy makes use of the legal requirement for pilots to submit records of their passengers. Those are checked against the warnings index, and a full, standardised risk assessment is carried out. The UKBA will deploy officers to meet any flight on which police or other intelligence causes concern, or on which there is a warnings index hit. Local UKBA teams, field intelligence officers and the police then work to ensure a high level of compliance with these procedures, which are, for the first time, consistent across the country. In the view of UKBA senior management, the new strategy is finally getting on top of the risk from private aviation.

Everything that Ministers in this Government have authorised has been done to strengthen our borders: resources focused on high-risk passengers and journeys, a new strategy to sort out private aviation, a new National Crime Agency with a border policing command, e-Borders to check passengers in and out of the country, and tough enforcement. Some 400,000 visas were rejected last year and 68,000 people with the wrong documents were prevented from coming to Britain in the first place.

These particular operational changes were made to address a problem that had existed for years and had been identified but not acted on by the Government of whom the shadow Home Secretary was a member. The border is safer now than it was two years ago. I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper]

Last week, the Home Secretary told the House:

“the only incident of which I am aware when passengers were waved through passport control without any checks at all did not occur during my pilot. It happened in 2004”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 324.]

Yesterday, I was shown e-mails from the border agency from June 2011, which show that immigrations and customs checks were stopped on arrivals of private flights, in accordance with a new national general aviation strategy. That and the answer the Minister for Immigration has just given contradict the information given by the Home Secretary last week.

Why, then, does the Home Secretary not feel that she should come to this House to answer the growing number of questions about this borders fiasco? She has refused to come to the House and she has refused to do interviews for nearly two weeks. One e-mail from 14 June refers to the instruction not to see passengers arriving on private charter flights for either immigrations or customs purposes and states:

“we are not allowed to physically see the passengers”.

Does the Minister for Immigration agree that the Home Secretary was wrong to say that no passengers had been, as she put it, “waved through” on arrival? Will he now correct that?

According to Treasury figures, there are 80,000 to 90,000 private flights a year. Will the Minister tell the House how many of those flights went through with no checks on arrival and what the security and immigration implications are of not even checking whether the number of people getting off the plane is the same as had been advised? If there was a new general aviation strategy, why did the Home Secretary not refer to it last week? Did she even know it existed? Was it in the weekly updates we now know went to the Minister for Immigration? How does that strategy relate to the so-called pilot?

There are far more questions than answers in this continuing borders fiasco. How on earth can we have any confidence in what the Home Secretary says is happening at our borders? She will not come and answer the questions. She said that no one was waved through, but it is clear that many passengers were. She said that Brodie Clark went further than she authorised and admitted he had done so, but this morning Brodie Clark has said categorically that he did not. She said that the performance of the border agency improved this summer, but this morning the head of the statistics agency described that as a highly selective use of statistics that may, indeed, be in breach of the ministerial code. Did the Home Secretary knowingly provide wrong information or did she just not have a clue what was going on at Britain’s borders? She cannot keep running away. She must come to this House herself and answer these vital questions about what was happening at the border agency this summer.

[Damian Green]

It is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary wrote that rant before she listened to what I said in response to her first question. To say that the Home Secretary has not been visible in this House is palpably absurd. She was here twice last week—[Hon. Members: “ Where is she?”] She is attending a meeting of the National Security Council. I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary does not seem to think that that is an important part of the Home Secretary’s responsibilities. I am sure that the House thinks it is an important part of the Home Secretary’s responsibilities. The right hon. Lady’s basic accusation that the Home Secretary has in any way not answered these questions is, as I say, palpably absurd.

The second question the right hon. Lady asked—indeed, the only substantive one in her rather scatter-gun approach —was about how many people were coming through without being checked. The answer, now, is that every private flight is checked against the warnings index. [Interruption.] I commend Opposition Front Benchers for saying that it is a bit late now. Yes, it is—for 13 years, nothing happened; the right hon. Lady has put her finger on it. There was a shambles in the immigration system, and private aviation was part of it. That was identified by the Government’s own counter-terrorism adviser, but they did nothing about it. We now have done something about it, and that means that every flight is checked against the warnings index and every high-risk flight is met. If there have been changes, as there have been this year, they have been for the better and they have made our borders safer.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement on private flights and the need for consistency across the country with every flight checked, as he confirmed. Does he agree that the border force is responsible for allowing only legitimate entry and exit, and that that is what our constituents expect?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. He makes a good point about the border force. The men and women at the border are doing a very good job. All our changes are designed to ensure a more risk-based approach to immigration control—an approach that I was glad to hear commended by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), on the radio this morning—and to make the border safer, precisely by using the expertise of the men and women in the border force who check people coming through the border. Using their expertise more intelligently, and not just having a one-size-fits-all border security system will make, and already is making, our border safer. I think that underneath their bluster, the Opposition agree with that.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that what the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister said in this House last Wednesday has been completely undermined by the latest revelations, which demonstrate that either they did know what was going on but would not tell the House or they did not know what was going on and could not tell the House? Is it not a fact that our borders are now less secure under this Government, with people coming in who are not even seen by the border agency? This Government have let the country down, and it is about time the Home Secretary went.

[Damian Green]

The answer to both the right hon. Gentleman’s questions is straightforwardly no.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that it is this coalition Government who are going to have to clear up the mess left by Labour, reform a Department deemed not fit for purpose, and secure our borders so that our debate on immigration can be about the skills that the UK economy and the public sector need, rather than about border controls?

[Damian Green]

My right hon. Friend is right. I am sorry that the Opposition cannot elevate the tone of the debate. As I say, it is interesting that when Labour Home Secretaries cease to be Home Secretaries and become former Home Secretaries, they commend the degree of consensus about using a risk-based approach to security control and immigration control. That would be a sensible way for this debate to go forward, because it is perfectly clear that the long-term solution to the many challenges at our border is to use our resources as intelligently as possible and to use the very good people we have at the border to cope with and combat the highest risks. That is what the general aviation policy was meant to do, as was our pilot over the summer, and the early signs are that they are indeed successful. The Opposition can argue about the details, but I would genuinely welcome some common sense and support for these principles from the shadow Home Secretary. That would be a more sensible approach that the one she has taken until now.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Given that the Home Secretary’s policy was consistent across the country, will the Minister confirm that a number of private planes were allowed to land at Manchester airport this summer without proper customs and immigration checks? If that is the case, will he tell me how many?

[Damian Green]

The point of the pilot and of the private jets policy was to improve checks. The idea that there were no immigration checks is simply wrong. It is wrong in relation to Manchester airport and wrong in relation to other airports. The right hon. Gentleman asked how many flights arrived without immigration checks. The answer is none.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Could the Minister kindly explain what happened under the previous Government before the change to the new general aviation policy that is based on a risk-based assessment?

[Damian Green]

What used to happen under the previous Government was that flights were designated as high, medium or low risk, but there were no criteria by which anyone could judge whether flights were high, medium or low risk. All the very good people at the border therefore took a view on an individual basis. The result was complete inconsistency between different parts of the country. I cannot think that anyone addressing this matter in a fair-minded way would say that having a decent set of national criteria about what is a high or a medium-risk flight is less sensible than the chaos that existed before.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The shadow Home Secretary asked the Minister a direct question. What he has announced this morning is inconsistent with what the Home Secretary told the House last week. Did the Home Secretary know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Nothing that I have said this morning is in any way inconsistent with what the Home Secretary said last week.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Has the Labour party passed on all the details that it says it has received from border agency staff about private flights? Has the Home Office had time to check the veracity and accuracy of those allegations?

[Damian Green]

The Labour party, predictably, has passed the information on to newspapers, so we know what it has. [Interruption.] I do know about that. I will not stand here and condemn people for using leaked information. I merely point out to the shadow Home Secretary that it is rather more effective when one produces documents that show that Ministers have done something wrong. Throughout this affair, she has so far signally failed to do that.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister please tell the House how many of our border operations he has visited in the past 18 months?

[Damian Green]

All the big ones. I have been to all the major airports and all the major UKBA centres, as well as to several of the biggest overseas visa operations. The hon. Lady is quite right to suggest that Ministers should get out and talk to people who are actually doing the job. I do that as often as I can.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

As somebody who has spent their fair share of time with wailing infants in long immigration queues, I think that families across the country would welcome a more rational, risk-based approach to delivering results with scarce resources. Does the Minister agree that the fake outrage from the Labour party sits badly with its track record of 2.2 million people coming to this country, half a million asylum seeker claims and an open border—

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The public know that this is a shambles. We are getting the facts today only because of an urgent question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Will the Minister put on the record the times that he has met Brodie Clark to discuss the pilot and the change in aviation strategy so that we can get the truth? The only way we are getting the truth at the moment is by forcing Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box.

[Damian Green]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He said some disobliging things about me in the debate last week, which was sad because I have always got on with him. He has given me the opportunity to say that in the year that he spent as shadow Immigration Minister he did not put down one written question on immigration. I am therefore entitled to doubt his deep interest in this subject. The answer to his question is that there are investigations going on. Clearly, all the facts are being put to the investigators. John Vine will publish his investigation in due course. He is an independent investigator and he will decide what to publish.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I have been contacted in the past hour by a constituent who is a photographer, who carried metal boxes full of photographic equipment on private flights and took them through Stansted, with no checks, in the years up to 2002. The problem has therefore existed for years, including when the Labour party was in power, and it is plain wrong for the Opposition to raise the issue in the manner in which they have.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the shambles that was in place before, but as you pointed out, Mr Speaker, that is not my responsibility. I am very grateful for that. What I am responsible for is what happens now, and my hon. Friend makes a good point. That is precisely why we are making the changes that we are across the borders system. As I have said, using risk-based and intelligence-based measures will give us safer borders in the long run. Stansted is one of the airports where there have already been significant changes to plug some of the loopholes that existed. There is certainly more to be done at Stansted, Manchester and other airports, and I am not saying that the system is now perfect, but it is getting better.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Part of Durham Tees Valley airport is in my constituency, and today we are getting conflicting information from officials there, one claiming that security is very much compromised, particularly in the case of private flights, and another claiming in today’s Evening Gazette that the airport is 100% secure. Will the Minister please tell the House who is right, and at least try to reassure the people of Teesside and beyond that their airport has taken the necessary steps to protect them and our borders?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman actually makes a very deep and important point. Different people working at the front line, presumably alongside each other, can genuinely have different perceptions of how good the system is. I would not go as far as the optimistic one of his constituents who says that it is 100% secure all the time—it would be foolish for any Immigration Minister to say at any time that every part of our border is 100% secure. However, I can absolutely reassure him, his constituents and the workers at the airport that we are doing our best to set up systems that make it more secure, and that we will keep doing so.

[Alex Cunningham]

It is not secure now.

[Damian Green]

Well, that is not what the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has told him.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

For years there has been contamination of people arriving at entry points on domestic and international flights. Can the Minister assure us that such contamination will come to an end, and that there will be segregation of incoming passengers?

[Damian Green]

I am indeed aware of that, particularly at Stansted and Gatwick, and it is one of the priorities at the moment.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I push the Minister for a little further clarification on the issue of flight warnings? There are 80,000 to 90,000 flights entering the United Kingdom. Can he assure us that the new checks that he mentioned will apply to flights that land in Northern Ireland, that there is no loophole for entry into the United Kingdom without those checks and that devolution does not have an impact on this aspect of the matter?

[Damian Green]

Any overseas flight that arrives in Northern Ireland from outside the common travel area will be treated like any other flight. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that there are complications and issues to consider with the common travel area, and as part of the list of things on which we are now acting, I am considering how to strengthen it so that we properly address the various problems that I know he and his colleagues from Northern Ireland have identified.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the previous Government’s reckless open-door immigration policy resulted in problems in community cohesion in many of our towns, and that we should not be taking lectures from individuals on the Opposition Benches?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister remind the House what lessons have been learned as a result of the pilot, and what changes he is making to the system to ensure that our borders are secure?

[Damian Green]

The pilot is still being evaluated, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said that the initial reported information suggests that it led to more interception of illegal immigrants, fraudulent documents, drugs and guns. The initial signs from the management information that we have suggest that the pilot was extremely positive, but there will be a full evaluation and then we will decide what is best to do for the future.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) about Durham Tees Valley airport, will the Minister say exactly how many private flights arrived and were not checked? If he does not have that information to hand today, will he publish it?

[Damian Green]

As I have said several times, every private flight is checked against the warnings index. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, characteristically chuntering from a sedentary position, as she does throughout, is talking about that happening when flights arrive. It is actually safer to check them before they arrive, and that is what the warnings index is for. All private flights are checked against the warnings index before they arrive, and I tell the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I will tell her, if she will stop talking for a second and listen, that it is safer to check them before they arrive. That was why her Government and the current Government spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the e-Borders project—so that we could get the information before people came to this country. That was how we managed to prevent 68,000 people from even getting on planes to come here. If the Opposition Front Benchers cannot understand that stopping people before they arrive here is a better system, I fear that they do not understand the first thing about immigration control.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

In his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Brodie Clark said that he had sanctioned the relaxation of fingerprint checks at Heathrow. Was the Minister made aware of that?

[Damian Green]

For understandable reasons I have not been following what Brodie Clark has been saying over the past hour. I think it would injudicious of me to comment on anything that was said at a Select Committee hearing this morning when I was concentrating on the urgent question.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Durham Tees Valley airport is in my constituency. How secure can the people of Teesside and Durham be if people arriving at the airport are not checked, not passed through immigration—not even waved through—and not even seen, because they have arrived on a private jet?

[Damian Green]

For the fourth time, I will tell Opposition Members—I wish their Whips could have thought of more than one question for them to read out—that every private flight is checked against the warnings index before it arrives. That is what makes it safe.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents want to know the definition of private flights, which of the main airports they fly to, and what proportion of total passenger numbers is made up of such flights.

[Damian Green]

The definition is a flight that is not a scheduled flight. The number of airports that they fly into is in the hundreds, because frankly anyone who puts up a windsock in a field can have a private airport, but the number regularly used for private flights is between 100 and 150. The biggest usage of private flights is into our biggest airports, because most of them tend to be business flights.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Minister keeps reassuring us that the system he has put in place is now safer, but UKBA staff are clearly not reassured of that, because one e-mail from them states:

“we are not allowed to physically see the passengers…we have no way of checking whether the handling agent information is correct or even if the number of people arriving…matches the number we have been advised.”

How, in that case, can the Minister tell us that he knows who is arriving and exactly how many people are on the incoming planes?

[Damian Green]

Because we are working much better than ever before with airports overseas, so we can check who is getting on the planes in the first place. As I keep repeating, it is better to do that overseas than to wait until people are in this country.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Is it not necessary for us to bring in these tighter controls, because of the 2.2 million net immigration between 1997 and 2009 under the last Government?

[Damian Green]

There are two separate issues here, both of which need addressing. One is the vast number of people who arrived legally under the previous Government’s conscious policy of increasing immigration to unsustainable levels. Secondly, there is what we are discussing this morning—the fact that our borders were not sufficiently secure. Just as important as bringing down the legal numbers is making our borders more secure by a number of methods, such as the use of technology, the pilots that we operated in the summer and changing how we look at private flights. The various actions that we are taking are all designed to make the border safer.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The question has been asked several times, and I know that the Minister is frustrated, but I wonder whether he will give an answer. Does he think it acceptable that on his watch the UKBA could not even check passengers coming off private flights? Any chance of an answer?

[Damian Green]

I am tempted to revive that old parliamentary chestnut: “I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.” As I keep saying, it is better to do it overseas, which is what we do. It is also safer, and all the experts agree it is safer—and frankly, if the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) were still sitting on the Government Benches, she would be saying that it was safer as well.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Border Checks Summer 2011

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This is a serious subject, which deserves serious contributions. Sadly, the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has just characteristically walked the line between opportunism and hypocrisy, as he so often does, believing apparently—[Interruption.] He apparently believes—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure the Minister was not making any personal comment as to integrity or behaviour, but he might wish to rephrase his remarks.

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw.

[Damian Green]

No. I chose my words very carefully, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have no intention of withdrawing them because they are the truth. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not need to shout to say the truth. It is a shame that he adopted the attitude that he did, because this is a very serious issue, but it is not surprising given some of the other contributions from Opposition Members, which, unfortunately, attempted to blame the fall of the Berlin wall, my noble Friend Lord Howard and the late Lord Whitelaw for problems in the current immigration system, not recognising for a second how much their Government weakened border controls. We heard no recognition of how their Government allowed warnings index checks to be suspended on EEA children and adults, no recognition of how their Government threw open the border at Heathrow, and no recognition of their uncontrolled immigration policy that allowed net migration to this country of 2.2 million. There is only one phrase the British people need to hear from the Labour party on immigration, and that is, “Sorry—sorry we left such a mess.”

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out in detail once again for the House the exact nature of the pilot that she and I authorised to target investigative resources on intelligence-led checks. The shadow Immigration Minister said he assumed that I had authorised the unauthorised extensions. I am happy to be able to assure him and the House that I did not. Under the pilot, instead of always checking children travelling with their parents and in school groups against the warnings index of terrorists and serious criminals, and instead of always checking European nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport, in limited and specific circumstances border force officers would have been able to use intelligence and operational judgment to decide which children to check against the warnings index and on which adults to open the second paragraph.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary talked about risks. I have been in correspondence with the Minister and the Home Secretary, and we disagree about the internal port at Stranraer and Cairnryan. Following the withdrawing of UKBA funding there, people arrive—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] People arrive there, they are illegal and they are identified by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. Arrangements are then made with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. If Members rise to intervene, they should make an intervention, not deliver a short lecture. I call the Minister.

[Damian Green]

I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about the Larne and Stranraer issue, but it is not an international port. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; boats that come from Northern Ireland to Scotland are not crossing an international boundary. That is a fact that the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise.

The pilot was designed to improve security at our ports and to strengthen our border. Several Opposition Members said they believed that it was not being monitored and that no information was being passed to the Home Secretary or me during the course of the pilot, but of course that was not the case. We were getting regular information from management about what was happening, and it was telling us that there was a 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants, a 48% increase in fraudulent documents detected, and that cocaine seizures and illegal firearms seizures were up.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Damian Green]

Before I give way to the right hon. Lady, will she answer the following question? If the figures for the pilot had gone the other way—if detections were down, the number of fraudulent documents detected were down, and drug seizures were down—would she not be calling for a debate to argue that the pilot was a failure? Why is she calling a debate now when, as far as we can see, this pilot was a success?

[Yvette Cooper]

If the hon. Gentleman’s pilot was such a success, he will need to explain why he has now suspended it. There is an important question that the Home Secretary ducked earlier about the management data that were available—I refer to the information about how many times the checks were downgraded to level 2. How many times did that take place over the summer? Has the Minister seen that information? If so, will he publish it? We know that the information exists.

[Damian Green]

That is precisely the information that the various investigations are looking at, but what the right hon. Lady has to recognise is that, without the authorisation of Ministers, senior UK border officials are alleged to have ordered the regular relaxation of border checks. They also went beyond the pilot that Ministers had agreed. Biometric checks on European economic area nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without approval, and adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without approval.

What the pilot was designed to do—I hope that there will be some consensus on this across the House—was to have a risk-based approach. I say that there should be some consensus, because having a proper risk-based approach to immigration control has been the basis of our policy on both immigration and wider security since 9/11. I was grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on that point. It is obviously sensible to concentrate our effort and resources in those areas where they are likely to have most effect on making our borders safe. I cannot believe that there is a Member in any part of this House who disagrees with that. That is what we approved.

On the point about queues which was raised by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), there is of course permanent pressure for shorter queues; there is pressure from Members of this House. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that whenever I come back in the autumn—I suspect this was the case for any previous Immigration Minister—I hear tales of woe about queues at Heathrow, but it is absolutely the first responsibility of the Home Office to make sure that we do not compromise security. That is what this pilot—that is what a risk-based approach—is designed to do.

What happened that went beyond authority was that the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped on regular occasions, without approval.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.

Let me quote what Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the UKBA, said:

“Brodie Clark admitted to me on 2 November that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than Ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

Do sit down; you have not been in the debate.

If Brodie Clark had not admitted that to his immediate superior, he would not have been suspended. That is why he was suspended.

Let me turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members. The serious point that the shadow Home Secretary made was about staffing cuts, so let me quote for her from the UKBA business plan produced at the end of the previous Government’s term in office. This was her Government’s policy, and it says:

“Our workforce projections indicate that there will no longer be a business need for the same number of staff in certain locations by the end of March 2011…within Border Force it is imperative that frontline services are maintained but changes to the way we work mean that this will be achievable with targeted reduction across the grade range.”

In other words, the previous Government were planning to reorder the way the border force works so that it could be effective with fewer people. That is why I said that the hon. Member for Rhondda was walking the line between opportunism and hypocrisy—I was not referring to him personally at all.

Indeed, my predecessor, Phil Woolas, said:

“Providing more flexibility and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of our country.”––[Official Report, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c. 5.]

That is what Labour’s last Immigration Minister said, and I agree with him. It is pretty disgraceful that his successors are now attempting to say that it is somehow improper to follow that example.

For many years, the UKBA has needed to be reformed. We have reversed Labour’s open-door immigration policy; we have capped economic migration; we have clamped down on student visas; we have restricted family migration; and we are breaking the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will give way once, to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful. The one thing that neither of the Ministers has revealed today is what will be published at the end of these inquiries. On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State changed her original date for producing the inquiries—by January—to the end of January. What exactly are the Government going to publish? Will they publish all the important decisions—obviously, with the redactions that were referred to earlier—so that we can see in black and white precisely what they sanctioned?

[Damian Green]

Obviously, all the relevant papers will go to the inquiries, and it is for John Vine, who is an independent inspector, to decide what he should publish. That seems to me the sensible way to do it. If there is an independent inspector holding an independent inquiry, it is not for me to tell him what to do.

For the first time in 15 years, we have a Government who are willing and able to deliver a controlled immigration system. Because of the shambles we inherited, it will take longer than I, this House or the British people would want, but we will improve the UKBA, we are bringing immigration under control and, unlike the Labour party, we will continue to take immigration as seriously as the British people do. This is a shameful motion promoted by a shameless party, and I urge the House to reject it.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

14. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This Government are determined to bring net migration back to sustainable levels, and to bring a sense of fairness back to our immigration system. That is why we consulted on new measures to prevent the abuse of family migration, to promote integration and to reduce burdens on the taxpayer.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. At our party conference the Home Secretary outlined plans to amend the immigration rules better to balance the right to a family life with the wider public interest in controlling immigration. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of immigrants using article 8 of the European convention on human rights to remain in the United Kingdom?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the UK Border Agency took a snapshot, reviewing in detail those appeals by foreign criminals against deportation which were determined in October to December last year. There were 551, of which 162 were successful, and of those 99—61%—were allowed on article 8 grounds. That is precisely why we will revise the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing foreign nationals who are convicted of a criminal offence and those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.

[Mr Baron]

Amid the UK Border Agency’s problems with handling asylum cases, will the Minister assure the House that spouses coming to live here in the UK will have to show a commitment to speak and learn English—for their benefit as well as the benefit of society as a whole?

[Damian Green]

Both those points are right: such an approach is not just for the benefit of the individual; it is absolutely for the benefit of the community that they enter. That is why last November we introduced requirements that spouses and partners must demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language before they are granted a marriage visa. It is reasonable that anyone intending to live in the UK should understand English so that they can integrate fully and participate fully in life in this country.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the passport control fiasco exposed over the past few days, does the Minister seriously still expect us to accept, as he said seven days ago:

“The Government is doing more than ever before to protect the UK’s borders”?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to make a statement on that matter later, when it can be dealt with in detail, but in his honest moments he will accept that one of the biggest problems—one of the biggest shambles—that this Government inherited was the immigration system that the previous Government left us, and that is what we are getting to grips with now.

[Kate Green]

(Stratford and Urmston) (Lab): Access to good quality expert advice is important to support legitimate applicants and to ensure that those who should not be here can be advised quickly that they have no case, but constituents report to me that such advice is in increasingly short supply. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that good quality advisers remain in place, particularly following the Government’s cuts to legal aid?

[Damian Green]

The Government’s cuts to legal aid specifically do not apply to asylum cases, because we accept that genuine asylum seekers will be in need of proper legal advice, but across the House it is agreed that some of the legal advice available in immigration cases, whether asylum or general immigration cases, is frankly substandard. That is why, when looking at our support for the legal aid system, which was yet another public spending regime that ran out of control under the previous Government, we have specifically protected the most vulnerable.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

All of us want to try to avoid abuse of all the immigration systems, but does the Minister accept that our high-tech industries in particular rely on key individuals from overseas? It is very important to be able to attract those individuals, and some of these immigration changes risk deterring them from coming here. What steps will he take to ensure that we still get the key international people we need?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that we have already taken those steps. Indeed we are bringing down the number of people coming here but, at the same time, we are differentiating more effectively, so that the brightest and the best can continue to come here. That is why we have created the new investors and entrepreneurs visas, which have doubled the number of entrepreneurs who have come into this country over the course of this year, and that is why we have set up the exceptional talent route.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of the London 2012 Olympics on the level of illegal immigration to provide forced labour in the food sector (a) in London and (b) nationwide.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I was looking forward to that question as well, Mr Speaker.

The UK Border Agency does not have evidence of an increase in forced labour in the food sector as a result of the forthcoming London 2012 Olympics. However, the agency assesses, remains alert to, and, where appropriate, acts on a wide variety of immigration threats and risks specifically associated with the Olympics.

[Mark Hendrick]

The Government’s wait-and-see approach is dangerous. When Greece hosted the Olympics in 2004 and Germany held the World cup in 2006, the authorities adopted a forward-thinking strategy that included extra training for police to spot trafficking, and PR campaigns to raise awareness among the public. Will the Government consider adopting a more proactive strategy ahead of the games to ensure that human trafficking does not become part of the London 2012 legacy?

[Damian Green]

I am very aware of the importance of this issue, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that a strategy has been in place for some time. For example, the Olympic project team at UKBA has carried out over 8,000 identity assurance checks on contractors and workers on the Olympic site and have arrested 20 people as a result in the current financial year alone. In total, the team have carried out over 60,000 ID assurance checks and made over 300 arrests since 2008. The kind of proactive strategy that the hon. Gentleman wants is very much in operation..

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

rose—

[Nicholas Soames]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Olympic year, the work of the border agency will be of the first importance? Does he agree, since the agency is likely to come in for some stick later on this afternoon, that its individual officers do a remarkable, vital and very important job for this country, and that that needs to be officially recognised?

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister should answer in the context of the London 2010 Olympics, or possibly in the context of forced labour in the food sector, in London or elsewhere.

[Damian Green]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that UKBA officers do a vital job very conscientiously. It is particularly important that they continue to do that and, if possible, to enhance their services in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics. Part of that will involve ensuring that no abuse occurs in the food industry.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

11. What estimate she has made of the future number of staff employed by the UK Border Agency.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Our priority remains to secure the border and to control migration while we help to reduce the public deficit. We expect to have reduced by about 5,200 posts from the start of the review period to around 18,000 by March 2015. We are on track to meet our staff reduction target.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister tell us how many of those 5,200 staff are being cut from the front line of the border force?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady will know that later this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement covering the issues that she is interested in. The reductions in staffing are not affecting the front line because we are improving the front line by, for instance, having airline liaison officers overseas. Over the past few years, that has prevented 60,000 people whom we did not want to travel from travelling in the first place. The use of facial recognition technology and e-gates also makes our borders more secure.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that the effectiveness of our front-line border controls will not be undermined by pressure to reduce queues at airports?

[Damian Green]

As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), it is important to have intelligent border controls, to use technology and to put the right people in the right places so that we can keep our borders secure. Those are elements of this Government’s transformation of the UKBA to sort out the shambles that we inherited.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister may not know how many people are being removed from the border force, but I do. The numbers are 886 in this financial year and 1,552 before the next general election. He boasts that he is getting a grip, but this year there have been waits of many hours, EU nationals have been waved through in their hundreds and non-EU nationals have waltzed into the country without so much as a by your leave. We would absolutely adore it if he got a grip. Can he really say, hand on heart, that his cuts have nothing to do with the corners that are being cut with our security?

[Damian Green]

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as shadow Minister for Immigration. I remember fondly when, in government, he talked about the

“huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers”—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]

complaining about immigration. I am sure that he will provide a lot of that in future years. I am sorry, but I have already answered his question. It is the way in which we use people that makes our borders more secure. I suggest that he pauses before he keeps using the phrase about waving people through, because nobody has been waved through the border. However, under the previous Government, as he will hear from the Home Secretary later, people were waved through.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

12. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of policing in Tottenham on the first night of the public disorder of August 2011, following the Metropolitan Police Service statement of 24 October 2011.

Immigration Rules

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The changes in the immigration rules being laid before the House today are as a result of the Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC45.

On 12 October 2011, the Supreme Court found that while it recognised that the Secretary of State was pursuing a legitimate and rational aim of seeking to address forced marriage, a rule (increasing the minimum marriage visa age from 18 to 21) disproportionately interfered with the article 8 rights of those who were in genuine marriages. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided to revert to a minimum age of 18.

The changes will take effect on 28 November and will reduce the minimum age at which a person may be granted entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a sponsor, and the minimum age at which a person may sponsor such an application, from 21 to 18 years. It will also delete references to a minimum age of 18 for entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a HM forces sponsor, and the minimum age at which a member of HM forces may sponsor such an application. Guidance for those affected by the judgment will be published on the UK Border Agency website.

There is no place in British society for the practice of forced marriage. It is a breach of human rights and a form of violence against the victims. That is why the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will criminalise the breach of Forced Marriage Civil Protection Orders and that there will be a consultation on making forcing someone to marry an offence in its own right.

We are also investigating what more we can do to identify and protect those young people who have been placed at additional risk.

Justice and Home Affairs Post-Council Statement

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Justice and Home Affairs Council was held on the 27 and 28 October in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed:

The Council began in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The Commission updated on the implementation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), noting that progress remained in line with the previously agreed Council conclusions. The central system was still expected to go live in the first quarter of 2013. The second milestone test was planned for the second quarter of 2012. The Commission undertook to keep the Council informed.

Next the Commission congratulated member states on the successful rollout of the visa information system (VIS) to north Africa. The UK is not bound by the VIS regulation because it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.

The presidency, supported by the Commission, stressed the importance to local populations of the proposal to extend the local border traffic regulation to the whole of the Kaliningrad region and corresponding Polish oblasts. Insisting it would not create a precedent, they proposed the Council and Commission submit a declaration to the proposal reiterating this. The presidency concluded that a first reading deal could be reached with the European Parliament, whose Committee had accepted the proposal without amendments. The UK is not bound by this legislative proposal since it builds on that part of Schengen in which we do not participate.

The Commission presented its Communication on smart borders, which addressed the possibility of an entry-exit system (EES) and registered traveller programme (RTP) for the Schengen area. Before bringing out legislative proposals next year, they wished to secure the clear support of both member states and the European Parliament on the best way forward. The smart borders package would require time and investment and there were important data protection issues to address. Member states expressed broad support for the communication and highlighted the potential benefits for enhancing internal security, combating organised crime, identifying visa overstayers and reducing border crossing time for regular travellers. However, given the required investment. member states called for a thorough cost-benefit analysis before proceeding. The UK is excluded from these arrangements measures since it builds on that part of Schengen in which we do not participate.

Under AOB, France raised the increasing problem of itinerant crime and called for a debate at the next JHA Council.

The EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre For Drugs And Drug Addiction) presented the findings from its 2011 annual report on state of the drug problems in Europe, which will be published on the 15 November. Heroin and opiates remained at the heart of the problem. Commissioner Malmström welcomed the report and said that there was a need for further EU action in this area. Commissioner Reding then presented the Commission’s new communication on “Towards a stronger European response to drugs”. It offered a future legislative package and practical action to build a strong framework for combating illicit drugs. The Council also agreed the synthetic drugs pact. The UK welcomed the EMCDDA report and the Commission’s communication. The UK also endorsed the views of delegations who had called for a civil approach to the confiscation of criminal assets and welcomed the presidency’s focus on synthetic drugs, and in particular on precursors used to tackle these drugs.

The Commission provided an update on the negotiations with the United States regarding an EU-US agreement on data protection.

During a discussion on passenger name records (PNR) Commissioner Malmström noted that the European Parliament would vote on the EU-Australia agreement that day. She also reported that discussions with the US had reached an advanced stage, and a political understanding had been reached. Retention periods would be 15 years for terrorism and 10 years for other serious crime, where the latter would apply to crimes punishable by three years under US law. The “push” method would be the norm, but “pull” could be used in very limited cases. There would also be a reference to the EU-US data protection negotiations. The Commission added that on third country transfer they were considering a solution similar to the Australia agreement. The agreement now needed to be transformed into a legal text. They hoped to finalise this in the coming weeks. The UK supported the idea of an EU-US agreement, and was pleased that a political agreement had almost been reached. The UK supported the Commission’s view that security and data protection could both be improved at the same time. PNR data were an absolutely vital tool in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, and we should continue to co-operate with the US for the security of all our citizens.

The presidency invited Greece to update Ministers on progress with the Greek action plan (GAP) on asylum and migration management, on which there were some notable improvements: a reduction in the asylum backlog from 46,000 to 33,000; a rise to an average of 12% in international protection recognition rates and ongoing recruitment of operational staff. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) referred to their operating plan for Greece, and provided an update on deployment of asylum support teams made up of experts from member states. Frontex gave a brief update on the areas in which they were also supporting the GAP. The conditions in detention centres were very troubling, and the Commission urged the Greek authorities to address the issues at the Greek—Turkish border as a priority. The Commission highlighted that the economic situation in Greece was well understood by member states, but the EU had made significant funding resources available; these resources had to be used. Others agreed. Finally, the Commission stated that co-operation with Turkey was vital, and that agreement with Turkey on readmission would not be forthcoming without a deal on visas and mobility. Greece said that EASO and Frontex, as well as member states, had provided pivotal support but noted that this was not a long term solution and Greece was dedicated to strengthening its own resources.

Discussions on the Greek action plan continued during a closed lunchtime session on wider issues of illegal migration and the impact of visa liberalisation, during which the UK stressed the importance of strong external borders, supporting those who had raised concerns about migration flows from the south-east and across the Mediterranean and about trafficking. A clear focus on upstream migration work in our dialogue with neighbouring regions and countries of origin was essential, while EU action, under the global approach to migration, needed to tackle the key drivers, namely economic instability and political insecurity. The UK also shared the concerns of others about the activities of organised criminal groups in facilitating immigration crime, noting that there were strong links here to the abuse of free movement rights. Forged documents were used to get around the rules and gain access to rights they would otherwise not be entitled to. It was wrong that criminals profited from free movement, while those who upheld its responsibilities suffered.

The presidency summarised the state of play on the asylum package: negotiations on procedures and reception conditions directives continued steadily at expert level; The European Parliament voted for adoption on the qualification directive, solutions for moving forward with Eurodac continued to be scoped; and an early warning and preparedness system continued to develop as a solution to unblocking the negotiations on Dublin. The latter proposal would be discussed in more detail at the forthcoming Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA). The Commission congratulated the presidency on the headway being made on the package, and encouraged the Council to continue to look for solutions, while remaining mindful of the views of the European Parliament.

The presidency noted political agreement had been reached on the outstanding issue of correlation tables relating to both the single permit directive and qualifications directive. The UK had not opted into either of these instruments.

The Commission presented their communication on integration of migrants, highlighting the importance of integration and recognising that responsibility for integration rested at a local level. The presidency noted that Council conclusions would be prepared on this issue for the December JHA Council, with work continuing under future presidencies. Cyprus said this would be a priority during its 2012 presidency and informed Ministers that they would organise a conference on integration.

The Commission introduced its communication on co-operation in the area of the JHA within the Eastern Partnership (EaP). Member states noted that clear actions should be in the roadmap which was being developed, co-operation between eastern partners and Eurojust should be further encouraged and the principle of the rule of law was vital to the Eastern Partnership. The presidency announced that on 4 November there would be a conference on the Prague process, which would take forward the Eastern Partnership.

Spain noted that ETA had ceased its campaign of violence. They thanked the EU for its support and noted that the UK had also helped. The Commission was keen to hear views on a possible EU terrorism finance tracking system (TFTS). The main question was whether we needed such a system. The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator and Europol supported such a system, but it was noted that the EP was divided. Member states noted the need to ensure data protection given the current transfer of bulk data under the EU-US agreement, but expressed concerns about whether the proposal would be cost effective. In addition to the Commissions’ proposals, one delegation wondered if the solution was rather to improve the EU-US agreement. The UK asked for more detail about the added value of the proposals and what the options and costs would look like. The Commission agreed to undertake an impact assessment and consult further with the EP before returning to the Council with proposals.

The justice day began with the Commission introducing its recently published proposal for a directive on minimum criminal offences and penalties for insider dealing and market manipulation. The aim of the proposal is to secure full implementation of legislation on financial services and protection for the financial markets. This directive accompanies a wider Commission proposal for a new regulation, introduced to create a stronger EU framework for tackling insider dealing and market manipulation. The UK noted the presentation.

Next the presidency provided an update on discussions in the Council on the directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. This is the third measure on the roadmap to strengthen criminal procedural rights. The UK has not opted into this directive, at the initial stage of the negotiations, because the Government are of the view that the directive as published by the Commission is not proportionate and could have an adverse effect on our ability to investigate and prosecute offences effectively. The presidency reported that progress had been made on many aspects of the instrument, however further discussions are required in the working group in relation to the scope of the instrument and on the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of or derogation from the rights in the directive. There was no discussion.

The presidency then held a discussion on the draft directive on establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The UK and other member states supported the presidency’s approach on clarifying the scope of victims’ rights in relation to the role of victims in criminal proceedings and that the vulnerability of victims should be determined on a case by case basis. The presidency expressed the hope that a general approach could be agreed at the December JPIA Council.

The presidency then provided an update on the draft directive on combating sexual abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography. This directive seeks to ensure that criminal activities to sexually exploit children, including misuse of the internet, are more fully covered than in the existing framework decision (2004). They reported that on 27 October the European Parliament had adopted the text agreed by the Council, following agreement between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. The UK noted the update.

The presidency and Commission introduced the proposal on an EU common sales law. The Commission confirmed it would be an optional instrument sitting alongside national law that did not harmonise national systems. This was also discussed during the ministerial lunch, the presidency concluded they would analyse the proposal further.

During any other business the presidency informed the Council on the outcomes of the EU-Western Balkans ministerial forum held in Ohrid on 3-4 October and the EU-Russia Ministerial Permanent Partnership Council held in Warsaw on 10-11 October.

The Council also adopted a report on the application of the resolution which establishes the network for legislative cooperation between the ministries of justice of the European Union. The objective of the network is to promote better understanding of the laws of other member states, thus enhancing mutual trust and promoting the application of the principle of mutual recognition.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on the 27 and 28 October in Luxembourg. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Council will begin in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). There will be an update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II); the UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project.

Next the Commission will give an update on the roll-out of the central Visa Information System (VIS). The UK is not bound by the VIS regulation because it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.

The Commission will present and invite an exchange of views on whether member states can support the legislative instrument amending Regulation (EC) No. 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the Kaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts in the eligible border area. The UK is not bound by this regulation since it relates to that part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate.

There will be a presentation by the Commission on their communication on smart borders. The communication addresses options, implications and possible ways forward in developing both a European entry/exit system and a registered traveller programme (brought together under the heading of smart borders). The initiatives will rely on developing technologies to expedite border crossings for regular travellers while maintaining the security and the integrity of border controls. They aim to include technical infrastructure issues, data protection aspects and the costs incurred in developing and operating both systems, which are aimed at third-country nationals crossing the Schengen external borders. The UK is excluded from both the measures since it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.

There will also be the signature of the mobility partnership between the EU and Armenia by those member states who will participate in this partnership. The UK has no plans to participate and will not take part in the signing of the partnership.

The main Council will start with a state-of-play discussion on the progress of the dossiers forming the second phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This has been a regular item at recent JHA Councils as the deadline for agreeing the dossiers in 2012 approaches. The UK does not support a common asylum system involving further legislative harmonisation, but we do support practical action to secure effective asylum systems, including returns. While we do not believe that further legislation setting common standards is the way to achieve this, we will work with member states to make sure any new legislation is as practical as possible and can be implemented on the ground.

There will be state-of-play discussions on two directives presented by the presidency. The first concerns a single application procedure for a single permit for non-EU member nationals to reside and work in a member state and on a common set of rights for non-EU member workers legally residing in a member state. The second deals with minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted. Both of these directives have reached agreement in principle within the Council; however, there is an outstanding issue of correlation tables that needs to be resolved with the European Parliament. The UK has not opted in to either of these instruments.

There will be a progress report on Greece’s national action plan on asylum reform and migration management. The UK will take the opportunity to acknowledge the improvements that have taken place while putting pressure on Greece to step up the pace of reform and to tackle its unacceptable detention facilities for asylum seekers.

There will then be a presentation by the Commission and a first exchange of views on the Commission communication on the integration of third-country nationals, which was published on 20 July. There are no immediate legal or legislative implications; integration strategies are a matter of national competence and the communication acknowledges this. The communication is broadly in line with the UK’s views on integration: we welcome the emphasis on a flexible approach including action at local and national level, acquisition of language skills and recognition that integration is a two-way process (migrant and host country).

Over lunch we expect Ministers will discuss an Austrian-Hungarian joint paper on illegal migration and visa liberalisation, with a particular focus on the western Balkans. Discussion will also include illegal immigration via the southern Mediterranean, and in particular current developments in Libya and Tunisia, requested by Italy. The UK will raise the need to tackle abuse of free movement, including sham marriages.

The Commission will also present its communication “Towards a stronger European response to drugs” and there will be a discussion on the draft European pact against synthetic drugs. The presidency will look to agree the draft text of the pact. The UK welcomes the priority that the presidency has given to this important issue and approves of the draft text in the pact. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) will also present its 2011 annual report on the state of the drug problems in Europe.

There will be an orientation debate on options for a European Terrorist Finance Tracking System (TFTS) on the basis of a Commission communication which was published in July. This meets a commitment to the European Parliament to consider the feasibility of an EU system following the adoption last year of the EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP). The Government’s view is that the necessity of an EU system has not yet been demonstrated. There are also important questions around legal base, operational requirements and costs that are yet to be adequately answered. As such the Government do not believe they can choose between any of the available options at this stage. The UK will make clear that no decision can be taken on a way forward without first seeing a full impact assessment of each of the options (including the option of maintaining the status quo). This assessment must address the questions about necessity of an EU system; about the technical, legal and operational issues involved; and about the likely high costs.

The Commission will be presenting its communication on co-operation in the area of the JHA within the eastern partnership (EaP). The communication sets out proposals on how to strengthen JHA co-operation with the EaP countries, and the UK endorses the pragmatic focus on the consolidation and streamlining of existing frameworks. Promoting EU engagement with the EaP remains a priority for the Polish presidency, and the UK recognises the importance of offering continued support to the EU’s neighbours. There has been broad support for the communication so far and a general consensus that new structures are not required. The presidency is expected to prepare draft Council conclusions after an exchange of views at the Council.

Finally, the presidency will make a presentation on the state of play of the negotiations for an EU-US data protection agreement. The Council agreed a negotiating mandate at the 2010 December Council.

The justice day will begin with the Commission presenting its newly published regulation on a EU common sales law. This issue was discussed in general terms at the informal JHA Council on 19 July and this will be an opportunity for the Commission to explain its proposed action. Over lunch there will be a further discussion of some aspects of sales law.

There will then be a discussion regarding the draft directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. This is the third proposal on the EU’s criminal procedural rights road map which sets minimum standards for the rights of the defence. This measure was presented at the September JHA Council when the UK informed the Council that it had not opted in to this directive.

Next, there will be an orientation debate on the draft directive on establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The UK has opted in to this draft directive.

The presidency will also provide a state-of-play update on the draft directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. A general approach was reached on this proposal at the JHA Council in December 2010.

Finally, under non-legislative activities, there is an item regarding judicial training. A Commission communication was published in September and the Commission made a presentation at the last Council meeting. It is expected that the Council will be asked to agree the draft Council conclusions on the Commission’s communication.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Damian Green Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

There is a genuinely serious and interesting debate here. For instance, 30 years ago, racist jokes were a staple for stand-up comics, and it was the early stages of political correctness that made that unacceptable. Would my hon. Friend like to see the return of the racist joke?

[Mr Speaker]

If the Minister would turn round and address the Chamber, we would be grateful.

[Damian Green]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the return of the racist joke as a comedy staple would be unacceptable? He says that all forms of political correctness are unacceptable, but does he not think that that is pushing it a bit too far?

[Philip Davies]

No, I do not. I do not accept that political correctness has helped with those things. I think that political correctness hinders the process of tolerance, as it builds up resentment that would not otherwise exist. I totally disagree with my hon. Friend, as I do not think that political correctness helps with tolerance: it breeds intolerance and resentment, which is why I oppose it in all its forms. I am not here to defend people who are intolerant of others, as that is unacceptable. Equally, I do not believe that people should be intolerant of people who happen to have a different opinion from them, which we often see in people who try to preach the language of tolerance.

It is not a question of my supporting intolerant or bigoted people, but I do believe in free speech. If we believe in free speech, we have to believe that people have a right to say things with which we disagree and which we may occasionally find offensive. That is the whole principle of free speech. Free speech does not mean that people are free to say only the things with which we agree—that is a nonsensical definition. The fact that I do not happen to agree with what somebody else says would not stop me defending their right to say it.

The Bill specifically tackles one of the worst forms of political correctness, which is institutionalised political correctness. The Bill prohibits the use of affirmative or positive action by local authorities. So-called equality and diversity measures have taken over where common sense used to prevail. The tick-box mentality has far-reaching tentacles in our schools, hospitals and emergency services. Everywhere we look there is evidence of this obsession.

My opposition to the whole equality and diversity agenda is, first, that it is total nonsense in its own right. The terms “equality” and “diversity” have no real meaning, and they do not necessarily sit comfortably together. Secondly, such measures are highly discriminatory and do not sit well with those being discriminated against or, perhaps less obviously, with those supposedly benefiting from the discrimination. Thirdly, they are responsible for increasing, not decreasing, racism and sexism, in my opinion. Fourthly, they are a total and utter waste of our money.

So-called equality and diversity is nonsense because we are told that it is all about being representative and that it is essential for organisations and businesses to reflect the community they serve. It is rather patronising to think that the rules have to be rigged to enable women or ethnic minorities to get a job. People from ethnic minorities and women are more than capable and are sufficiently talented to get a job in competition with people who are men and white, on a fair and transparent basis. They do not need to have the rules rigged in their favour in order to get jobs, and it is patronising to suggest that they do.

The people who are really racist and sexist in this country are the ones who see everything in terms of race and gender. I do not. The gender, religion and sexuality of the person applying for a job should be irrelevant.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have heard that the great lady, the noble Lady, the Lady of the Garter, Baroness Thatcher, is not to be called upon in this debate, so let us call upon Queen Elizabeth I instead. As she so memorably said, though her body might be weak, she had the heart of a king—and a King of England at that. She did not need special measures, advancement and protection to get her going; she did it through her own vim and vigour, her force of character and her great and noble ability that set the path for this great country for centuries to come.

[Damian Green]

I merely make the point that had the genetics fallen in a different way, she would never have become Queen, because of discrimination within the system of primogeniture.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

But she did become Queen. That is the point—that she was able to become queen because our constitution has always evolved gently and happily so that more and more people become included in it without necessarily being given a helping hand or a lift up. This is the key point to the Bill: we want to have equality of opportunity as an objective, but not equality of outcome. I think that is what has always divided the Conservative—the Tory—from the socialist: the socialist always wants equality of outcome. Socialists want to meddle and muddle; they want to socially engineer—or perhaps to engineer socially for the benefit of Hansard who do not like their infinitives to be split—and they want to make sure that they direct and control so that everybody should be made into a neat little machine. We have had this terrible socialist proposition recently that the elderly should sell their homes so that they can be put into properties that have fewer rooms. That is what it is all about; it is about controlling people, guiding their lives and taking away their freedoms.

When it comes to this Equality Act, to which my hon. Friend’s Bill would make splendid improvements, with some caveats that I may come to, it is desperately condescending to women. They do not want to be looked down upon as if they cannot cope. I am going to speak of the example of my younger sister Annunziata Rees-Mogg, who was the candidate for Somerton and Frome, where she fought a noble campaign. I discussed this with her and I said, “Actually, for the political advantage of the Conservative party,”—I am all in favour of the political advantage of the Conservative party—“perhaps we should have all-women shortlists.” It might not have helped me but it would have helped her and it might have answered a political problem for the party. She could not have been more strongly against it because she viewed it as condescending. She wanted to get the nomination for a seat on her own great merits—and very considerable her merits are, too. She did not want to be told she was a poor little thing: that is the sort of line an elder brother can use to a sister but it is not the sort of line that should be used by political parties or by the state. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) points out, from a sedentary position, that she lost. Well, she did because the Labour vote went down to 4%. Labour lost its deposit and that was to its horror when it discovered that the Lib Dems then supported us, so the aim to keep the beastly Tories out by voting Lib Dem failed miserably. Without that, she would have won by a landslide and I expect that next time around that will be the happy occurrence.

It is condescending to women to assume that they cannot cope without special measures and to people from what are genuinely minorities, because of course women are not a minority. Some of the time they are in the majority, although not at birth. There are more live births of boys than of girls, but women tend to live longer and therefore can easily be a majority of the population.

We have discussed Catholicism. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that he disagreed with the Holy Father on transubstantiation, but I cannot think why. It is clearly a very sensible and right doctrine. However, I do not think, as a Catholic, that I have any fear of discrimination, nor ever have had, although it did happen once to my father—my noble kinsman, as I ought to call him. He was going for a Conservative selection many years ago and was asked by one of the members of the committee if he would be able to go to the lord lieutenant’s funeral as he was a Catholic, at which point another member of the committee pointed out that actually the lord lieutenant was the Duke of Norfolk, so there would be absolutely no difficulty in my father’s attending his funeral. But he did not need special measures to help him. He had to get on and, if there was discrimination in those days, to overcome it, to strive and move forward—as, of course, Margaret Thatcher did and Nancy Astor too.

We have seen in the development and evolution of this House that it has become broader based. One might think that the days when it was simply knights of the shires, when the borough Members had not been let in, were glorious days when the knights of the shires could come in wearing spurs, as I believe we still can, to indicate that they represented a county.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I believe that all selections should be open to all candidates, regardless of their race, sexual gender or any other merits, that political parties, wherever they are in the country, should be free to choose who they want on merit and that the 2002 Act should be repealed, which the Bill seeks to do. The key objective of that Act was to enable a political party, if it so wished, to adopt measures to regulate the selection of candidates, but I do not believe that that is the right way forward. According to the explanatory notes that accompanied the Act, in the 1996 case of Jepson v. the Labour party an employment tribunal held that section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 covered the selection of candidates by political parties, which therefore constrained their ability to take positive action to increase the number of women elected to this House.

[Damian Green]

For the avoidance of doubt, given the interventions from the Opposition, I am happy to confirm that the Conservative party has never used all-women shortlists and that they fell into disrepair in the Labour party after an all-women shortlist produced a male candidate who happened to be the leader of a trade union.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am most grateful to the Minister for that intervention. The Opposition say that they support all-women shortlists, but as Members on both sides of the House will be aware, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) was selected as a candidate despite his gender. It is perhaps one of the biggest ironies that he was selected even though his wife, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), seems so keen to have all-women shortlists in all constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This debate has been even more educational, informative and entertaining than I had hoped and expected when I learned that I would be responding to it. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, who is a greater expert on these matters than I am.

This debate has stimulated a discussion on the use of positive action in our society, particularly by public authorities and political parties. It provides me with an opportunity to explain the principles and the practice of positive action as it is used by the Government, and to clarify how it can be lawfully and helpfully used in different situations by public and private organisations, service providers, and political parties, which are specifically raised in the Bill.

I will start by correcting two small errors that have crept into the debate. First, my hon. Friend said that no one cares about any form of apparent discrimination against men. He raised the interesting and relevant subject of midwives. However, there is currently a debate about the paucity of male teachers in primary schools and that is a serious issue. I am sure that many hon. Members from all parts of the House have had the experience that I have had of going into a small primary school in their constituency and finding themselves the only adult male on the premises apart, usually, from the caretaker. We all recognise that that does not necessarily contribute to the quality of education. My colleagues in the Department for Education are concerned about this issue. It gets to the nub of the debate, because if a head teacher in such a primary school were faced with two candidates of equal merit, one of whom was male and one female, a lot of us would think it sensible for them to pick the male candidate. No doubt, the female candidate would feel that that was unfair and unnecessary discrimination, but in many ways it would be common sense.

The second correction is, again, purely factual.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before correcting one of the mistakes that he made.

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that the Minister might be about to do that.

I remember on one occasion a bishop saying to me that he was very worried because he had to appoint a clergyman in a deanery where all the clergy were gay, and he thought that it might be discriminatory if he did not appoint a gay vicar to the parish just because all the other vicars were gay.

[Damian Green]

I think that it would be foolish to enter into Church politics in that way from this Dispatch Box, so I will merely note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I wanted to correct him on a point that was perhaps not central to his argument. In referring to my former neighbouring MP for Maidstone and the Weald, Ann Widdecombe, he said that she had been voted off “Strictly” very early. That is not true. She went a very long way in “Strictly”, and indeed the BBC was panicking that she was going to win.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Not being an entrant of “Strictly”, I can be strictly authoritarian on this—we are going to stick to the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

And I didn’t say that.

[Damian Green]

You did. I will very happily return to the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The aim of the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is to prohibit the use of positive action by public authorities in recruitment and appointment processes, and to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. I shall start with the principles behind what the Government do.

Our approach to equality is built on two principles—equal treatment and equality of opportunity. I entirely share my hon. Friend’s dislike of equality of outcome as a political project. He said that it was misguided, and I certainly agree. However, the Government’s approach is built on the principles of equality of opportunity and equal treatment. That means building a society in which no one is held back because of who they are or where they come from. It means not uniformity but, rather, giving everyone an equal right to be treated fairly as an individual.

In our society, people can face discrimination and disadvantage because of who they are and where they come from. The Government need specific action to deal with such problems. However, the key to taking forward our equality strategy is to demonstrate that equality is for everyone by making it a part of everyday life. It is about changing culture and attitudes and tackling the causes of inequality rather than introducing more legislation. That is why we are working with business, local communities and citizens to promote good practice, transparency and accountability.

We can look at the history and concept of positive action. It is, of course, not new in UK legislation. The general positive action provisions have been in use for more than 30 years, having first been introduced in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. Those provisions, which are sometimes called the training and encouragement provisions, have ever since allowed employers, both public and private sector, to take a range of voluntary—I cannot emphasise that word strongly enough—positive action measures to address disadvantage and under-representation in the work force.

There are many examples of such training and encouragement measures by employers, including the provision of mentoring and shadowing opportunities, the targeting of advertisements at particular groups by encouraging them to apply for advertised jobs, and the holding of open days solely for people with a particular protected characteristic that is under-represented in the workplace, in order to offer them an insight into the selection process that they would have to go through when applying for employment with that employer.

Over the decades since those provisions were first introduced, they have become both well understood and well used. The Equality Act 2010 simplifies and harmonises them, so that unlike previous legislation, under which positive action applied in slightly different ways to different protected characteristics, it now applies in the same way to all of them as long as the relevant criteria for their use are adequately met. For those who are confused by the jargon, a reference to “protected characteristics” means a reference to someone’s age, disability, marital or civil partnership status, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation or gender reassignment if applicable. What is new under the 2010 Act is that it extends positive action provisions to the limits permissible under EU directives, which allow member states to adopt specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to any of those protected characteristics. It introduces new provisions specifically related to recruitment and promotion, not recruitment and appointment as suggested in my hon. Friend’s Bill. He is slightly off the mark with that.

There is a real need to tackle under-representation and ensure that everyone takes part in key areas of our society, in civil, economic and political life. One could cite a range of statistics to show why positive action can be helpful in tackling the under-representation and disadvantage that are suffered across the board in some of the more desirable strata in our society. For example, there are only three ethnic minority High Court judges. There was much discussion this morning about the composition of Parliament and how the political parties approach it. Only 22% of MPs are women, but more than half the population are women, so that is a huge disparity. More widely, only one third of public appointments are held by women, and only 0.8% of local councillors in England are black and minority ethnic women, which is an extraordinarily low figure. In terms of active discrimination, one in five lesbian, gay and bisexual people say that they have been harassed at work because of their sexual orientation. Although progress has been made—[Interruption.] I will not respond to that sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the shadow Minister, for his sake. Although progress has been made, clearly more needs to be made in future.

Positive action can also be used to support the delivery of the equality duty, which requires public authorities to consider the needs of people with various protected characteristics, some of whom may be at a considerable disadvantage. In a bid to address such needs, public bodies could choose—I emphasise choose—to use the positive action measures to target those disadvantaged groups.

Before I respond further to my hon. Friend’s Bill, it might be useful to set out what positive action is, what it can be used for, how it can be legally used in different scenarios, and most importantly, what it is not. In this morning’s interesting debate, many hon. Members were sliding between attacks on specific legislation and examples of positive action, and a general dislike of political correctness. There is an interesting and genuine debate to be had both on the meaning of political correctness and on what it has meant in practice, and we could ask whether it has gone too far in some ways and not far enough in others, but that does not have much to do with my hon. Friend’s Bill—I will therefore stick to the terms of the Bill.

Positive action is a term used to describe a range of measures that organisations can use when people who share a protected characteristic—I have listed them—experience some form of disadvantage because of that characteristic; have particular needs linked to that characteristic; or are disproportionately under-represented in a particular activity. In the second scenario, the Bill would make it illegal for people to install a wheelchair ramp, because that would be positive action to help a particular group. I do not believe that my hon. Friend intends that, but as I understand it, that would be the effect of one of the clauses. It is important to look at the detail of what positive action can involve when we assess whether the Bill should make further progress.

When any of the three conditions apply, proportionate action can be taken to overcome that disadvantage—I again emphasise that the action must be proportionate, and that action “can” rather than “must” be taken. Action can be taken to overcome a disadvantage, to meet particular needs, or to encourage and increase participation in the related activity.

Positive action can be taken in relation to a wide range of activities covered by the Act as well as employment, such as education, training, service delivery and activities undertaken by associations and other organisations. Positive action is not about woolly-minded thinking, political correctness, reverse discrimination or sidelining men. My hon. Friend was both entertaining and in large part correct in attacking what he described as lentil eating, woolly minded, Guardian reading characteristics.

[Chris Bryant]

That’s you in the Tory party.

[Damian Green]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I really do not eat lentils—nor do I own a pair of sandals, nor do I for pleasure read most of The Guardian. I find The Guardian extremely useful for one thing. If I ever wake up and feel my political energy flagging, I read the letters page of The Guardian and that reminds me why I am a Conservative and why there needs to be a Conservative Government in this country—if only to keep people such as that out of power. So The Guardian serves a tremendously useful purpose in my life.

Positive action is about counteracting the effects of historical discrimination and disadvantage by providing opportunities for those who are disadvantaged or under-represented to gain skills that would enable them to compete fairly and openly for jobs and to reach their potential. There are practical benefits for businesses attached to the use of those measures and I shall return to them later. However, I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall); we need to consider the needs of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, although as I say there are the practical benefits.

A common misconception confuses positive action and positive discrimination; some people talk about the two interchangeably. It is important to establish that there is a clear distinction between them. Positive discrimination is treatment that favours a person solely because they have a particular protected characteristic, irrespective of whether there are special circumstances. In other words, the treatment discriminates in their favour whether or not they experience a disadvantage connected to that protected characteristic or have particular needs that are different from those of people without that protected characteristic.

Positive discrimination is generally unlawful in this country and will remain unlawful in most cases, although we should note that it is not unlawful to give more favourable treatment to a disabled person than to a non-disabled person. The intention behind that is to provide a level playing field for disabled people, who have been widely recognised to be disadvantaged in the field of employment, in society and in accessing services, without being open to legal challenge by non-disabled people.

Positive action, as I outlined, is about ensuring that any action taken has to be a proportionate means of achieving the aim of tackling or addressing disadvantage, encouraging participation in activities and meeting the specific needs of people with protected characteristics. It is essential for any organisation using positive action to ensure that the measures being taken do not unlawfully discriminate against people outside the group that they are seeking to help. The provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that relate to positive action make that very clear.

I am sure that my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the Bill would agree that many in our society have experienced historical disadvantage and under-representation in numerous sectors and professions, including in economic and political life, and many still do. Of course, significant progress has been made in recent decades to improve things.

[Philip Davies]

No doubt what my hon. Friend said about historical disadvantage is true, but does he think that just because black people, for example, have been discriminated against in the past, white people should be discriminated against now as some kind of reparation? Channel 4 has training courses that are open only for people from ethnic minorities. Why should somebody who happens to be from a white working class background and wants to get into the industry be deprived of doing so just because of discrimination that took place in the past?

[Damian Green]

I return to the point I have been making for the past couple of minutes about the distinction between positive action and positive discrimination. Specifically on the training courses my hon. Friend mentions, if a job were open only to people with a particular characteristic, that would be discrimination and would be unlawful. However, saying that one is finding it very difficult to attract a particular group of people even to think about applying for a job, and perhaps having an open day or some training aimed specifically at those people is positive action. At the relevant point—at the point of offering a job—everyone should be treated equally and there should not be any discrimination. Positive action is about trying to ensure that nobody is excluded from operating on their own merits or from applying for a particular job or position.

There was a debate a few minutes ago about the different measures used by different political parties in attempting to encourage more women to come into the House of Commons. I think there was a very neat dichotomy in that the Conservative party adopted measures short of all-women shortlists such as encouraging, mentoring and training, which resulted in a large number of new women colleagues for my hon. Friend and I in this Parliament, which we both welcome. The Conservatives did not go down the very crude route of the all-women shortlist that the Labour party introduced in the late 1990s, so there are different ways of achieving what is a desirable thing—equality of opportunity. Some ways are discriminatory and some are not, and the Government’s policy seeks to ensure that we maintain that very important distinction and continue to have positive action so that everyone can be treated equally, but that we do not inadvertently fall into the trap that my hon. Friend rightly warns us about of discriminating against those who do not have the particular protected characteristics. In many ways, that is at the heart of the debate: we need to maintain that distinction.

One of the Government’s aims is to speed up the rate of progress in achieving gender equality in various sectors, particularly by promoting gender equality on the boards of listed companies and by increasing female representation in politics. Progress on those fronts can be attained using the wide range of measures that are available to companies and other institutions under positive action. My hon. Friend and others will have heard the Prime Minister recently acknowledge in the House that the use of positive action is necessary on occasions to redress gender disparities in boardrooms and in politics.

In any case, lest we forget and think that using positive action places huge regulatory or financial burdens on bodies—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North made that point—the use of any positive action measure is entirely voluntary and there is no mandatory requirement for any organisation to use positive action. If an organisation thinks there will be no real benefits to it from taking positive action measures, it does not have to do so. The voluntary nature of positive action means there are no associated mandatory burdens on organisations if they do not take such measures. That point is significant but is often missed in these debates.

Before I address the use of positive action in matters of recruitment and promotion, I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to clause 2 of his Bill, which would make it unlawful to use positive action for any of the listed protected characteristics as well as for socio-economic status. The current positive action provisions do not permit measures to be taken to address issues solely relating to socio-economic inequality. He might be aware that the Government were not persuaded by the arguments for a public sector duty relating to socio-economic inequalities in the 2010 Act and that they have already decided not to commence those provisions, which will be repealed at a future date. I hope that he and I can agree on that point if on no other.

I turn specifically to the effect of the Bill, the aim of which is to prohibit the use of positive action by public authorities in recruitment and appointment processes. The Bill would, as drafted, create a two-tier system under which it would be lawful for private organisations to continue to use positive action measures in recruitment and appointment processes, but not for public authorities. That would mean that public authorities would not have the same benefits of opportunity open to them in recruitment as private sector organisations. Not only does this disparity seem unfair, but it could be confusing for employers, especially private organisations that deliver services under contract to or on behalf of a public authority, but which may not normally be considered public authorities themselves.

I make it clear that the provisions in the Equality Act 2010 contain explicit built-in safeguards to ensure that they are not misused. The provisions allow the use of positive action specifically in the process of recruitment and promotion in limited circumstances. Positive action can therefore only be used in the process of recruitment and promotion for specific purposes: to overcome or minimise a disadvantage, or to increase participation in activities, or where the candidates are as qualified as each other to carry out the job under consideration, or where the action is a proportionate means of addressing the particular disadvantage or under-representation, and where the employer does not have an automatic policy of treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not have protected characteristics.

To help employers who want to use positive action to do so lawfully, a step-by-step practical guide to using positive action when making appointments is available on the Government Equalities Office website. It will help an employer to ask all the relevant questions and ensure transparency at every stage of the recruitment and appointment process.

Remedies are available to possible victims of positive action. Any participant who deems that the positive action measures used by an organisation in its recruitment and promotion process have not been fair to them, or a person who believes they have been deterred from taking part in such a process, could bring a claim against the organisation. It would ultimately be up to any employer using positive action in recruitment to ensure that the assessment process is proportionate to achieving the aim of addressing a disadvantage or under-representation, that it is transparent and that they can sufficiently justify how they make a choice between candidates.

It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the principle of merit should always apply in any recruitment or promotion process that uses positive action measures. As I have already said, under these measures, a person cannot be appointed solely because they possess a certain protected characteristic that is disadvantaged or under-represented in the workplace. That would constitute unlawful discrimination.

An employer faced with making a choice between two or more candidates who are as qualified as each other to undertake the post in question can take into consideration whether any of the candidates possesses a protected characteristic that is disadvantaged or disproportionately under-represented in the work force. However, this does not mean that the candidates under consideration have to be identical in every respect. Any consideration of merit should take into account the relevant facts of their competence, ability, experience and any formal qualifications that may be relevant to the particular job.

Among other things, the Bill would put a stop to the setting and pursuit of targets in relation to recruitment and promotion. Targets are not quotas, nor are they the same as positive action. Targets are the end that an organisation wishes to achieve, while positive action is, essentially, the measures that an organisation can take in order to achieve its aim. Targets allow organisations to direct a range of programmes, initiatives, products and services at particular groups of people who are under-represented in certain activities, or because of poor take-up of services or activities. Such action would enable these groups to acquire the necessary skills to compete for jobs or to access services tailored to their specific needs. It is perfectly permissible in the UK to set targets that are intended to provide an incentive for people to improve and achieve certain goals.

Of course, targets are not limitless; they either evolve as an organisation’s priorities change over the years, or they come to their natural end. I think there is a fear that this is an endless path going in one direction. Clearly, an organisation may decide that it has done what it needs to do to meet a target that it has set itself for representation within its work force, or its boardroom, or its parliamentary party or whatever, and at that point the existing legislative framework entirely permits the organisation to get off the track and continue its normal business as it would have done if it had never introduced those measures.

As I mentioned, an important priority for the Government is to increase the number of women in the boardroom and in civic and public life. The key to achieving that is not through the setting of strict employment quotas such as reserving a number of posts only for women, which would in any case be unlawful—I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and the House that the Government have absolutely no intention of changing that position—but through the use of voluntary measures and initiatives.

The difference between the targets that I have been talking about and the quotas that my hon. Friend is rightly sceptical about is that the target can be worked towards naturally over a period spent developing people in order that the organisation can hit the target, whereas a quota must be filled whether or not there are suitable people available to fill it. That is the absolutely crucial practical distinction. If we tried to force organisations to fill quotas, less qualified people would be appointed to positions, which would be unfair on those who were better qualified, and in the long term damaging for the institution concerned. If the legislation currently in place had that effect, or indeed that intention, I would share all my hon. Friend’s worries about it, but it does not, and just as the distinction between positive discrimination and positive action is key, the difference between targets and quotas is absolutely key. We have a sensible, practical set of measures that can allows organisations to improve themselves, not something that is over-burdensome.

[Philip Davies]

I am interested in what the Minister has to say. Will he clarify this point? I understood from what I have read in the media—I concede that one should not always believe everything one reads in the papers—that the Government have let it be known that if boardrooms do not hit the target set by Lord Davies, if they do not go themselves voluntarily to hit that target, the Government will act. Can the Minister assure the House now that if they do not hit the artificial, arbitrary targets that Lord Davies set in his report, the Government will not act?

[Damian Green]

I do not accept that the targets are necessarily arbitrary or artificial. We are very keen that organisations should hit their targets for women in boardrooms; the Government strongly welcomed the Lord Davies report and we are now at the stage of working with business and others to ensure that the recommendations are implemented effectively without recourse to some of the measures that my hon. Friend would regard as draconian.

I am happy to report to the House that good progress has been made in implementing the recommendations. In May, the Financial Reporting Council launched its consultation on changes to the UK corporate governance code. The headhunting industry has agreed a voluntary code on diversity, which was launched in July 2011. The Association of Executive Search Consultants will champion the code to its members, and there is an increasing and strong sense of ownership and action in FTSE 100 businesses, including company secretaries, who will in many cases be the key figure in the organisation.

[Philip Davies]

I really must press the Minister on this, because some things are more voluntary than others. If the Government say to organisations, “This is what we expect of you; if you don’t do it, we will force you to do it,” and the Government then start reporting progress, that is not voluntary—at least not in my eyes. It is a very curious definition of “voluntary”. If businesses do not hit the artificial target in Lord Davies’s report, will the Government act? From what the Minister says, it sounds as if the Government will not act and force businesses to take action if they do not do so themselves.

[Damian Green]

What I am saying is that the bodies are already acting themselves, so the undesirable outcome of which my hon. Friend is fearful will not happen. I have talked about various organisations; let me mention specific companies. Centrica, BT and Barclays have all provided programmes or initiatives to assist in the recruitment, retention, development and advancement of women and persons from other protected groups in the workplace, and to broaden their career aspirations. That makes the point that I alluded to earlier: good and constructive use of positive action is not woolly-minded, or political correctness gone mad, or whatever the cliché du jour is; it has practical benefits for the organisations that voluntarily opt for it.

I refer my hon. Friend to a report published in 2008 by the CBI, the TUC and the Equality and Human Rights Commission entitled “Talent not Tokenism: the business benefits of workforce diversity”. It showed that diversity in an organisation promotes productivity and efficiency, and increases market opportunities. Several UK employers recognise the benefits of positive action; it fills skill gaps while generating a more diverse work force. That added diversity in turn gives employers a better understanding of customers’ needs, opening up new markets and attracting new business.

More businesses than ever, including FTSE companies at all levels—those in the FTSE 100, FTSE 250 and FTSE 350—are using voluntary positive action measures to improve the diversity of their top management and boards of executive and non-executive directors. Lord Davies’s report, to which my hon. Friend referred, acknowledged that corporate boards perform better when they comprise experienced people with a greater range of skills, perspectives and backgrounds. His report indicated that there is a business case for increasing the diversity of corporate boards, and especially for gender-diverse boards, so that businesses can draw on the full range of available talent and achieve effective governance and performance.

To address my hon. Friend’s point directly, Lord Davies’s report ruled out the setting of mandatory quotas to compel businesses to appoint female directors to their boards, so my hon. Friend is right not to believe everything that he reads in the media. The statistics are stark. The proportion of women on FTSE 100 company boards is 14.2%, and the figure is 8.9% for FTSE 250 companies. Previously, almost half the FTSE 250 companies had no women director on their board. A recently published report by the Cranfield School of Management on the progress made on some of the recommendations outlined in the Davies report shows that, for the first time, a minority of FTSE 250 companies have all-male boards. Moving down the size scale, FTSE 350 companies face an even greater challenge in increasing female representation on their boards.

My hon. Friend may have heard of the 30% Club, which comprises a group of UK company chairmen, if I am allowed to use that word, who are voluntarily committed to bringing more women on to UK corporate boards. The 30% Club supports a voluntary target to ensure that every UK corporate board has at least 30% female representation by 2015.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think that the Minister is going slightly wider than the Bill, so could he perhaps drag it back to public authorities?

[Damian Green]

I shall certainly drag it back to public authorities, and indeed specifically to the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, in which I know you have a particular interest, Mr Deputy Speaker. The effect of the Bill would not be what I think my hon. Friend intends, because the majority of that Act has already been repealed by the Equality Act 2010. I urge him to look at schedule 27 of that Act—the repeals and revocations schedule—which repeals most of the Act that he seeks to repeal. The 2002 Act has largely been repealed because the provisions relating to elections in England, Scotland and Wales are now contained in the Equality Act 2010. Repealing what remains extant of the 2002 Act would not achieve what I assume to be the aim of the Bill, as the provisions relating to the selection of election candidates would continue to be permissible for registered political parties in Scotland, England and Wales if they chose to use them.

What remain extant of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act are provisions that relate solely to Northern Ireland. The 2002 Act amends the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, permitting political parties to adopt single-sex shortlists when selecting candidates for elections to certain bodies. Repealing the 2002 Act would only create further confusion and disparity, as the provisions relating to electoral shortlists could continue to be used in England, Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland.

In any case, we consider that the provisions relating to the selection of election candidates remain a legitimate tool for parties that wish to use them. The provisions enable registered political parties to take action to address any disparity in their representation of men and women in elected office, including the use of women-only shortlists. We have had a great deal of discussion about the under-representation of women elected to the House—only 144 of 650 Members are women, equating to about 22% of MPs—and it is widely agreed across the House that although progress has been made, it is not yet complete and there is a need for political parties to make the House more representative of the diverse population in this country, because that will enable us to deliver better governance.

I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and to the House as a whole that the use of those provisions is time-limited, as they are due to expire in 2030 when, we hope, the representation of women in political or other elected office will have increased significantly. The provisions do, however, contain a power to allow a Minister to extend their use beyond 2030 if insufficient progress has been made in increasing female representation. Given the fact that we have given ourselves two decades to achieve that aim, I hope that we can do so without requiring that extension.

By attempting to prevent the use of positive action under what I hope I have persuaded hon. Members are entirely appropriate circumstances, the aims of the Bill contradict Government policy to promote fairness, equality and diversity and to tackle under-representation in targeted areas such as “women on company boards” and “elected office”. Many public authorities have long used forms of positive action in relation to matters connected to recruitment and promotion, and they strongly support the continued use of those provisions. Some registered political parties have successfully used these measures in recent years and, as far as I am aware, there is no opposition from any of the major political parties to using positive action to redress gender representation.

The key thing to remember is that the use of any form of positive action in our country is entirely voluntary, whether it is in providing services, in employment-related matters, in increasing participation in particular activities, or in politics. Organisations will use the provisions only if there is a real benefit for them in doing so. Without the use of positive action, it would not be possible to develop the initiatives outlined in the coalition programme for government to tackle the numerous barriers to social mobility and equal opportunities that exist in our society in relation to age, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. It is not possible to build a fairer society without being able to take the necessary measures to end discrimination in the workplace; to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies; to promote improved community relations and opportunities for people of black and minority ethnic backgrounds; to provide internships for under-represented groups; and to fund targeted mentoring schemes to help under-represented groups to start businesses. It is clear that my hon. Friend’s Bill would remove this voluntary but important opportunity for organisations and political parties to make strides in tackling the continued disadvantage and under-representation experienced by persons with protected characteristics in work forces and in civic, public and political life across the UK. To stop the use of positive action would cause a major setback in the progress already made in addressing disadvantage or under-representation in our society. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill.

Home Department

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Priti Patel]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 September 2011, Official Report, columns 1131-2W, on deportation: offenders, for how many foreign national offenders subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements is their location unknown.

[Official Report, 13 October 2011, Vol. 533, c. 501W.]

Letter of correction from Damian Green:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on 13 October 2011. An incorrect figure was given in the first paragraph.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Damian Green]

There are four foreign national prisoners subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements whom the UK Border Agency is considering for deportation and whose location is unknown.

The UK Border Agency seeks to deport from the UK foreign national offenders who meet the following criteria:

A court recommendation.

For non-EEA nationals—a custodial sentence of 12 months or more either in one sentence or as an aggregate of two or three sentences over a period of five years, or a custodial sentence of any length for a drug offence (other than possession).

For EEA nationals—a custodial sentence of 12 months or more for an offence involving drugs, violent or sexual crimes or a custodial sentence of 24 months or more for other offences.

There may also be other foreign nationals subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements whose whereabouts is unknown, but are not subject to deportation consideration by the UK Border Agency.

The UK Border Agency's work on relocating individuals subject to deportation consideration is a high priority and they actively pursue individuals whose whereabouts are currently unknown.

The correct answer should have been:

[Damian Green]

There are two foreign national prisoners subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements whom the UK Border Agency is considering for deportation and whose location is unknown.

The UK Border Agency seeks to deport from the UK foreign national offenders who meet the following criteria:

A court recommendation.

For non-EEA nationals—a custodial sentence of 12 months or more either in one sentence or as an aggregate of two or three sentences over a period of five years, or a custodial sentence of any length for a drug offence (other than possession).

For EEA nationals—a custodial sentence of 12 months or more for an offence involving drugs, violent or sexual crimes or a custodial sentence of 24 months or more for other offences.

There may also be other foreign nationals subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements whose whereabouts is unknown, but are not subject to deportation consideration by the UK Border Agency.

The UK Border Agency's work on relocating individuals subject to deportation consideration is a high priority and they actively pursue individuals whose whereabouts are currently unknown.

Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government have decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s amended proposals for asylum procedures and reception conditions directives.

The Government have grave concerns about the way in which the provisions in the amended reception conditions directive would allow asylum seekers to work after six months if a decision at first instance has not been reached and would place stringent restrictions on member states’ ability to detain asylum seekers in exceptional circumstances. These restrictions are unnecessary in a system such as ours where detainees have the right to apply to the courts for release on bail, or to bring a legal challenge against their detention.

The amended procedures directive would place restrictions on accelerated procedures, and on the making of asylum appeals non-suspensive (where a right of appeal can be exercised out of country only), which would endanger a number of systems that the UK operates to manage straightforward asylum claims effectively—in particular our detained fast track which provides speedy but fair decisions for any asylum seekers whose claims are capable of being decided quickly.

Unfortunately, rather than giving us the correct means by which to consider asylum claims effectively and to deter abuse, both directives subject member states’ asylum systems to unjustified regulation and focus excessively on enhancing the rights of all asylum seekers whether their claims are valid or not. This would have significant cost implications for the UK.

The Government will continue to approach forthcoming legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

Changes in Immigration Rules

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government are today laying before the House a statement of changes in the immigration rules. The first change will allow the UK Border Agency to refuse entry or stay in the UK to those subject to immigration control with outstanding unpaid NHS charges of £1,000 or more. This change will be phased in from 1 November.

On 18 March 2011, I announced the Government’s response to the 2010 consultation on refusing entry of stay to NHS debtors and signalled my intention to lay a new rules change in respect of outstanding NHS charges. This will deter overseas visitors from misusing the NHS and encourage overseas visitors to meet their obligations to pay for the NHS services that they use. The UK Border Agency will continue to work closely with the Department of Health on a range of measures to prevent health tourism.

I can also confirm that we are publishing the impact assessment for the changes in respect of outstanding NHS charges on the UK Border Agency website and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the House Library.

A minor technical change to the evidential requirements for settlement is also being made which will oblige economic migrants to provide supporting documents to show they are earning a minimum amount before they are granted settlement.

I am also making minor changes to rule 317 on parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives to improve the drafting and transparency of the rule. Consequential changes will be made to rule 319(v) which deals with the dependent relatives of refugees and those with humanitarian protection.

We are also making some technical corrections to the rules for other dependent relatives of a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection. We are deleting a provision in the rules that requires an applicant to be refused if he or she has one or more unspent convictions within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 when they apply for entry clearance or further leave to remain in this route. This provision was included in error, as Government policy is that indefinite leave to remain (ILR) should be refused to people with unspent convictions, but not that an application for entry clearance or limited leave to remain should be refused. We are also clarifying the existing rules to ensure that other family members who wish to switch into the further leave to remain or settlement route in this category can do so. The amendments will also affect the criteria for granting settlement as we are clarifying the need for an applicant to have valid leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom so that those who have overstayed do not qualify under the rules.

We are also making minor, technical changes to the immigration rules on students, including: to reflect that Education Scotland is the new name for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education; to amend the definition of UK-recognised body to confirm that this includes foundation programme offices for post-graduate doctors and dentists; to clarify the definition of who benefits from the streamlined application process for tier 4. A minor correction is being made to the rules laid on 6 April to make provision for spouses and civil partners of a British citizen or settled person in the United Kingdom in line with the policy intention relating to in-country switching.

Minor changes are also being made to the immigration rules relating to unmarried and same-sex partners of a British citizen or settled person in the United Kingdom to enable in-country switching into this route, reflecting the policy intention.

The last change relates to the Olympic and Paralympic games. The UK needs to manage effectively the entry and stay of persons accredited for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games such as athletes, umpires, technical staff and broadcasters and other individuals before, during and after the games in order to deliver a safe and secure games. Such persons are referred to as games family members.

In order to do this, and fulfil contractual and agreements reached with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), it is necessary to make two sets of changes to the UK’s immigration rules.

The first change amends appendix 1 to the immigration rules by exempting certain holders of the Olympic Identity and Accreditation Card (OIAC) and Paralympic Identity and Accreditation Card (PIAC) from visa requirements during the accreditation period of the games, which runs from 30 March 2012 to 8 November 2012, providing the card is presented with a valid national passport or other document satisfactorily establishing nationality and identity, and providing the requirements set out in the statement of changes to the immigration rules have been met.

The second change amends the visitor category of the immigration rules by creating two new categories of visitor—an “Olympic or Paralympic games family member visitor” and an “Olympic or Paralympic games family member child visitor”. Leave in these two visitor categories will only be available during the accreditation period of the games to games family members who meet the requirements of the immigration rules. Individuals granted leave to enter or remain as an Olympic or Paralympic games family member visitor and Olympic or Paralympic games family member child visitor, during the period of 30 March 2012 to 8 May 2012, will be admitted for up to six months, while those who are granted leave to enter or remain during the period of 9 May 2012 to 8 November 2012 will be admitted up until, and including, 8 November 2012. In both cases conditions prohibiting recourse to public funds and restricting employment to employment only related to Olympic and Paralympic games, will be attached to the leave.

These changes to the immigration rules will help the UK facilitate the entry and stay of games family members in the UK during the games while also allowing the UK Border Agency to maintain a robust immigration control.

We previously informed Parliament, in the explanatory memoranda accompanying the Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment) Order 2011 and during their debate in the House of Commons and House of Lords, that we would be amending the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993 and Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 to enable the collection of fingerprints and facial images from visa nationals accredited for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games at the UK’s train juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. The aforementioned 2011 regulations enable biometric information to be taken from persons accredited for the Olympic and Paralympic games who would usually be required to apply for a visa and therefore have their biometric information taken as visa nationals but as part of the host city contract Her Majesty’s Government gave a commitment that in specified circumstances there would be no requirement for certain holders of an accreditation card to apply for a visa before travelling to the UK. The amendments to the channel tunnel orders are no longer considered necessary as the 2011 regulations, when read with the provisions of the channel tunnel orders, provide us with the legal power to make the collection at the UK’s train juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium.