Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“If a proscribed organisation…applies to the Secretary of State for deproscription, the proscription of the organisation will be reviewed.”

How does that work in practice? If an organisation and its members are illegal—proscribed—how do they have the locus to apply to be have the proscription reviewed?

[James Brokenshire]

Under the current regime, the organisation or person affected by a proscription can submit a written application to the Home Secretary requesting that she considers whether they or a specified organisation can be removed from the list of proscribed organisations. There is a process for this. The application should also state the grounds on which it is made, and the Home Secretary is required to determine the application within 90 days.

If the Secretary of State agrees to de-proscribe that organisation, she has to lay an order before Parliament removing it from the list of proscribed organisations. In practice, all the evidence and intelligence have to be considered across Whitehall. The order is then subject to the affirmative resolution process. In other words, it is a similar process to a proscription application. I have to say to the House that no de-proscription applications have been received since June 2009.

[Official Report, 2 April 2014, Vol. 578, c. 951.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the response given on 2 April 2014.

The correct response should have been:

[James Brokenshire]

Under the current regime, the organisation or person affected by a proscription can submit a written application to the Home Secretary requesting that she considers whether they or a specified organisation can be removed from the list of proscribed organisations. There is a process for this. The application should also state the grounds on which it is made, and the Home Secretary is required to determine the application within 90 days.

If the Secretary of State agrees to de-proscribe that organisation, she has to lay an order before Parliament removing it from the list of proscribed organisations. In practice, all the evidence and intelligence have to be considered across Whitehall. The order is then subject to the affirmative resolution process. In other words, it is a similar process to a proscription application. An application for de-proscription was received on 27 March 2014, the first since 2009.

Immigration Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 18.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 18.

[James Brokenshire]

The fundamental duty of any Government is to protect the British public and maintain the security of the UK against a range of threats. There is a small but very dangerous number of individuals who, despite having taken an oath of loyalty to become a British citizen, seek to threaten the security of this country. Those same dangerous individuals seek to exploit a loophole in our legislation preventing us from removing their citizenship if it would render them stateless, even temporarily, while they reacquire their former nationality. This Government have sought to address that issue, in line with our international obligations to protect the security of the UK.

Our proposals, previously debated in this House on 30 January, sought to extend the existing deprivation powers of the Home Secretary so that a naturalised British citizen who has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK—I underline the high bar that has been set—can be deprived of their citizenship, regardless of whether it would render them stateless. We believe that is vital for the security of the UK and an important point of principle. It is not right that people who subvert our values and fight against our armed forces should invoke our protection and enjoy the privileges of British citizenship.

Many of the debates on this issue have focused on the use of the existing powers in the UK and overseas. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Home Secretary has long-standing existing powers to deprive a British national of their citizenship where that individual acquired it using fraud or where she is satisfied that doing so is conducive to the public good. Where fraud has been used, a decision can be made to deprive, which leaves a person stateless. Our proposals have built on the non-conducive powers to target a narrow cohort of naturalised Britons who are a real threat to our national security.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

Is the Minister able to clarify the numbers involved and how the Secretary of State and, indeed, her predecessors have used those powers? The Joint Committee on Human Rights has repeatedly asked for those data, but has been unable to access them. I have asked similar questions and have also been unable to get the data, so could the Minister tell us how many people have had the power used against them?

[James Brokenshire]

It might be helpful if I explain that since the law was changed in 2006, 27 people have been deprived of their citizenship through different conducive powers. Twenty-six people have been deprived on the grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact, and one further person has been notified of the intention to deprive on those grounds. Perhaps that gives my hon. Friend an idea of the context in which the power is used. It is used extremely sparingly: it is not undertaken lightly and the Secretary of State considers its use extraordinarily carefully.

I recognise that the proposals that were suggested when the Immigration Bill was last before this House have, rightly, provoked a great deal of debate and discussion. It is important that the House understands the significance of the measures and that the other place has had an opportunity to consider them after our debate on Report. There has been much debate, both here and in the House of Lords, about the impact of leaving a person stateless, and there are concerns about those who cannot acquire another nationality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Amendment (a) is certainly a helpful move on some, if not all, the concerns, but how will the provision be interpreted? For example, if somebody who is not a British citizen leaves another country and would otherwise have claimed asylum in this one, will that factor be taken into account? Will the Home Secretary be able to take into account the idea that a country may refuse to give citizenship because we had taken away their British citizenship? How will she make it work in practice?

[James Brokenshire]

It may be helpful if I say that the Home Secretary will consider the relevant nationality laws of a person’s country and that person’s circumstances, and she will make a decision based on whether, under those laws, the person is able to acquire another nationality. The test is whether there is a route under the law, but she will have regard to other considerations—for example, about practical or logistical arrangements. Those considerations will obviously vary from case to case, but she will consider them in forming a view. We have reflected that in the concept of the reasonable grounds. The Home Secretary will need to be satisfied about those reasonable grounds in determining whether the proposed power can be utilised.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What happens if no other nationality is available? Does the Home Secretary simply give up?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman clearly makes the point about what we are seeking to achieve in respect of the concerns highlighted in the House and elsewhere, which is that if the Home Secretary cannot satisfy herself on reasonable grounds that the individual can acquire the citizenship of another state, she will not be able to use the power.

In this context, we are seeking to address the specific issue highlighted by the Supreme Court in the al-Jedda case, with which many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar. The case showed that the existing law was well within our international obligations, but we are seeking to act on the Supreme Court’s statement in that case about how to address the issue appropriately. We judge that the proposed provision is an appropriate mechanism for guarding our national security. It will ensure that what appears to be a loophole identified as a consequence of the al-Jedda case is not open to abuse and, building on the existing deprivation powers, it will therefore ensure that our national security is properly protected.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

Various people are attempting to catch my eye. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and the House should realise that he is simply putting the law back to its position before it was changed by the previous Government. I listened carefully when we debated the issue on Report, and many of the concerns involved people who have no recourse to citizenship elsewhere being left permanently stateless. Government amendment (a) deals with the very real concerns of many hon. Members. It is a very welcome move that should be supported.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I pay tribute to him for his work on the Bill and for the steps he took, quite properly, to consider not only this issue, but the provisions more broadly. We will no doubt move on to those provisions in considering the Lords amendments. My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that the law was changed in 2002. In many respects, we are seeking to bring the law back more closely to the pre-existing position. The law was changed in 2002, and changed again in 2006. There is, therefore, a long history, with clear precedents to setting provisions that comply with our international and UN obligations on statelessness.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want clarification about what the reasonable grounds are. Amendment (a) could be interpreted to mean that someone has to prove that no country or territory on the globe is willing to accept them as a citizen. That cannot be the interpretation of reasonableness in this amendment, can it?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that the particular concern—the gap that has been identified—relates to someone with dual nationality who surrenders their second nationality to prevent the deprivation provision from applying to them and to prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers as she can now do for dual nationals. The Home Secretary needs to consider such factors in considering whether she is satisfied that the relevant test set out in amendment (a) has been met. She would need to show such reasonableness, and that reasonableness might be tested in the courts, because whether her determination was reasonable would be justiciable or challengeable in the courts.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) wants to make a second intervention, and I will then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).

[Sarah Teather]

I want to follow up the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). The Minister said that the issue was about having a route in law to secure another citizenship, but he rather glossed over the practical barriers that many people face in obtaining another citizenship. Will he put on the record more information that might help those of us with concerns about amendment (a), as drafted, particularly about what constitutes an objection to the Home Secretary proceeding in relation to practical impediments to such people gaining another citizenship, rather than the provision necessarily being used as a route in law?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the primary consideration is for the Home Secretary to research various materials and determine whether the individual could reacquire their former nationality, because that is what we are largely talking about in the circumstances of considering such laws. I am sure that she would also have to consider practical issues and the other surrounding circumstances. It is difficult to be specific, as individual facts and cases will no doubt be relevant to the provision. She will, therefore, wish to consider those other practical or logistical arrangements as part of her determination about whether there are reasonable grounds for the individual to secure citizenship from another state.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I want to press my hon. Friend on justiciability. Is he now satisfied that amendment (a) deals with the convention issue about deprivation of citizenship not being exercised arbitrarily, but proportionately? Does the amendment meet such tests?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes. My hon. Friend rightly points to article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights, which makes a point about protection against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. We are very clear that the provision is not arbitrary. It is a very focused and proportionate power that meets not only those requirements, but our obligations under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness of 1961, and the declaration made by the UK when it ratified that convention in 1966. We have considered our international obligations very carefully. We believe that the provision absolutely complies with the obligations that we have set for ourselves.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

All the examples that the Minister has used relate to cases in which he expects people to reacquire a nationality that they gave up to avoid having their British nationality taken away. If that is his intention, would it not have been better to table a much narrower amendment in which that was the circumstance in which the Home Secretary could consider withdrawing a person’s citizenship? That might have been more broadly welcomed in the House than amendment (a).

[James Brokenshire]

Amendment (a) was carefully framed and consideration was given to the comments of the Supreme Court in the al-Jedda case. Indeed, the amendment is more tightly framed than was suggested by the Supreme Court and is required by our obligations under the ratifying declaration that the UK signed in 1966. That speaks more widely about reserving the right in relation to statelessness, including where the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.

We have refined those broad terms in amendment (a) by requiring the Home Secretary to undertake the reasonableness test that I have highlighted. She must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual whom we are seeking to use the powers on has the ability to obtain citizenship under the laws of another state. I argue that we have considered the matter carefully and framed the amendment appropriately to deal with the significant loophole that was created and that was highlighted by the al-Jedda judgment. We believe that it is important to close that off in the interests of national security.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

A number of my hon. Friends are trying to intervene. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), who has not intervened on me thus far.

[Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. This proposal is predicated on the fact that the Home Secretary will act rationally and reasonably, but—[Laughter.] No, I do not see that as funny at all. I want to know how the people of Britain will know that the action has been taken in a rational and reasonable way, when it is obscured from public view, and is therefore challengeable.

[James Brokenshire]

I will make two points in answer to my hon. Friend. First, the decision of the Secretary of State would be reviewable by the courts. It would, therefore, be open to the individual to challenge the decision and the reasonableness of the Home Secretary’s determination. Secondly, I point him to amendment (b), under which there will be an independent review of the power, which will report after one year and then on a rolling three-yearly basis. That will provide clarity about how the power is being used and give the reassurance that he has sought to exact.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify the point that he has just made? Is he suggesting that there will be a right of appeal against a ministerial decision, or will there only be a right to undertake a judicial review, which of course would relate to process and not to the facts of the case?

[James Brokenshire]

There is the ability to challenge deprivation decisions. Many cases have been brought before the courts that relate to the Home Secretary’s use of the existing deprivation powers. That will continue to apply for the power and the amendments relating to the specific circumstances in which someone may be rendered stateless, subject to the Home Secretary’s being satisfied of their ability to seek the citizenship of another country. The existing challenge, process and procedures will continue to apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the point of an intervention is not to comment on a previous intervention, but to comment on what the Minister is saying. If he wants to challenge what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, perhaps he will try to catch my eye.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made his point. I am sure that he will make it again in the debate. He is right to underline the careful way in which we have framed the amendments.

[Sarah Teather]

rose—

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will take one further round of interventions, then I will make some progress.

[Sarah Teather]

Will the Minister comment on the time frame in which he thinks it is reasonable to expect somebody to obtain another citizenship? In the Government’s mind, would somebody be stateless for two years, five years or 10 years? Is there any sense of how long the process could go on for?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That is largely in the hands of the individual. When the power is exercised, it will be open to the individual to seek the citizenship of the other country. We are unable to compel them to act in that way. That goes to the heart of the problem that we have identified. It is open to the individual to seek the citizenship of the other country, so it depends on what action they take.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister is being very generous; I am sure that there will be questions on later sections of his speech as well. It is possible for the Home Secretary to have reasonable grounds to believe something, but for it not to be the case. What will happen if somebody in the UK goes through the process, the Home Secretary believes that they are able to get citizenship from another country and they make a bona fide application for that citizenship, but it is turned down?

[James Brokenshire]

In those circumstances, the Home Secretary would have exercised her power to deprive, so the case does not relate to the specific power under discussion. Obviously, we are able to deprive somebody of citizenship, whether they are in the UK or outside the UK, under the existing powers. That is an important mechanism for maintaining national security and ensuring that the actions of an individual who may be involved in terrorism are addressed by restricting their ability to become involved in terrorism-related activity and by preventing travel that might be a key component of terrorism-related activity. That underlines the importance of deprivation as a means of addressing the very small cohort of individuals who would seek to do us harm.

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

rose—

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I give way to my hon. Friend who has not intervened on me before.

[Alok Sharma]

I want to press the Minister on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made. If the Home Secretary has every reason to believe that an individual could get the citizenship of another country, but the Government of that country say that they do not want them as a citizen, what will happen to that individual? Will he or she remain without citizenship?

[James Brokenshire]

If the individual is in the UK, which I think is the situation on which that comment is predicated, there is precedent for giving limited restricted leave to remain. That might impose specific conditions. It would also mean that an individual would not have the usual rights of a citizen to access public services and enjoy public benefits. In seeking to mitigate the risks, that of itself may be considered a significant and relevant factor.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening remarks, which I am sure were extremely important.

I and other Members have a lot of sympathy with what the Minister says and understand and support what he is trying to do, but we are concerned about the practicalities of what will happen if he takes citizenship away from someone and leaves them stateless. That was what upset the other place. Has he studied any other country that has a similar power, and what has he gleaned from that comparative study?

[James Brokenshire]

It is difficult to make general comparisons with other states, because of the different natures of the threat that countries face, the court judgments that have been made there and the international conventions that apply to them. However, other states do have the ability to render citizens stateless, and some have made protocols and reservations to that effect. Some people have sought to portray those states as somehow despotic, or—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is eager for me to get to his point, and I am happy to do so, but I do not think anybody would regard countries such as Belgium or the Republic of Ireland as despotic, and those states have reserved powers to make citizens stateless. Although it is difficult to make generalisations, because of the different treaties and conventions to which each country is subject, other countries have reserved powers to make individuals stateless in certain circumstances.

[Keith Vaz]

As usual, I have asked a question and the Minister has given me a straight answer, and I am extremely grateful. He mentioned Belgium, but what are the practicalities of what it has done? I accept that the power in question is used in other countries, but what happens when a citizen of Belgium has their citizenship removed and is left stateless? Is not the truth that they cannot go anywhere else?

[James Brokenshire]

I would hesitate to provide commentary on the laws of Belgium, the Republic of Ireland or other countries that have reserved this power. I have explained to the House this afternoon what would happen in this country if someone were left in those circumstances, and I hope that I have provided clarity.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Although I was not present for the beginning of the Minister’s speech, I have been watching the debate assiduously in my office.

In my constituency, there have been cases in which an individual has rightly been threatened with deportation by Her Majesty’s Government, yet their home nation state has categorically refused to take them back. I have constituents who have automatically lost their nationality by making an application in this country not for citizenship but for asylum. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked, what are the practicalities? Do we wander the world trying to sell those individuals to some accepting nation state?

[James Brokenshire]

It is not about that at all. I am sorry that the hon. Lady may have missed some of my earlier comments, although I appreciate that she has been watching from afar. As I stated earlier, the provision is about dealing with a small cadre of individuals who may have waived or surrendered their previous citizenship as a means of frustrating the Government’s attempts to guard our national security by using our existing deprivation powers. The Home Secretary would need reasonable satisfaction in exercising the power to deprive. It would then be open to the individual in question to take whatever steps they needed to take to regularise their position. We are closing a gap that the Labour Government left us by virtue of the changes that they made in 2002 and built on in 2006. The Supreme Court highlighted that gap in the al-Jedda case. Our proposal is intended to guard our national security.

We recognise the comments that have been made here and in the other place, but Lords amendment 18 would prevent deprivation of citizenship from being pursued in the case of an individual who had no recourse to another nationality. Every country operates its own nationality law, and there are a range of requirements and eligibility criteria. As part of the “reasonable grounds” consideration, the Home Secretary will of course consider whether there are any legal points that would prevent an individual from regaining their former nationality. The individual in question will retain a full right of appeal, which will be to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The courts will be able to consider whether the Home Secretary was correct to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to believe that that person was able to become a national of another country or territory under its laws.

As the Government have stated in both Houses, the proposal to extend the Home Secretary’s powers to deprive citizenship is an important and timely measure to strengthen the security of the UK. It has rightly been subject to substantial debate, and to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Members of both Houses. We do not agree that a small Committee from each House would be the right place to consider the matter. It would not have access to the appropriate closed material to make further assessments beyond what has already been discussed in the House. Having such a Committee would also cause unnecessary delay, leaving a loophole to be exploited and creating a barrier to effective action for a considerable number of months, if not years. It is important that we close the loophole in a timely way, which is why the Government have decided to proceed with a narrower measure than we had originally proposed in preference to allowing delays for a Committee to consider the issues.

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

Is the Minister saying, then, that the person deprived of their citizenship will not know the reasons for that, and that the only course of court action will be through SIAC, which is a secret court? We will therefore never know whether the deprivation was justified.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend will gain satisfaction from the judgment that SIAC will make in each individual case. He will be familiar with debates that we have had on other legislation and with the challenge for any Government of how to handle sensitive material. He will also know the existing case law on the gisting of some material, and that is a matter of active consideration by the courts. I therefore think that the public, the House and the country can be satisfied that if SIAC has considered a matter, it will have done so appropriately and reached an appropriate outcome in respect of the actions by the Secretary of State.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will SIAC have the information from the individual’s home Government? For example, will there be a requirement on the Chinese embassy—I cite China because it is the first example that comes to mind—to furnish evidence as to why it is refusing to allow its former citizen to regain their nationality, and will that information be furnished to SIAC?

[James Brokenshire]

It is difficult to comment on individual circumstances and cases. The Secretary of State will need to show that her judgment was reasonable in bringing forward and using the power that we are contemplating, if the amendment is accepted, and it would obviously be open to the individual to present evidence to SIAC in non-closed circumstances regarding their situation, and to challenge that decision. That right of challenge is obviously protected by provisions in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will draw my comments to a close, as I have been generous to hon. Members across the House.

In conclusion, this power is narrowly drawn and aimed at addressing a real and current threat posed by a small number of individuals. The Government have taken steps to listen to the concerns of both Houses about statelessness. We are committed to taking proportionate action to protect the public and remove the privileges of British citizenship from those who abuse it. That is what these provisions do, and I commend them to the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I support the Lords amendments. Having listened to their lordships and to contributions from Members across the House, and having noted the keen interest there appears to be in this debate, I hope that the Minister will reflect on what he has said and support the Lords amendments in due course.

I will start with a quote:

“If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence, for example, surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on—in my submission, irresponsibly—this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it as we do. It cannot be a proper response to the terrorist threat to refuse to deal with it ourselves”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 277-78.]

That was the late Lord Kingsland who spoke in October 2002 as Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor when these matters were debated in relation to nationality. At that time, the then Labour Government determined that statelessness should not be part of the legislative framework, and that prompts the question why have the Government brought forward this proposal at this time?

I think the Lords did a service to Parliament in providing it with an opportunity to discuss this proposal again, and I remind the House that the Lords voted by 242 votes to 180 to ensure that the amendment was accepted in another place. Among those who voted were a large number of Labour peers, and it is fair and proper that I report that to the House. There were also many others, both Cross-Bench, from the Government Benches and among the Bishops, who voted to ask this House to consider the matter again. Those included Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Hannay, a former senior diplomat, as well as such Liberal Democrat notaries as Lord Lester, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Oakeshott and Baroness Neuberger, and also the notable former Foreign Secretary Lord Howe of Aberavon. That group of peers did not vote for the amendment to cause trouble for the Government; it is a group of peers who take an interest in this matter and have reflected on the Government’s approach. Whatever else can be said, the Home Secretary did not convince the other place that her measures were right and proper. In fact, the charitable view is that the Home Secretary has made a mess of this matter. She has tried to rush the proposals through.

[James Brokenshire]

No.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.

The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.

I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my own arguments. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I think we need to examine important issues relating to both the deprivation of citizenship and the impact on terrorism prevention. The Minister is seeking to delete the amendment in order to prevent potential terrorist action. I want to test him on that, potentially during scrutiny in the Committee, but also in the House today.

If citizenship is removed from an individual who happens to be outside the country, we shall have given up all jurisdiction over that individual, who could be returned to the United Kingdom by a third-party country that did not recognise him as having citizenship of that country. As Lord Kingsland said in 2002, he will not be the responsibility of the United Kingdom, but will still be potentially able to undertake activity that the Minister would not support, as a result of the Minister’s own actions.

[James Brokenshire]

I am somewhat confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying. Does he not support the Government’s existing use of the deprivation powers to deal with counter-terrorism?

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister should reflect on that. He will know that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 specified just two grounds on which citizenship could be removed: it could be removed from those who had gained it through fraud, and it could be removed

“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of…the United Kingdom”,

provided that the revocation of citizenship did not render the person stateless. That is the point, and that is the position that was taken by the Labour Government in the 2002 Act, about nine to 12 months after the horrendous events of 9/11. Surely, if we made that judgment in 2002, at the height of concern about the impact of 9/11, the Minister will be able to back it up in 2014. If he cannot, let him justify that to a Joint Committee. Lord Pannick said in another place:

“The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the… international implications.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1169.]

How can the British Government lecture others, or promulgate international law, when the Bill proposes the establishment of circumstances which, in my view, would break international requirements across the board? The Minister says that that is not the case, which is a view that we need to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I feel like I am in an episode of “Just a Minute”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here goes.

I support the Government’s amendments, as we must focus on the issue. This is not some descent into despotism; all we are talking about is a return to the law as it stood before 2002. We are not even talking about the principle of statelessness, because the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows for a person to be stateless when that nationality has been obtained by fraud. We are talking about only a very small cohort of people who pose a serious threat to the safety of the citizens we represent.

It is important that the Government ensure that they do not end up with decisions being made in an arbitrary or disproportionate way, which is why the provision about reasonable grounds is important and goes a long way towards answering that point. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a Member, correctly said that the decision to deprive people of their state per se does not breach any international conventions. That is the case that was not properly answered by the Opposition.

In the seconds I have left in which to speak, all I can say is that the Government have moved a significant way and that that allows me and others to support their amendments and reject the Lords amendment.

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth outlining again at the outset the purpose of the Government’s amendments, which is to close a gap that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court, to guard our national security and to deal with a very small number of individuals who put this country’s security at risk. It is only to deal with those very serious cases of people whose conduct meets the requirement of being

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.”

It is important to understand the context and how the Home Secretary, in exercising the power based on the amendments, must have reasonable grounds to believe that under the laws of a country or territory an individual is able to become a national of that country or territory. We have listened to the points that have been made about statelessness, and the amendments address and significantly close the issues that have been highlighted in the other place.

On scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, the matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as in the other place, so it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to careful consideration in the other place and by Members of this House, or considered in detail. That was incorrectly suggested by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke for the Opposition. He has made various assertions that in some way the provisions are not compliant with our conventions and obligations to the United Nations. I reject that. We do not accept that in some way the provisions that are contemplated in the amendments do not comply with our conventions. Indeed, we believe that they adhere more closely to our obligations.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.

We have reflected on the need for oversight and have provided for periodic independent reviews. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked whether David Anderson is an appropriate person. He is certainly someone we are examining and we want to have discussions, if the amendments are accepted, to consider his role in that context.

We take our obligations on statelessness extraordinarily seriously and in terms of common law the House has considered these matters in the recent past. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has consistently made that point. There are challenges for the Government in what we are able to do to ensure that evidence can be provided appropriately in guarding our national security, and that gisting of facts and information remains available. It is important that the right of challenge exists, but it is also important that we guard our national security, which is why I commend the amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014. The Ayes were 313 and the Noes were 205, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Before Clause 60

Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking in human beings

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 5.

Lords amendment 6, and manuscript amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 7, and manuscript amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 8, and manuscript amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 9 to 15 and 17.

Lords amendment 19, and manuscript amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 20 to 23 and 25 to 36.

[James Brokenshire]

This group covers the remaining aspects of the Bill. I will focus on Lords amendments 16 and 24 at the outset, which, as has been highlighted, infringe financial privilege.

Lords amendments 16 and 24 require the appointment of a guardian to represent the interests of children when there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are the victims of cross-border trafficking. The Government wholeheartedly share the noble Lords’ intention to protect and support that incredibly vulnerable group of children. Supporting victims, including children, is at the heart of everything that we are seeking to achieve through the draft Modern Slavery Bill. That Bill aims to tackle the appalling crimes of human trafficking, slavery, forced labour and domestic servitude. Those crimes are quite separate from the matters that are dealt with in the Immigration Bill. In our judgment, it would be wrong and unhelpful to conflate the two.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Before I came to this place, I spent nearly a decade working with trafficked children. These matters are not separate at all, because many trafficked children come through the immigration system, and often the only state official they come into contact with is a member of the UK Border Agency. These matters are as one and the Immigration Bill is a fitting place to provide support and protection for such children.

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the hon. Lady that immigration can be a relevant factor and that it relates to a number of the issues that are involved in trafficking. From visiting charities and meeting victims of trafficking, I understand the compelling stories and issues that they raise. However, at its heart, trafficking is organised crime. Sometimes, when it is viewed simply in the context of immigration, significant aspects of the level of organisation and criminality involved can be missed, as can trafficking within the UK. That is why we judge it important to recognise the broader context so that the solutions that are provided are comprehensive and address all the issues involved. The Government’s approach of seeking to understand that broader context and the organised criminality involved has gained support from non-governmental organisations, charitable organisations and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I welcome the fact that the Minister is trying to look at broader issues of children’s welfare; perhaps I would welcome that even more from the children’s Minister.

There is a particular issue for children who come into this country from overseas concerning their immigration status. Quite often, the reason we do not get trafficking prosecutions and do not really tackle this awful crime is that we do not treat the victims properly. Children who are accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 do not have anybody with parental responsibility to instruct their lawyer, which is why this debate really matters.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her genuine passion and concern for the welfare and well-being of an incredibly vulnerable group of children. We are taking forward our pilots of child advocates so that we can ensure that there is support for those children, and we must not take lightly our responsibility for protecting them. However, having tested the model of advocacy, we do not want to risk putting in place a model that would fail to deliver safety for that group in a practical way.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I am not sure there is a dispute between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on the issue. If the model that the Minister advocates were to go ahead, it would cover both trafficked children and those who are not technically trafficked but are pushed around and sold in this country. For many of us, the nub of the debate is whether the Government will meet the spirit of the Lords amendment, which is not only to give permission for the Government to go ahead with the pilots but to see whether the scheme will be rolled out universally when the results of the pilots are known.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, for his work in chairing the Joint Committee and scrutinising the draft Modern Slavery Bill, and for the report that has been produced. The Government are considering that report carefully and will respond in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there should not be dispute on this issue. There might, however, be a difference of emphasis—perhaps I might characterise it like that—between me and the hon. Member for Wigan on why I believe the Immigration Bill is the wrong place to deal with this issue in a broad sense. We are, of course, reviewing work on that initial assessment of when children present to different agencies, and the fact that EU children and non-EU children are dealt with differently in the system. We are examining that carefully and scrutinising the way the system operates at the moment. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady by recognising that we should consider carefully issues such as initial identification and the way in which different agencies highlight children through that system, as well as the way the system operates and responds, and the different times taken to make an initial determination. It is important that such work is conducted, and it has been commenced by the Government.

In a practical sense, it is important to bring agencies together and to shine a light, as I characterise it, on crimes that have largely been in the darkness. Vulnerable individuals have not been highlighted and brought to attention, and we need greater recognition of the serious criminality involved, and the appalling exploitation and trade in human misery that underpins so many of the dreadful actions we see.

We believe that Parliament has already considered the draft Modern Slavery Bill, and that when the full Bill is presented that will be the right place to address the issues highlighted by the Lords. The full Bill will include an enabling power to ensure that we have the opportunity to test and assess fully the child trafficking advocate role through a trial, before setting in stone its specific functions. By taking that approach we will achieve what is essentially our collective ultimate aim: to give children who have been subjected to this appalling crime the best chance of dealing with the trauma of their experiences.

[Mr Frank Field]

I have two questions for the Minister on this important point. I do not think anyone disputes that it might be better for such provision to be part of the Modern Slavery Bill, but the question is about what the Government will transfer to that Bill. The measure passed by their lordships was not to interrupt the Government’s pilots—they are all in favour of those—but to ensure that once the results of those pilots are through, there will be a statutory basis on which to make the service universal when public expenditure allows that movement to occur. Can the Minister give the House that assurance?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, our intention is to introduce an enabling power. We will provide a statutory basis for the child trafficking advocate role in the Modern Slavery Bill, which we will be in a position to inform through the trials that are due to start in July. Our concern is that the Lords amendment as currently framed would put those trials at risk—we do not see how the trials could commence if the current provisions are maintained. I hope that by assuring the right hon. Gentleman about the Government’s intention to provide that statutory basis, he will understand that that enabling power will provide the underpinning for further work, which can properly be informed by the results of the trials that will start in the summer.

[Mr Field]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this issue is so important. He is proposing that, if we do not oppose their lordships’ changes, he is offering in return the trials and, when we have learnt from the trials, a statutory basis for the service. Is that what the Government want to be in the draft Modern Slavery Bill?

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, having announced the trials at the end of January, I want to see them proceed. It is important that we test the service and the system, which is patchy and not as consistent as I want it to be. Equally, some local authorities provide good services and it is important that we recognise that and learn from them. We want an enabling provision in the draft Modern Slavery Bill to be the bedrock that provides the mechanism, which can be informed by the trials that I want to happen, that can be acted on and be the statutory underpinning that allows it to be developed through the experience of the trials. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find that helpful in underlining the Government’s commitment not simply to provide a statutory mechanism through that enabling provision, but to deliver practical action. The most important thing is that we provide support, advice and guidance for this extraordinarily vulnerable group, and that we ensure they are supported through the system. That is what matters most.

[Mr Hanson]

Can the Minister remind us how many trials there will be, and where and when? What is the date of completion and when does he intend to report back to the House?

[James Brokenshire]

The trials are intended to be conducted in 23 areas, commencing at the beginning of July. We have not, at this stage, set an end point for the duration of the trials, but I want evidence and feedback that can inform the consideration of an enabling power in any modern slavery Bill that comes forward. A statutory mechanism will ensure that the trials can commence and that we can learn and benefit directly from them, enabling a statutory underpinning of the optimum provision.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on such an important issue. The statutory underpinning for advocates is welcome. I want to check that they will be provided for children who are suspected of being victims of trafficking before they have to go through the very difficult process and jump through those hoops to be deemed a victim of trafficking. It is that process that children find very hard to get through. Will advocates be provided at the point at which concerns are raised that the child may be a victim of trafficking, rather than at the point when they have been deemed by the system to be a victim of trafficking?

[James Brokenshire]

Under the arrangements, each child victim is to be allocated a person with specialist training and expertise in trafficking. They will provide dedicated support and guidance to ensure that the child’s voice is heard. That is often the biggest challenge when there are so many different obstacles, such as language and the trauma the child has gone through. It is intended that the advocates will provide a single point of contact through the care and immigration process and will be responsible for promoting the child’s safety and well-being. That is particularly important in relation to the risk of children being re-trafficked, which is a significant concern. Children have disappeared and the worry is that they have been re-trafficked into slavery.

The scope of the work is being developed further. I note what the hon. Lady has said about initial identification and support throughout the subsequent process. I would expect the trials to involve thorough and appropriate tests, in accordance with the optimal periods during which interventions can take place. I would also expect appropriate support to be provided for children who have come forward and are waiting for an initial assessment of the prima facie evidence relating to whether or not they have been trafficked. I recognise the genuine concern that has been expressed by Members and others about the provision of support, and I hope that my assurances will enable the House to support the Government in disagreeing with the Lords amendments.

[Mr Frank Field]

If a child was brought into this country and an immigration officer suspected that the child was being enslaved, could the child be referred to the advocate at that point so that the advocate would have a chance of separating the child and a slavemaster?

[James Brokenshire]

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Wigan, that all children who are dealt with by means of the national referral mechanism—with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar—will be provided with advocates as soon as they are identified as suspected victims of trafficking. We intend appropriate support to be provided as soon as children have been referred.

Let me now deal with Lords amendments 1 to 4. When the Bill left this House, clause 1 provided for regulations specifying, first, who would count as a family member for the purpose of removal and, secondly, the arrangements for giving notice of removal. The power to make regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument following the negative resolution procedure.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights asked why the original clause gave discretion over whether family members should be notified of removal when we had clearly stated during a debate that they would always be notified. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee believed that the definition of a family member should be in the Bill, and that delegation was inappropriate. The Lords amendments are designed to address all the concerns raised by the two Committees: they would insert in the Bill the definition of family members, the requirement always to notify them of removal, and the effect of the notice.

The Government have transformed the approach to returning families with children, in line with their commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. Lords amendments 5 to 9 and 29 to 34 give legislative effect to our current policies on family returns by putting key elements of the new process into primary legislation. That will guarantee that the fundamental elements of the approach cannot be changed without parliamentary oversight and debate.

First, the amendments prevent families from being removed for 28 days after any appeal against a refusal of leave has been completed. That will ensure that they will always have an opportunity to consider their options and avoid enforced return. Secondly, we are placing the independent family returns panel on a statutory footing: its advice must be sought on how best to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in every family returns case in which return is enforced. Thirdly, we are providing specific legislative protection for unaccompanied children so that they are not held in immigration removal centres when we are trying to return them. Finally, we are providing a separate legal basis for pre-departure accommodation, independent of other removal centres. It will be used only for holding families with children and only within the existing maximum time limits.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and others have tabled some manuscript amendments to Lords amendments 6, 7 and 8, which were debated in Committee and again on Report in the other place. I am sympathetic to her intentions and the intentions of those who have supported her manuscript amendments. However, although I understand the motivation, her amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 6 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 7 would widen the definition of families in the family returns process and apply the 28-day period during which a child, relevant parent or carer may not be removed or required to leave the UK to parents who do not live with the child as part of a family unit. They would also stipulate that we could only separate a child from their parents for child protection reasons.

These amendments do not reflect the Government’s returns process. We will always seek to ensure that families remain together during their return, but there are exceptional circumstances in which temporary separation may be necessary. For example, where there is a public protection concern or, indeed, a risk to national security, a dangerous individual might not be considered a threat to their own children but could be a risk to the wider public and we would therefore need to remove them as soon as possible, which might require a family separation.

Manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 8 would mean no unaccompanied child could be detained under Immigration Act powers. Lords amendment 8 reflects the operational reality that unaccompanied children may need to be held for short periods in transit to a port of departure or at the port awaiting removal. These types of removal are rare, but if we do not hold children safely in very limited circumstances while they are travelling unaccompanied in and out of the UK, we increase the risk that they may come to harm by falling prey to traffickers or even absconding. Lords amendment 8 will ensure that detention is for the shortest possible time.

Lords amendments 10 and 11 deal with appeals, and the Government have reformed appeal rights in this Bill to reduce complexity and provide the most effective and appropriate remedy for all cases. Administrative review will provide a faster and cheaper way of correcting caseworking errors, but Lords amendment 10 provides further assurance. It requires that the Secretary of State commission the independent chief inspector within a year of clause 11 being commenced to prepare a report on administrative review. That report must address the specific concerns raised about the effectiveness and independence of administrative review. Lords amendment 11 makes a technical correction to clause 11(5), which provides that the tribunal may not hear a new matter that the Secretary of State has not considered unless the Secretary of State consents to its doing so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On the question of administrative review, is it not really a way of avoiding the inconvenience —from the Home Office’s point of view—of a proper appeal where the individual can be properly represented and the whole case be considered? Is it not just another example of trying to get rid of the impediments of any legal appeal system on behalf of the individual?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The administrative review process is already effective in identifying and correcting caseworking errors. From April to December 2013, 93% of these administrative reviews were completed within 28 days, and 21% of the administrative reviews requested resulted in the original decision being overturned. This shows that the review process can provide an effective way of correcting errors, and it does so in a speedy and efficient manner, so that periods of uncertainty are addressed. I do not think it does anyone any good to have long and protracted periods of uncertainty. Indeed, we are in the perverse position of having 17 rights of appeal, which are being reduced to four, to ensure that matters are dealt with effectively and appropriately, supplementing the administrative review process outlined in the Bill.

The Bill also requires landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. That is dealt with in Lords amendments 12 to 15. The scheme includes statutory codes of practice giving the technical detail of how it operates. Lords amendments 12 to 15 address concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to ensure that those codes have parliamentary oversight.

Lords amendments 25 to 28 deal with student accommodation. The Bill already excluded some student halls of residence from the proposed landlord checking requirement. We concluded that there was scope to go further and broaden the exemption for student accommodation. Educational institutions already have a duty to check the immigration status of their international students, and we do not want there to be double-checking of these persons. The changes therefore strike a sensible balance and minimise regulatory burdens on higher education institutions.

Lords Amendments 17, 35 and 36, which were proposed by Lord Avebury in the other place, correct an historical anomaly relating to the treatment of illegitimate children. Nationality law is complex, and anomalies arise, particularly as aspects of family life have changed since the time of the British Nationality Act 1981. In 2006, amendments to the 1981 Act enabled illegitimate children to inherit nationality from a British father in the same way as a legitimate child. Those amendments were not made retrospective. To have done so could have itself caused problems for individuals who were now adult and had made a life for themselves in a different nationality. These amendments enable illegitimate children born to British fathers before 2006 to register as British if they choose to do so, correcting a historical anomaly by providing a route to citizenship for those who want to take it.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for the Government’s support for these amendments, which I tried to put in the Bill but encountered some technical difficulties. Will he join me in paying tribute to those who campaigned for many years to get this injustice changed? People such as Tabitha Sprague, Antonia Fraser Fujinaga and Maureen Box tried very hard, and the many thousands affected by this will be delighted that the Government are now fixing it.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise those who have made the case for this change for some considerable time, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to support these amendments in the other place. I hope that this House will be equally able to support them here. It is important to recognise that they have addressed an historical anomaly and now allow that opportunity to the individuals affected of a route to citizenship that was not available to them before.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The Minister rightly says that we are dealing with an historical anomaly, and that makes the case for introducing this part of the Bill and commencing it as early as possible. I hope that he can assure the House that he will put his foot on the accelerator to do that, because my constituent whose case prompted Lord Avebury to table these amendments is still stuck in limbo and, like other people, he would like to be able to remedy his situation.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I have certainly heard the points she has made.

I know that others wish to speak to their manuscript amendments, but let me just say that Lords amendment 19 clarifies that the Bill does not limit the duty regarding the welfare of children imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that her functions in relation to immigration, asylum and nationality are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. That duty continues to apply, and nothing in the Bill impinges on it.

Lords amendment 20 relates to some technical changes concerning the bank accounts measures. Lords amendments 21 to 23 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, ensuring that, where appropriate, affirmative procedure processes apply in respect of certain notices and certain aspects of the sham marriage provisions contained in part 4 of the Bill. I believe that the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendments 16 and 24, improve the provisions, making them clearer and more workable in practice.

[Mr Hanson]

I, again, thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to the Government’s position on the Lords amendments. I am here to maintain Her Majesty’s official Opposition’s support for them and wish the Government to reflect on that again during today’s debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Butler-Sloss for tabling her amendments in the other place. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for scrutinising the evidence for the draft Modern Slavery Bill. I have heard what the Minister said about the proposals on a pilot and the enabling power in such a Bill, but I remain unconvinced that that will lead to the action that we want and, indeed, the action that the other place has proposed for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.

[James Brokenshire]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to accept the Lords amendments because he feels that they are right, but that if he does so, it would not allow any further consideration by the Lords in terms of reflecting on what I have said from the Front Bench.

[Mr Hanson]

Their lordships have expressed their view clearly, and what the Minister has said today is known already. He announced that he had said in January that he would have pilots on the matter. The draft Modern Slavery Bill has been scrutinised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, and there is a template that we should support, and that is why I reject the Government’s proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

I have tabled a series of manuscript amendments today to seek clarification from the Minister. I hope that he will have an opportunity to respond to my points at the end of the debate.

Let me deal first with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 8, which is my principal concern. The ending of routine detention of children in the immigration system is one of the areas of which I am most proud in my record in government. The Government can be extremely proud of that and it has made a significant difference to many children’s lives. Many thousands of children used to be detained in the immigration system and there is significant evidence of the harm that that causes to children’s mental health.

It was very hard work to get to the 2010 agreement, which followed a painstaking process of negotiation, but it has made a significant difference. Trying to enshrine it in legislation is an extremely positive step and it is important that what happened before can never happen again, but with these issues the devil is always in the detail. I am not yet persuaded that the amendments, which we have not had an opportunity to debate as they were tabled in the Lords, have the detail correct.

I have a number of questions, which I have not been able to get answers to in private, so I hope that the Minister might be able to answer them today. I tabled amendment (a) because I do not understand why we would reasonably need powers to detain unaccompanied children in this way. As drafted, the Government amendments afford less protection to unaccompanied children than to those who have a claim as part of a family. If they are with their family, the family returns panel process is enacted. No such protection applies to unaccompanied children.

If a family needs to be held prior to deportation for a short period of time they are held in Cedars, which has Barnardo’s and specialist social workers working with it and has a carefully designed process to ensure that the welfare of children is paramount. An unaccompanied child who needs to be held for a short period of time will be held in a holding facility, and at the moment they do not have any rules for best practice. Successive Governments have held that question in abeyance and my colleague Lord Avebury has managed to drag out of the Government a commitment finally to try to bring forward some rules. I am very pleased to see that, but the conditions are very different from those in Cedars.

The amendments, as drafted, do not quite meet the Government’s guidelines. I acknowledge that there is currently no time limit for the detention of unaccompanied minors, so the 24-hour limit in the Government’s amendments is at least a step forward, but chapter 31 of the immigration and nationality directorate instructions states that

“detention will occur only on the day of the planned removal to enable the child to be properly and safely escorted to their flight and/or to their destination.”

Although the amendments imply that people could be held overnight, the rules do not suggest that, so I would appreciate the Minister’s response on that point. I see that he is dealing with a matter of whipping, so I do not know whether he heard me. Perhaps he can be refuelled from the Box to ensure that that point is answered.

Chapter 45 of the enforcement instructions and guidance states:

“Unaccompanied children (i.e. persons under the age of 18) must only ever be detained in very exceptional circumstances, for the shortest possible time and with appropriate care”.

The new clause inserted by Lords amendment 8 also contains the power for unaccompanied children to be removed without removal directions already being in place so long as the decision whether or not to give such directions is likely to be positive from the Home Office’s point of view. That does not seem to me to be very satisfactory.

The serious question is: why do we need to detain unaccompanied children at all? I have asked officials about particular cases in which this might apply, and they gave me the example of a Japanese student who wanted to come to the UK to study but found that the institution they were going to study at had suddenly been dissolved. We would need to put them on a plane rapidly, so we would have to hold them for a short period of time. The Minister gave the example of someone who might have to be detained for their own safety to prevent them from being trafficked. That makes me sigh, because it is a typical Home Office response. The Home Office always assumes that the natural reaction to any problem is enforcement, but our duty in this case is protection rather than enforcement. We tend to mistake those two things and it is a psychological trait of the Home Office always to assume that the answer is enforcement and that is precisely why it cannot always be trusted to come up with policy in this area.

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Sarah Teather]

I am sorry that the Minister is upset, but it means that he has heard me.

If an unaccompanied, vulnerable child turns up at a police station, the police do not put them in a cell, but get in touch with social services. Why can we not do the same for unaccompanied children who come here as migrants or to apply for asylum? Why do we need to detain them? Surely our duty is to protect them. There is plenty of legislation that allows us to do that, and I have not heard an example of detention being required as opposed to protection with appropriate powers of social services.

What really bothers me is whether this is a preamble to a more significant change in policy on the forced removal of unaccompanied, asylum-seeking children. Currently, the United Kingdom does not routinely remove unaccompanied, asylum-seeking children, but it is probably the worst kept secret that the Home Office wants to be able forcibly to remove more unaccompanied children, particularly to Albania and Afghanistan. My concern is that the Government’s amendment leaves wide open the possibility of a drastic expansion of forced removal of children. Instead of moving towards the ending of detention of children for immigration purposes, the clause could allow more unaccompanied children to be detained for the purposes of removal. I am desperately hoping that the Minister will tell me that my fears are ill founded, and I will be delighted if he does so. I hope that he can answer my other specific points about why we cannot simply involve social services and protect children in the small number of such cases instead of detaining them using enforcement powers.

My amendments to Government amendments 6 and 7 also relate to child detention and essentially ask for clarification and strengthening of our 2010 commitment not to split families to achieve compliance with the immigration process. The Minister will be aware that Barnardo’s, which works closely with the Government at Cedars, has produced a report stating that family splits are, unfortunately, sometimes used to effect enforcement of immigration provisions. We agreed in 2010 that we would not do that, and my amendments seek to strengthen that commitment and to make it clearer. In particular, there are sometimes cases when a parent lives away from the family temporarily. The obvious case is when they are in immigration detention, but similar cases are when someone has been sectioned, is in hospital or is in prison. I am worried that the legislation as drafted does not capture such cases or consider the best interests of children, and is not in the spirit of the agreement that we negotiated in 2010.

Finally, I tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 19 to clarify that the best interests of the child should continue to be a primary consideration in all cases involving children. The Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the Government, saying that they have

“not explained how in practice the provisions in the Bill are to be read alongside the section 55 duty. Without such explanation there is a danger that front-line immigration officials administering the legal regime will be unclear about the relationship between the children duty in section 55 and the new tests introduced by the Bill which use different and unfamiliar language.”

Lords amendment 19 goes some way to meeting that concern, and I explored some of the issues in amendments tabled on Report. It confirms that it is necessary to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK, but I am worried that it does not go far enough because the section 55 duty applies only to the Home Secretary and not to the courts. My amendment makes it clear that consideration of children’s welfare should always be the primary concern. That is necessary because there is growing evidence that recent immigration rules are negatively impacting on decision makers’ understanding of what factors should be taken into account when considering the best interests of children. For example, research last year by Greater Manchester’s immigration aid unit into unaccompanied, asylum seeking children found that, in seven of 10 cases analysed, the Home Office failed to carry out any determination of the child’s best interests. Similarly, last year’s audit of Home Office procedures by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees highlighted the lack of any systematic collection or recording of information necessary to determine a child’s best interests. That includes the lack of a process to obtain the view of the child. This proposal simply tries to make sure that the Government do the things they say are their priority. At the moment, the Bill still leaves some confusion.

--- Later in debate ---

Overall, the bulk of the Lords amendments are sensible and I hope they will be accepted. I think that the Minister has good reason for wishing us to reject two of the Lords amendments, and I do not think the manuscript amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central would improve the Bill. In fact, I think they have the potential to damage the interests of children and I hope the House will reject them.

[James Brokenshire]

This has been a useful opportunity to touch on a number of important issues. In some ways, we have strayed from the strict provisions of the Bill—understandably, I think—particularly with regard to trafficking and the protection of children.

On the pilots and the point of referral, I reassure the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that the intention is to refer all children suspected of being victims of trafficking to the national referral mechanism. They will be allocated a child trafficking advocate at the point of identification. The advocate will be able to provide support as soon as the child is identified in those first crucial hours. I think that is the point the hon. Lady made. In other words, the child advocate will be available when a child has been identified and the intention is to make a referral to the NRM. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks. I recognise that, during the initial hours in which a child is identified, they will be very vulnerable and questions will be asked about what should happen to them, so they will need an advocate to support them during that early phase. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to provide that clarification.

In response to the Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I have clearly set out our approach to the enabling power. It is important that we crack on with the trials and get those pilots under way, so that effective support can be provided quickly—that children will benefit and that we have the statutory underpinning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied by that and that he supports Lords amendment 16, although it deals only with cross-border cases and covers those up to the age of 21. There is clearly a difference between us. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the points made by the Government and recognise our clear intent and commitment to seek to provide such support.

I want to address head-on the point about student accommodation made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who I know takes a close interest in the issue of support for students and in the sector generally. A tenancy can be offered on a conditional basis when the visa is processed, and we will deal with that point when making the necessary codes and regulations to implement the scheme. I am sure that he will take a close interest in that further detail when it is published after the passage of the Bill. I hope that that clarification will help him and the sector at this time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) highlighted several points, particularly about unaccompanied children. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) commented on the short-term need—the period in which social services should respond to the arrival of an unaccompanied minor in the UK—and the provision is intended to cover precisely those circumstances. I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about the tremendous work done by Barnardo’s, and she was right to draw attention to the support it provides at Cedars, but that support is intended for a longer period. In relation to unaccompanied children, we are talking about hours, rather than any longer period. Cedars can obviously provide support for a period of days in certain circumstances, as she knows. No unaccompanied child can be detained, but the operational reality is that unaccompanied children may need to be held for short periods in transit to a port of departure or while waiting after their arrival.

We will always seek to ensure that families remain together during their return, although temporary separation may sometimes be necessary to ensure that a family can return safely. We would not separate a family solely for a compliance reason; it will be done only when it is considered to be in the best interests of children for them temporarily to be separated from their parent or when the presence of one of the parents or carers is not conducive to the public good.

On the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central on Lords amendment 19, the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK—

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

12. What progress she has made on reducing abuse of the student visa system.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The Government have overhauled the student visa route with a range of measures to combat abuse, while continuing to attract the brightest and best students to the UK’s world-class universities. Our reforms have resulted in 700 education providers being removed as sponsors to bring students into the UK. The total number of tier 4 student visas has fallen by a third since 2010, while visa applications from university students continue to increase.

[Jason McCartney]

I welcome the clampdown on abuses of the student visa system, but will the Minister assure the House that our world-class universities, including my local award-winning university, Huddersfield university, where overseas students come from more than 120 countries, will still be allowed to grow their courses with these students from around the globe? May I invite the Minister to come and visit Huddersfield university?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing his local university, and I note from the latest statistics that the total number of non-EU students at the university of Huddersfield has risen by 16%. I am happy to meet him to discuss the position further, but there has been abuse of the student visa system and we are tackling this while placing no limit on the number of genuine international students, whom we welcome to our world-class universities.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Although it is quite right that action should be taken against bogus colleges, does the Minister accept that both the tone and the nature of some of the Government’s actions have created an impression, widely understood by very reputable higher education institutions, that it is now less easy for able students from many parts of the world, including the Indian sub-continent, to gain access to courses here for legitimate study?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that. I note that the Higher Education Funding Council for England published a report on 10 April indicating that student entrants were up. We continue to work with colleagues across Government. It is notable that we have seen new entrants from key markets including China, Malaysia and Hong Kong. We very much welcome international students to study at our fantastic universities.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

18. Does my hon. Friend accept that although of course we warmly welcome students from all over the world to our excellent universities, they must leave when they are meant to do so? May I suggest that he encourages the universities themselves to play a greater part in seeing to it that that happens?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. There has been abuse of the system, with people coming to this country not to study, but to work. We have worked closely with the universities sector, and there has been a successful pilot with one university to encourage universities to see that students do leave at the end of their studies. We will continue to roll that out, as well as working with immigration enforcement to see that those who are not entitled to be here do leave.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Has the Minister seen the comments from Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow university, who says that this Government are in effect saying to international students, “Don’t come here, we’re closed for business, closed for education”? I know that the Home Office—I hear the Home Secretary saying this—always thinks it knows better than the Scottish academic and university community, but will the Minister at least acknowledge that we have a bit of an issue with this?

[James Brokenshire]

There is no limit on the number of students who can legitimately come to this country to study. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics and the information, he will see that the number of visa applications coming to universities has gone up by 7%. We continue to underline that this country welcomes students to our world-class universities in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of trends in the level of charges brought for violent crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

20. What steps she is taking to secure the UK’s borders.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Our borders are significantly more secure than they were in 2010. This Government have created Border Force as a separate command, extended coverage of exit checks and put in place a rigorous operating mandate requiring 100% passenger checks at primary controls. We have also established the border policing command as part of the National Crime Agency to tackle organised crime at the border.

[Paul Maynard]

The Minister will be aware that the common border area facilitates passport-free travel with the Republic of Ireland, but what steps has he taken to improve the quality of passenger lists being handed over by Irish airports and Irish airlines to assist the police in monitoring the border?

[James Brokenshire]

I can tell my hon. Friend that there is excellent co-operation between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to prevent abuse of the common travel area by strengthening the external border. The joint UK-Ireland programme of work focuses on aligned visa policy and processes, investment in border procedures, increased data sharing and unified passenger data systems to achieve the end results my hon. Friend is calling for.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

21. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of existing legislation for tackling child sexual exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T8. The Government are rightly proud of having ended the shameful practice of child detention for immigration purposes. If those children are ultimately to be detained, is it not incumbent on the Home Office to ensure that their cases have been fully resolved before they turn 18, or, failing that, to be consistent in its approach until those cases have been completed?

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important steps that the Government have taken in banning the detention of children. Indeed he will also recognise the work of the family returns panel, which analyses those cases to assess whether it is appropriate for a child to be returned and in what circumstances.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The criminalisation of the drug mephedrone, once a legal high, resulted in a 300% increase in its use in my area. Will the Government look at the practical new approach that is being tried in New Zealand, whereby the responsibility for the safety of legal highs is being placed on those who profit from the sale of them?

Asylum Seekers (Support)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on support provided to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers under sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Asylum seekers are supported by the Home Office if they are destitute. The support package usually consists of accommodation, with gas, electricity, water and other utilities provided free, plus a weekly cash allowance to cover essential living needs. The cash allowance is currently £36.62 a week for a single adult, but it is higher in cases where there are children in the household. A family of two adults and two children would receive approximately £180 a week.

The Government completed a full review of payment levels in June 2013. The review concluded that the levels were sufficient to meet essential living needs. That decision was challenged in the courts by Refugee Action, a group that campaigns for asylum seekers, and the court issued its judgment yesterday. It decided that there were some errors in the way in which the 2013 review had been conducted. It found, for example, that items such as household cleaning products and non-prescription medicines should have been considered as essential and therefore factored into the overall assessment of the adequacy of the payment levels. The court did not decide that the current payment levels were too low. That question will be considered by the Government in a fresh review of the payment levels. We are of course considering the full implications of the judgment, and whether or not to appeal.

[Sarah Teather]

The Minister is correct to say that yesterday’s judgment did not comment on the generosity of the levels, but it was absolutely damning about the process that the Home Secretary had used in order to come to her decision. It found that she had misunderstood or misapplied information, that she did not know, or ignored, basic aspects of her Government’s education policy, and that she had failed to gather sufficient information. She has been told to go away and do the whole thing again.

Is not the problem that this decision is a personal fiefdom of the Home Secretary, driven entirely by base political motives? She can and does ignore detailed representations by other Ministers across the Government. She can and does ignore parliamentarians, including the findings of a cross-party inquiry that I chaired last year. She can and does ignore the pleas of those who work with victims of torture, who say that she is exacerbating their trauma and forcing them into severe poverty. It is an indictment of the current process that Refugee Action and the Migrants Law Project had to take the Home Secretary to court to get any kind of oversight of the process.

Is it not simply time for Ministers to accept that the Home Office cannot be trusted to make a rational or humane decision alone on this matter, and to submit to a transparent process with cross-government oversight, which might improve its data and force the Home Secretary to come to Parliament to announce them? Finally, does the Minister accept that half this agony would be avoided if the Government allowed asylum seekers to work and pay their own way, as many of the highly skilled individuals who come here seeking sanctuary are desperate to do?

[James Brokenshire]

The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and the Government are committed to providing support to those who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are being considered. The payment levels to asylum seekers need to be considered as part of the overall support package. Accommodation—plus utilities such as gas and electricity —is provided free.

I do not accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the assessment process. A detailed assessment was concluded last June and, indeed, we will carry out a further assessment of levels this year to take into account relevant factors and to assess whether there should be any change. I can certainly assure her that we will consider these matters very carefully.

My hon. Friend makes various comments on the judgment itself. It is a very detailed judgment—it runs to about 90 pages and the Home Office is analysing the detail carefully and, indeed, whether we will be appealing it.

The Home Office takes its responsibilities in respect of asylum support extremely seriously in setting the rates and considering what is appropriate. We believe that it does provide support to enable those who seek asylum and who are destitute to see that their claims are decided, and that support is given to them during that process.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising the issue, which, as she mentioned, is about the basic level of support given to those fleeing torture, rape or oppression and who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

Given that the rate was frozen in 2011 and has now been frozen through to 2013-14, yesterday’s judgment was damning. The Home Secretary was ordered to review the amount of money given to support asylum seekers after the High Court ruled that she had used insufficient evidence in deciding to freeze those payments. In his judgment the judge said the decision was “flawed” and that the Home Secretary

“misunderstood or misapplied information which she treated as important in reaching her decision.”

He added:

“In my judgment the information used by the Secretary of State to set the rate of asylum support was simply insufficient to reach a rational decision to freeze rates.”

In the judge’s view, the rates involved

“a reduction in real terms from what was regarded in 2007 as the base minimum level necessary to avoid destitution.”

Remember, Mr Speaker, that these are individuals who cannot work. In the light of that, will the Minister—he has hinted at this—indicate whether he intends to appeal that decision? If he does intend to, will he tell the House how much has been spent to date on legal costs in defending the decision to freeze the rates and how much he expects to spend on any appeal? Will he estimate the number of individuals who are involved? The judge yesterday mentioned some 23,000, but I should welcome confirmation. I should welcome confirmation also on how many of those 23,000—if that is the figure—have children who now face destitution because of the freeze.

If the appeal is made and is not successful, will any new rates be applied from today, or from 2011? What estimate has the Minister made of the impact of any unsuccessful appeal on the level of rates?

Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Member for Brent Central asked for, which is what Refugee Action and, indeed, the Refugee Council, which I spoke to this morning, have asked for, namely a wider examination of the review of and support for asylum seekers—not failed asylum seekers, but asylum seekers fleeing torture, oppression, fear or intimidation, and who cannot, I remind the House, work?

What assessment has the Minister made of those currently in receipt of assistance who now face this freeze? Has he made any assessment, in particular, of the impact on children? Will he ensure that he urgently reviews recommendation 82 of the Home Affairs Committee’s unanimous report of 11 October last year, which asked for a review of section 4 support? How many asylum seekers does the Home Secretary’s Department believe cannot now buy enough food to feed themselves, as referred to in that report? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe missed a meal because they could not afford to eat? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe do not have money to buy clothes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just say for the record that the right hon. Gentleman certainly has the right to ask those questions, and I would not for one moment seek to stop him, but we all have to operate to time limits. I say in the most charitable possible way to him that his intervention was longer both than that of the hon. Lady who put the urgent question and of the Minister, so there does need to be some trimming on these occasions. Two minutes is allowed, not four.

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not think the value of cash and non-cash support is ungenerous when taken as a whole. He talks about the position of children and families. A family of four on section 95 support would receive £178.44 per week to spend on essential needs, with their accommodation, utility bills, council tax, household equipment, health care and schooling provided. In that context, we believe the support given is appropriate.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of detailed questions. On the support provided under section 95, accommodation is provided to 22,372 people and the cash-only payments are provided to about 2,688 people. He sought to press me on whether we would seek to appeal this judgment. The judgment was handed down yesterday, it is lengthy and detailed, and it is right that the Home Office should reflect carefully on it to determine whether or not an appeal is appropriate.

The judgment does not seek to challenge the current levels of support provided; it simply seeks to comment on the detail of the review undertaken last year. I maintain that that review was properly assessed and took into consideration relevant details and matters for an assessment of the level of support. It concluded that the support should be frozen at its current level. The right hon. Gentleman gave a churlish characterisation of the steps that the Government take in their support on asylum. We work to uphold this country’s proud tradition in ensuring that those fleeing persecution can receive support and humanitarian assistance in this country. That is long standing, and we should welcome and cherish it. His comments were entirely ill-judged.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The level is clearly too low—it is about half that of income support—and of course we are talking about people the Minister will not allow to work for themselves. Is not the big problem simply that the Government are too slow to make decisions? Some 36% of asylum seekers wait more than six months for an initial decision—surely that should be speeded up, which would save the Government a lot of money in supporting them.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the process on asylum claims. It is important to recognise that there has been a growth in the number of people seeking asylum in this country—the increase has been about 8%, although that is not as big as has been seen in some other European countries because of continuing crises in various parts of the world. Some decisions do take too long, but the Government are addressing the problem: most decisions are dealt with quickly. In 2012-13, 78% of decisions were made within six months. I agree that decisions should be taken more quickly. Our visa and immigration command is looking at this work carefully and is putting more caseworkers in place to support that activity, which is important.

My hon. Friend makes a connection in respect of the rate of support and Department for Work and Pensions levels, but asylum support is provided for different purposes. It is provided to meet essential living needs only and is temporary in nature. I highlight the fact that there are other services—accommodation and utilities—that are provided free which other benefits would seek to take into account.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This ought to trigger a review by the Home Office of its asylum policy, given the points raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others about the very slow response to initial applications and in dealing with those who wish to appeal against an initial refusal—many of these appeals are granted. Will the Minister look at the misery, destitution and waste of human resources that comes from keeping asylum seekers in desperate poverty, and not allowing them to work and contribute to our society and economy?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree that it is important to take decisions as speedily as possible to ensure that those who are entitled to the full humanitarian protection of this country receive that support and can continue with their lives, and that those who are not entitled can then be removed from this country so that the system is seen to be upheld.

We judge that the levels of support are appropriate, but we keep them under review. We will be reviewing the level of current support in the coming months, as I have committed to do in this House.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given that one of the most basic needs of any asylum seeker is to have a roof over his or her head, will the Minister explain a little bit more about emergency accommodation, or is it the case that asylum seekers are among those to be found sleeping rough?

[James Brokenshire]

The support that is provided to those seeking asylum includes accommodation. There are provisions relating to temporary support as well as to the section 95 support that has been referenced in this urgent question. The Government have put in place a new contract arrangement, the COMPASS contract, to provide those services. Obviously, we believe that that is now delivering more effective service and more effective value for money. Clearly, we keep such matters under review.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister identified that a family of four would be in receipt of £178 a week, which equates to about £44.50 per person. Does he understand that many children who attend schools—certainly in my constituency in Brent North—will undertake one and often two bus journeys each day to get to their school? Many of them will have medical problems from the country from which they have fled, which means that they have to attend hospitals, and have travel costs associated with that. Has he taken that into account when considering that each day, for five days a week, they may be paying £10 of the £44.50 that they have for food simply on transport?

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, we understand the differing needs of families as opposed to individuals, which is why the rates are set at different levels depending on individual family circumstances. The need for additional support is recognised and provided for in respect of children, and the rates are adjusted to take their needs into account. None the less, we keep such matters under review. I can confirm again that we will be reviewing the levels of support provided in the months ahead, and we will be reflecting on a range of factors in conducting that review.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

When I was elected four years ago, I inherited a huge case load of immigration cases. To my horror, we had asylum cases that went back more than 10 years. These people who are not allowed to work in this country were on the point of destitution. Does my hon. Friend agree that good progress has been made in resolving those cases, but the most important thing is to ensure that cases are resolved quickly so that people know whether to stay or go?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that proper decisions are taken at the earliest practical opportunity. It is the uncertainty he highlighted that causes some of the challenges that we have to face if people reside in this country for long periods. That is why UK Visas and Immigration is putting additional caseworkers into the asylum area to see whether decisions can be taken more swiftly, and to bring matters up to service standard by March next year to deal with these cases. That is to ensure that there is roughly only two months’ intake outstanding. It is right that we continue to focus on this matter.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the level of support was right in 2011, it is hard to believe that, given the increase in basic living standard costs over the past three years, it is still right in 2014. Would it not be sensible to agree an interim increase at this stage, pending the review that, as the Minister said, will take at least some months?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, the court judgment does not state that the current levels are incorrect. It is important that we reflect carefully on all current matters in conducting the review that we will undertake in the next few months. I certainly would not want to prejudge the outcome of that or our decision about whether we appeal the court judgment.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, does my hon. Friend not agree that the recently launched scheme to help refugees fleeing Syria and the atrocities there underlines our country’s proud record of helping asylum seekers and those in need?

[James Brokenshire]

We have accepted a significant number of people who have fled persecution in Syria. As at September last year, the number of asylum claims that had been received in the year was about 1,100. We also have the vulnerable person relocation scheme, which underlines our humanitarian support for those fleeing an appalling conflict in which people have been displaced across the region. The UK can be proud of the contribution that we are making.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

If the Home Office is truly committed to the welfare of asylum seekers, why have the Government this very month withdrawn face-to-face advice for asylum seekers in Wrexham, a dispersal centre, through the awarding of the contract to Migrant Help? What kind of message does that send to these vulnerable people?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, we have changed the arrangements for support and guidance, but we continue to maintain that that provides appropriate support and help. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman might take a different view of the services given, but, on Migrant Help, I believe that our relationship with the voluntary sector continues to be important. We want to continue to work with the voluntary sector, and the new service model, which is being introduced from 1 April, is aimed at testing the marketplace and gaining value for money. UK Visas and Immigration will closely monitor development to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and we are committed to ensuring that asylum seekers have access to quality advice and support.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has just referred to refugees and asylum seekers from Syria and he will know that neighbouring countries have reached absorption point when it comes to the numbers they can help, so this is now a problem for the whole of Europe and this country. What impact is that increased demand having on the level of funding for asylum support?

[James Brokenshire]

We have seen an increase in the number of people seeking asylum from different parts of the globe. Syria is one of those and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the dire humanitarian situation there. The UK can be proud of the £600 million that has been invested to provide direct support for those in need in the region. We are continuing to see increased intake levels, which will, I am sure, feed through in terms of additional support that might be required.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is right: we have a proud tradition in our country, a tradition that is often kept alive by the third sector—by the charities and by the Churches, the Quakers in particular. It is not just a question of value for money. Can we have a change of attitude today so that we see those groups as partners and incentivise them, work with them and value them?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, we see an important and valuable role for the voluntary and non-governmental sector. Indeed, many fantastic organisations provide support services to migrants and asylum seekers, which I want to encourage and to see supported. It is important that the system delivers effective services and, ultimately, value for money.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Very few direct links exist between asylum sources and this country, yet we seem to be a temporary home for many asylum seekers from all over the world. Why is that?

[James Brokenshire]

In 2013, the number of asylum applications in the EU was the highest since 2002. The UK has experienced a rise, but countries such as Germany and France saw increases of 164% and 37% respectively between 2010 and 2013. We are committed to resolving cases more quickly, and we provide direct assistance to regions in crisis, such as Syria, so that people do not need to travel to the UK or elsewhere to seek that assistance.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Will the Minister not acknowledge that to replace services provided in my area by the North East Refugee Service with a simple telephone call is detrimental to the cohesion of services that work together in that locality?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Again, I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but we believe that the new support arrangements are appropriate and provide assistance to those who require that direct help. We keep this matter under review, and UK Visas and Immigration will continue to monitor developments.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

We should, of course, provide support to genuine asylum seekers in genuine need, but most of my constituents take the view that there are too many asylum seekers in this country. It takes too long to process their claims and deport them when they are not genuine, and no one should be granted asylum if they have travelled through another safe country to get to this country. What happened to the Dublin convention whereby we returned asylum seekers to the last safe country that they left?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Dublin convention, and the fact that those in need of humanitarian protection should seek assistance in the first country that they arrive in. That is something that we make clear in our discussions at EU level. He is also right about ensuring that decisions are made quickly, which is why we have made changes to the old architecture of the UK Border Agency that existed under the last Government and introduced visas and immigration to make decisions more quickly and the immigration enforcement command to see that people are returned.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be proud of the UK’s record in providing a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution. I am sure that we do not want to see people destitute, but what representations has he received from the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on what increases to the rate they would wish to introduce?

[James Brokenshire]

I have received no representations to date that I am aware of, but I will check when I get back to the Home Office to see whether there is anything to which I can alert the House. Clearly, we are reflecting carefully on the court judgment and will determine what next steps may be appropriate.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Providing support to refugees in the region is nothing new. It was put forward by the previous Government, by the then Minister, Clare Short, in relation to the Kosovo crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree that, on that basis, what we are doing is in line with what has been done before?

[James Brokenshire]

This country has a proud tradition of providing humanitarian assistance in regions that are in need, and I have highlighted the support that has been given as part of the Syrian crisis. All Governments have a proud record on consistently upholding our asylum system and ensuring that protection is provided to those fleeing persecution who come to this country, and that those who are destitute are given appropriate assistance, which is what this Government are doing and will maintain.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right not to be bounced into an early decision on yesterday’s complicated judgment, because we need to get the right balance between fulfilling our humanitarian responsibilities and ensuring that the system is not open to abuse. What representations has he had from respected children’s charities about their assessment of the impact these measures may be having on the welfare of children involved?

[James Brokenshire]

Representations are made on a range of different issues, and clearly we pay particular attention to the welfare of children. I understand and recognise my hon. Friend’s continuing interest in and focus on these matters. We keep these matters under consideration, but as I have already said, the level of asylum support provided to children properly recognises their additional needs and requirements, and we will keep our focus on that.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. In addition, it is important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We propose to add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which is also known as Ansar Jerusalem, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 14th proscription order under that Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, including the glorification of terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors. These are the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

When we proscribe an organisation that has links to other countries—the first two the Minister mentioned have links to Egypt; the second two have links to Tunisia—do we consult those countries before placing an order before the House? I support what the Minister is doing today, but I just want to be clear about the process. Did we tell those countries that the orders were on their way?

[James Brokenshire]

The orders are made after careful consideration, part of which involves input and consideration from the Foreign Office. That might or might not include co-operation or contact with individual Governments or authorities. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that such broad consideration is always given to these orders, in the light of the factors that I have identified, including the impact that they could have here in the UK and on British citizens overseas. There is a need to send out a clear message in relation to a number of these terrorist organisations.

I shall expand a little on the steps that are being undertaken. They include research into and investigation of open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across the government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making process by the cross-Whitehall proscription review group. The decision to proscribe is taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ABM, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia are currently concerned in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but it might help the House if I provide a brief summary of their activities.

Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis—ABM—is an al-Qaeda-inspired militant Islamist group based in the northern Sinai region of Egypt. The group is said to recruit within Egypt and abroad, and it aims to create an Egyptian state ruled by sharia law. ABM is assessed to have been responsible for a number of attacks on security forces in Egypt since 2011. The attacks appear to have increased since the overthrow of the Morsi Government in July 2013. The group’s reach goes beyond the Sinai region, in that it claims responsibility for a number of attacks in Cairo as well as cross-border attacks against Israel.

ABM has undertaken attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and surface-to-air missiles. I shall give the House some examples of attacks for which the group has claimed responsibility. They include an attack on the Egyptian Interior Minister in September 2013 in which a UK national was seriously injured; an attack on a police compound in Mansoura on 24 December 2013 that killed at least 16 people, including 14 police officers; an attack on an Egyptian police helicopter in the northern Sinai on 25 January 2014; the assassination of General Mohammed Saeed, an official in the interior ministry, on 28 January 2014; and an attack on a tourist bus in which three South Koreans and their Egyptian driver died on 16 January 2014.

The second group, Al Murabitun, resulted from a merger of two al-Qaeda in the Maghreb splinter groups that are active in Mali and Algeria: the Movement for the Unity and Jihad in West Africa, and Mokhtar Belmokhtar’s group, the Al Mulathamine Battalion, which included the commando element known as “Those Who Sign in Blood”. The merger was announced in a public statement in August 2013. The group aspires to unite Muslims from the Nile to the Atlantic, and has affirmed its loyalty to the al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the emir of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar. Al Murabitun’s first statement threatened France and its allies in the region, and called on Muslims to target French interests everywhere.

Belmokhtar has announced that he will not continue to lead the group to allow a new generation of jihadist leaders to come to the fore. Reports indicate that the new commander has fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and against the international intervention in Afghanistan in the 2000s. Although the group has not claimed responsibility for any terrorist attacks since the merger, both precursor groups participated in a number of terrorist attacks and kidnapping for ransom in the past 13 months. Belmokhtar’s group was responsible for the attack against the In Amenas gas facility in January 2013 that resulted in the death of more than 30 people, including Britons. In May 2013, the two groups targeted a military barracks in Agadez in Niger and a uranium mine in Arlit which supplies French nuclear reactors. The suicide attack in Agadez resulted in the deaths of at least 20 people. Shortly after the attacks, Belmokhtar indicated that they had been carried out as a form of revenge for the death of Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, an al-Qaeda in the Maghreb commander who was killed by French forces in northern Mali earlier in 2013. Despite previously separating themselves from al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, citing leadership issues and the desire to expand their control, both precursor groups continued to co-operate and fight alongside AQM fighters in Mali and other regions of west Africa—that activity has continued since the merger.

The Sahel region continues to see high threats of kidnap and terrorist attacks, which were further heightened following the French military intervention in Mali. Hostages are currently held in the Sahel and surrounding regions, which includes Algeria, Cameroon, Libya and Nigeria. The Canadians designated Belmokhtar’s group in November 2013 and the US designated it in December 2013, specifying Al Murabitun as an alias.

The third group, Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia—AAS-T—is a radical Islamist group founded in April 2011. The group aims to establish sharia law in Tunisia and eliminate western influence. Between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals may be attracted to rallies organised by the movement. The group is ideologically aligned to al-Qaeda and has links to al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. It is reported that the group announced its loyalty to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in September 2013.

AAS-T’s leader, Seif Allah Ibn Hussein, also known as Abu Ayadh al-Tunis, is a former al-Qaeda veteran combatant in Afghanistan. He has been hiding following the issue of a warrant for his arrest in relation to the allegation that he incited the attack on the US embassy in Tunis that killed four people in September 2012. Salafists believed to have links with AAS-T are assessed to be responsible for the attacks in October 2011 on a television station and the attack in June 2012 on an art exhibit. AAS-T is assessed to be responsible for the attacks on the US embassy and American school in Tunis in September 2012. The Tunisian Government believe AAS-T was responsible for the assassinations of two national coalition Assembly Members, those of Chokri Belaid in February 2013 and Mohamed Brahmi in July 2013. Additionally, elements of the group are believed to have been involved in the attempted suicide attack, in October 2013, at a hotel in a tourist resort in Sousse, where a significant number of British tourists were staying. More than 400,000 British tourists visited Tunisia last year. The Tunisian Government listed AAS-T as a terrorist group in 2013 and the US did so in January 2014.

Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 4 April. It is, of course, not appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“If a proscribed organisation…applies to the Secretary of State for deproscription, the proscription of the organisation will be reviewed.”

How does that work in practice? If an organisation and its members are illegal—proscribed—how do they have the locus to apply to be have the proscription reviewed?

[James Brokenshire]

Under the current regime, the organisation or person affected by a proscription can submit a written application to the Home Secretary requesting that she considers whether they or a specified organisation can be removed from the list of proscribed organisations. There is a process for this. The application should also state the grounds on which it is made, and the Home Secretary is required to determine the application within 90 days.

If the Secretary of State agrees to de-proscribe that organisation, she has to lay an order before Parliament removing it from the list of proscribed organisations. In practice, all the evidence and intelligence have to be considered across Whitehall. The order is then subject to the affirmative resolution process. In other words, it is a similar process to a proscription application. I have to say to the House that no de-proscription applications have been received since June 2009.[Official Report, 8 May 2014, Vol. 580, c. 3MC.]

[Keith Vaz]

On the process of de-proscription, I have raised it whenever these orders have gone through the House. The process is not as robust as it should be. David Anderson, the independent terrorism tsar—if we can call him that—has made specific suggestions to try to improve it. When I last raised this matter with the Minister, he said that he would come back to the House shortly—to use that classic phrase—and explain his views. Does he have views now on the process?

[James Brokenshire]

I did come back to the House on the last proscription order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to participate in that particular debate, but I did underline that it is the Government’s intention that de-proscription should be considered on receipt of an application setting out the grounds on which it is made. De-proscription will then be considered by the Home Secretary in accordance with the Terrorism Act 2000. In other words, it is on an application process, and that is the view to which we have come. Just to finish the point on this process, if the application is refused, there is an appeals process that operates through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The commission will allow an appeal if, after applying judicial review principles, it considers that the decision to refuse the proscription was flawed. I hope that that explains to the right hon. Gentleman the process that we adopt in these circumstances.

In conclusion, it is right that we add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, and I hope that the House will support the Government in that move.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate this afternoon. I am pleased to note that their contributions have supported the assessment of the Home Secretary and myself that Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al Murabitun and Ansar al Sharia-Tunisia should all be added to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.

Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and deters them from operating here. I know that a number of questions have been asked about the nature of any activity that those groups may undertake in the UK. Unfortunately I am unable to comment on intelligence matters but it is important to underline the point that the proscription regime is intended to deter activity in this country.

Fifty two international and 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations are already proscribed. To give a sense of the enforcement regime that has sat alongside that, I point out that, between 2001 and the end of March 2013, 32 people have been charged with proscription-related offences as a primary offence in Great Britain, and 16 have been convicted.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. As I indicated, that group has claimed responsibility for a number of cross-border attacks against Israel. That gives him some sense of its activity.

Another question asked was why now, rather than at a different time. Decisions on whether and when to proscribe an organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of all available information. It is important that decisions have a robust evidence base, do not have an adverse impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Those factors often sit within our thinking. There is a statutory test that needs to be met in connection with a decision to proscribe.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about speaking to parent countries when an order is laid. There may be discussions in advance of laying an order, and some groups are nominated for proscription by the parent country, to use that terminology. Ultimately, however, decisions have to be taken according to the national security interests of this country and those of our citizens overseas. Although I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s point, that is what must always drive our consideration. Therefore, I would not want to be bound in all circumstances. Even so, careful consideration is given to the matters.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), asked about social media. I can update the House that since 2010 the counter terrorism internet referral unit has taken down more than 29,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material from the internet. I underline the fact that any online activity by the three groups under consideration, including Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, has been referred to CTIRU. If it is assessed as illegal—there is a legal test that has to be met—CTIRU will flag it directly to Facebook and Twitter for removal.

I reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to have discussions with the industry and I take the issue extremely seriously. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East will attest, I also told the Home Affairs Committee, when we touched on social media, that we are considering whether a code of conduct and other, similar measures would be appropriate in order to ensure an effective response.

As I said during the previous proscription debate, the Government do not intend to set a time limit on proscription. We consider the existing de-proscription mechanism provided by the Terrorism Act 2000 to be sufficient. The legislation allows de-proscription to be considered on receipt of an application setting out the grounds on which it is being made. Any application will be considered by the Home Secretary, in accordance with the Act. In my opening speech, I set out some of the detail on the time limits, the processes and procedures and the consideration given in that regard. I hope that when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North examines Hansard tomorrow, she will see that I have set out the process and how it is intended to operate. Any information provided as part of a de-proscription application is given a number of statutory protections so that people should be able to come forward if appropriate.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been mentioned in this and a number of previous debates. It is not currently proscribed in the UK. Proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, is a concern. That statutory test needs to be satisfied in order to bring a proscription motion—an application order—before this House. The Government continue to have significant concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities very closely. Indeed, individual members of Hizb ut-Tahrir are, of course, subject to the general criminal law. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir and similar groups cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country.

The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of university campuses. Very good work has been undertaken with universities, the National Union of Students and others. Those of our regional Prevent co-ordinators who are focused on the university sector are providing good advice, information and knowledge to establishments and institutions in order better to support their work in understanding who may be coming to speak on a university campus and use their accommodation and facilities. We have also been supporting the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in important work to ensure that universities focus on any relevant activities.

[Keith Vaz]

It is really important that the issue of the internet has been raised by both Front Benchers. The Home Affairs Committee recently visited the headquarters of Google—I do not know whether the Minister has been there—to look at the work it is undertaking and the co-operation between the Home Office and the internet service providers that enables us to monitor very carefully those who wish to use the internet in order to prosecute inappropriate activity.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I touched on that issue a few moments ago. He will know that I mentioned it in my evidence to his Select Committee, which has recently had a session with Google. I recognise the Select Committee’s work to support community groups to harness social media and other technologies more effectively to ensure that there is a full and informed debate on the internet, not one simple narrative.

I have highlighted the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit, as well as our more general work and ongoing dialogue with the industry about what further steps can be taken. The CTIRU has reach in this country, but much of the material is hosted overseas. Some of the steps taken in and consideration given to combating child sexual exploitation imagery—ensuring that it is more effectively filtered and blocked—is learning that can be taken forward and applied in this area. That theme very much underpinned the recommendations of the extremism taskforce. We are continuing to do that work.

[Diana Johnson]

To return to the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, was the Prime Minister rash to promise that he would ban it?

[James Brokenshire]

The Prime Minister was very clear in underlining the concern about that group. As I have said, we continue to be concerned about that organisation, which is why we continue to monitor its activities. I have already told the House that the Government obviously have to be cognisant of the statutory tests in looking at all the evidence and deciding whether tests are satisfied. We do not comment on which organisations continue to be under review for proscription, so I will not be led down that path, but we have to be satisfied on the clear statutory tests in introducing an order in this House.

Another issue relates to groups changing their name. Section 3(6) of the 2000 Act allows the Home Secretary, by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation. We keep under close review whether organisations are seeking to use an alias. We have used that mechanism to introduce orders to add other names of proscribed organisations. I underline that the use of an alternative name that is not listed does not prevent the police and the Crown Prosecution Service from taking action against an individual for proscription offences. Such action is based on an assessment made by the police and the CPS.

I have commented on de-proscription. The right hon. Member for Leicester East has highlighted the LTTE—the Tamil Tigers—in the past. He congratulated me on my current role and the work in which I am engaged, and now that he is back in his place I want to recognise the many jobs that he does as an MP and Chair of the Select Committee—it does a broad spread of work in my areas of responsibility and other areas—and he is involved in other activities. I certainly congratulate him on the many jobs that he holds. He has raised the issue of de-proscription as Chair of the Select Committee, as well as in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We judge that the responsibility for it is as I explained in relation to the de-proscription process.

[Keith Vaz]

The Minister is so kind and I do not want this to turn into a love-in—after all, we are talking about terrorism—but may I point out that all those jobs are unpaid, apart from that of being an MP?

[James Brokenshire]

I would never imply otherwise. I merely highlight the enormous breadth of the right hon. Gentleman’s work and the importance of the Select Committee’s work. On that positive note—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the Minister is suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman is multifaceted, ubiquitous and selfless. Is that what he is saying?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I could not come up with a more eloquent description, so I will not tread on that territory.

The agreement of the House that the three organisations should be proscribed under the relevant legislation sends a strong message in respect of those groups and underlines our focus on securing this country from the threat of terrorism. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,

That the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

I have given further consideration to the point of order that was made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) earlier this afternoon. I realise that the question he raised deserves an urgent response, given that the deportation of the young woman is imminent.

This House does not interfere with the due process of law. It is not a contempt of the House for the Administration to continue a legal process, even when there is a possibility that it will clash with the wishes of a Select Committee. Ultimately, it is not for the Chair but for the House to decide questions of privilege and contempt. That said, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that line, there are established ways of doing so after the fact, if need be. To put it simply, if he is alleging that there has been a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, our process requires that he write to me to make that allegation. I would then consider whether the issue should be given precedence in the deliberations of the House. I hope that that is helpful.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about Yarl’s Wood.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our very sincere condolences to the family of the woman who died at Yarl’s Wood yesterday. This was tragic news, and I was certainly very sorry to receive the information. The House will understand that what I can say at this stage is limited.

The established procedure in this situation is to bring in the police to look at the circumstances. Bedfordshire police are currently leading that work. No cause of death has yet been established. Once police inquiries are concluded, the established process is that the prisons and probation ombudsman will begin an investigation. That will happen in this case. However, our focus in the immediate aftermath must be to support the family and to keep public comment to a minimum until the circumstances of yesterday’s sad news become clearer.

Following any death in detention, we ensure that detainees are offered counselling and access to a support plan. We review the detention of any individual in the centre who is considered to be vulnerable and ensure that they are given appropriate support. That also applies to staff working in the detention centre.

What I can say, in general, is that the operation of immigration removal centres is a serious responsibility that falls to the Home Office. Nobody involved in this work is in any doubt about the seriousness of the role. In taking on my role as Minister for Security and Immigration, I made it an early responsibility to visit an immigration removal centre to help me understand fully the range of issues connected to detention in such an environment; I visited Brook House and Tinsley House in February.

Like other immigration removal centres, Yarl’s Wood is subject to oversight from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, whose most recent report was published last October. There were some key recommendations for the Home Office to review. However, the assessment of the regime in general was that it was improving. I commend to the House Nick Hardwick’s overall introduction to the report, which succinctly highlights the difficult circumstances of women in detention and the improvements that have been made to the regime. The report, and the Home Office’s response to its recommendations, have both been placed in the Library.

The responsibility for the detention of immigration offenders is taken seriously by everyone involved; I underline that it is a personal responsibility. I hope that the House will understand that it is far too early to draw conclusions at this stage and that to indulge in speculation would be distressing to the family and irresponsible, given the seriousness of the issues involved.

Detention and removal are essential elements of an effective immigration system. It is important that our centres are well run, safe and secure and that our detainees are treated with dignity and respect, and provided with the proper facilities. Detainees’ welfare is extremely important, which is why are committed to treating all those in our care with such dignity and respect. The House will be as distressed as everyone to hear of this news and will want the family and loved ones of the lady involved to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

[Yvette Cooper]

The whole House will agree with the Minister that the news of a 40-year-old detainee dying in Yarl’s Wood is extremely sad. All our thoughts must be with the family and friends, and it is important that they should get appropriate support.

I welcome the Minister’s response that a full investigation is in place. He will be aware that there are unconfirmed reports that the detainee was initially denied medical assistance. Can he assure the House that all those reports are being fully looked into as part of the police and wider investigations? He will also be aware that there are reports that Yarl’s Wood had turned down offers of help from the local NHS for other women detainees who were distressed after witnessing the death. Is that the case, and what further support was provided to others at Yarl’s Wood yesterday?

The whole House will agree that immigration rules need to be enforced, and that does require deportations. Some people need to be detained in advance of deportations, and that is never easy. The House will also agree that this must always be done humanely, with high standards and safeguards in place. Last October’s prisons inspectorate report on Yarl’s Wood referred to some dismissive responses from health staff within Yarl’s Wood, and research by Women for Refugee Women says that many women detainees felt that they were not believed by health staff and raises concerns about physical and mental health support. What action has been taken about that?

What action have Ministers taken since last year’s deeply disturbing reports of abuse of vulnerable women by Serco employees at Yarl’s Wood, including having sex with women detainees and sexual bullying? We have not yet seen a full investigation into what happened and what action has been taken to prevent it from ever happening again.

The inspectorate has also said that women who had been abused or trafficked are still wrongly detained in Yarl’s Wood. These are clearly very vulnerable women who need support, so what is being done to stop them being detained?

The Minister will be aware of the case of Yashika Bageerathi, who is being placed in Yarl’s Wood just before her A-levels despite the Home Office guidance about not separating families and not moving teenagers just before exams. In the light of the concerns raised, will he personally review Yashika Bageerathi’s case?

Given the continuing concerns about Yarl’s Wood, will the Home Secretary commission a joint inquiry on its operations and the Serco contract by the prisons inspectorate and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, and will she then report swiftly back to the House?

I welcome the Minister’s response to the question. He and I both agree that while immigration rules must always be enforced, detainees must be treated humanely, and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that both take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone of her comments and the points she has made about this tragic incident. I certainly agree that it is important that we have a system that is firm but fair and treats those who are in our immigration removal centres in a humane and appropriate way. That is certainly the standard that I expect, and I know that that view is shared by the Home Secretary and all of us who have responsibility in this regard.

The right hon. Lady asked about the level of support provided to those at the centre. I have spoken to the centre director, John Tolland, about that. He has underlined the fact that there has been increased staffing, increased counselling is being provided, and additional pastor support has been arranged for those at the centre.

I am not in a position to comment on the specific points that the right hon. Lady raised, but I can assure her that they will have been heard by those with responsibility in the police and the inspectorate. Certainly, I would expect all issues to be thoroughly analysed and investigated appropriately, given the nature of this incident.

The right hon. Lady highlighted the issue of medical support and the overall regime at Yarl’s Wood. She will be aware that the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, conducted an unannounced inspection of Yarl’s Wood, and it is worth highlighting his concluding remarks. He said:

“Yarl’s Wood has had a troubled past, punctuated by serious disturbances and controversy surrounding the detention of children. This inspection found that the improvements we have noted since the detention of children ended have continued. Nevertheless, despite the good progress made, improvement continues to be necessary.”

I entirely endorse that. There is a need for continued focus to ensure that we see further changes and improvements at Yarl’s Wood. That is something that I will continue to focus on.

On health service support, specific recommendations that were contained in the inspector’s report have been pursued and there has been further analysis of the health support required there. That has been sent to the NHS commissioners.

I reassure the House of the seriousness that we attach to the incident. We expect all issues to be properly investigated and pursued.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Given what we have heard about Yarl’s Wood today, how does it make sense for my constituent, Yashika Bageerathi, to have been detained there for nearly two weeks now, away from her traumatised mother and family? Her plight has been championed by the students at Oasis Academy Hadley school and by over 170,000 people in an online petition. They want her back to continue her studies and to complete her A-levels in May. Given that Home Office policy says specifically that someone who is three months away from sitting a major exam will not be removed, will the Minister order the release of Yashika today and allow common sense and compassion to prevail?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend has raised concerns about this case and I commend him for his customary focus on supporting his constituents, which he has underlined again in respect of this individual case.

We consider every claim for asylum on its individual merits and this particular applicant was not considered to be in need of protection. The case has been considered carefully not simply by the Home Office but by the courts and tribunals, and has gone through the proper legal process. The decision has been upheld and supported by the courts. Given those circumstances and the extent and level of judicial and other scrutiny, the Home Secretary has indicated that she does not feel that it is appropriate to intervene. That remains our position.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). The Minister is right to have started an investigation and to await its outcome, but the deaths of Jimmy Mubenga and Alois Dvorzac remind us of how careful we need to be in these matters. Last year the chief executive of Serco wrote to me to say that seven of his employees had been dismissed for inappropriate conduct at Yarl’s Wood over the past few years. Does the Minister agree that even before the inquiry concludes, he needs to contact the private sector companies to remind them that they have a huge responsibility when dealing with people’s lives, that they ought to treat those lives with great care and that they must have staff who are properly trained?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted some significant issues. There have been some shocking and disturbing cases in the past few years and he has referred to them. He will know that there are ongoing police investigations and criminal proceedings in those cases, which makes it difficult for me to comment on any specifics. I underline to him that the Home Office has conducted a review of the methods of restraint and the use of force in the difficult circumstances of removal. The development of new bespoke training packages for escorts during the removal process has been undertaken by the National Offender Management Service. An independent advisory panel for non-compliance management, chaired by Stephen Shaw, a former prisons and probation ombudsman, was appointed to assess the restraint techniques and the safety of the proposed systems. That panel’s work is literally due to conclude in the next day or so and I look forward to its recommendations, because it is important that staff are fully cognisant and trained. Certainly, I underline the key message of holding responsibility for managing those in detention.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

During my various visits to detention centres, I have been alarmed by the number of times I have heard from detainees that they have difficulty accessing health care, usually in direct contradiction to the reports being put out by management. The situation is particularly alarming given the number of detainees with serious health problems. The Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has referred to a report by Women for Refugee Women that highlights the number with particular health difficulties, and we know that those in detention often find that things get worse. What is the Minister doing to get underneath the skin of the data that management put out about access to health, and what is he doing to ensure that those with serious mental health and physical problems are not in detention at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I know that the hon. Lady has taken a close interest in these matters for some time, and I welcome her involvement and question. On the chief inspector’s recommendations for Yarl’s Wood, a health-needs assessment was conducted on behalf of the NHS last August. It has been shared with the NHS more broadly and I will certainly pursue the issues involved. I reassure the hon. Lady that those in detention are held there for the least amount of time practical and possible. Indeed, the advice and guidance on rule 35 reports —with which she will be familiar—have been refreshed and underlined. I certainly take the issue of medical support for those who are in need of assistance extremely seriously, and we will continue to focus on ensuring that appropriate medical support is provided in our immigration removal centres.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I also associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)?

The Minister talks about the importance of treating detainees with dignity and respect. He will know that, before yesterday’s tragic incident, there has been a growing chorus of concerns about the experience of women in particular at Yarl’s Wood: there are stories of sexual harassment and a number of the women detained have experienced rape or sexual violence in their home countries and have mental health problems. Given those concerns and what happened yesterday, will the Minister commit to meeting Women for Refugee Women so that he can hear at first hand its concerns about its work with the women at Yarl’s Wood?

[James Brokenshire]

Certainly, I would be pleased to have such a meeting to hear the concerns and see whether any specific issues can be applied more broadly to the immigration removal centre system in general. I underline the fact that the chief inspector’s summary report notes that there are daily “individual needs” meetings at Yarl’s Wood to help discuss detainees who are vulnerable or otherwise of cause for concern before removal and they facilitate information sharing about risk. So much of this is about managing risk and highlighting need. Clearly, I want to see further improvements. It is right that there have been changes and advancements at Yarl’s Wood, but more needs to be done and that is why we will continue to keep that in focus.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The House will understand the Minister’s reluctance to comment on particular cases, but does he agree that the general record of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in these matters shows that there is no culture of impunity in this country for those involved in immigration detention, whether they are in the private or public sector?

[James Brokenshire]

That is why I have underlined the need to focus attention on how removals are conducted. They must be done in the right and proper way, with a sense of respect for those involved. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in respect of individual cases, but I expect the highest standards to be undertaken. That is why we are also strengthening the training and guidance for those involved, to make sure that the highest standards are met.

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

How many of the women detained at Yarl’s Wood have been held for a period of three years or longer?

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not have the details to hand, but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further information on the duration of detentions at Yarl’s Wood.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses to questions? Many outside observers of Yarl’s Wood would say that its management has improved in the recent past, but however good it is, we are still dealing with some very vulnerable women. Many of them have sought asylum here because they were victims of rape or abuse, and just because they could not prove that to an immigration official does not mean that it did not happen. The current process for detaining women for immigration purposes seems to me to be ineffective, costly and unjust. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity, after this tragic incident, to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the whole process of the detention of women for immigration purposes?

[James Brokenshire]

I respect the close interest that my hon. Friend takes not simply in Yarl’s Wood, but more generally. I underline the fact that there have been improvements at Yarl’s Wood, and he referred to them. We are seeking to speed up decisions while maintaining high standards in asylum cases and more generally in the immigration system. That is why we took the decision to split the old UK Border Agency, with visas and immigration as a specific command in the Home Office—responding to and accountable to Ministers—to ensure that we improve our decisions and their timeliness.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

When previous reports of abuse against women in Yarl’s Wood surfaced, a number of women believed that witnesses and victims were deported early to avoid their cases being followed up properly. Will the Minister absolutely assure the House that all relevant evidence, including witness evidence, will be gathered in the inquiries that he has instituted? When deportations are envisaged of people who might have evidence to offer, will the process be looked at very carefully so that the information is obtained properly?

[James Brokenshire]

It is right and proper that the ongoing police inquiry is pursued, and that the police should follow the evidence where it takes them. That is the right process. Clearly, we will support them in their ongoing investigations to ensure that they reach appropriate conclusions and, once they have finished their criminal investigations, that subsequent investigations are also concluded. I am certainly very clear that that needs to be pursued robustly and clearly to get to the facts of what has happened.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

All Members of the House are greatly saddened to hear about the death of a woman in Yarl’s Wood. Many of the people in Yarl’s Wood are likely to be victims of the criminal gangs who got them into this country illegally. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to try to identify and deal with those criminal gangs?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point about immigration, crime and the trafficking of people into this country, which I have described as the trade in human misery. That is why we will introduce a modern slavery Bill. It is also why the immigration enforcement command in the Home Office is working with the National Crime Agency and others to secure the best intelligence for pursuing the organised criminals exploiting and trafficking people into this country so that they can be brought to justice and feel the full force of the law.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the news broke on Sunday morning, someone called me to describe the scene that had been reported to them when talking directly to detainees. This person told me that the mood was panicked and that other women detainees had passed out from shock at what had happened. Will the Minister give me an assurance that additional resources were deployed to help with the situation as early as Sunday morning?

[James Brokenshire]

I can only say that the centre director, to whom I have spoken, has said that additional resources were deployed and that additional support has been given to those in detention. I am sure that all the facts of the case will be pursued and investigated, and that will certainly cover the manner in which the incident was handled after the news broke. The centre director has told me that, recognising the distress caused by this tragic news, reassurance was given to those in detention and that further ongoing support is being provided.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I add my support to the condolences and the plea for common sense in the case of Yashika. There is no doubt that Yarl’s Wood has improved, not least with the ending of child detention, which was simply inhumane—I am glad we have stopped it. However, this country continues to be unique in routinely detaining migrants without any time limit, at huge expense—according to one estimate, it is £75 million. Will the Minister look at alternative, community-based solutions such as in Sweden, which gets a higher returns rate, costs less and is more humane?

[James Brokenshire]

We always look at ways in which detention is minimised. However, in a system in which we seek to remove, detention can and should be a means of managing that process. Certainly, we continue to monitor the situation carefully. I hear the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but there are no easy solutions. Sadly, we need to detain in some circumstances to ensure that our removals process operates effectively.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What assessments are made of those women before they go into detention? Is there a medical check on their physical or mental status? How are they assessed?

[James Brokenshire]

Medical support is provided at each immigration removal centre and, when someone arrives, risk assessments are conducted. That was the process I saw on the visit I undertook to an IRC a few weeks back. It is about managing risk and ensuring that issues that need to be identified are picked up at the outset. I hope I can assure the hon. Gentleman that steps are taken when new arrivals appear at IRCs to ensure that issues or any support required are appropriately identified.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are making improvements to the way in which the immigration detention centre estate operates, particularly at Brook House, Tinsley House and the family Cedars centre in the Gatwick area?

[James Brokenshire]

I have been to Brook House and Tinsley House to see for myself the operating environment and conditions there. I have seen the focus given to ensuring that immigration removals centres are humane places to be, and that appropriate standards are undertaken. An inspection regime underpins that, but I can assure my hon. Friend of the focus, seriousness and weight of responsibility that the Government feel on such matters to ensure that the regime is continually monitored. Improvements can be made—significant improvements have been made over the past few years, but we need to do more.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

In an earlier answer, the Minister referred to a review being conducted by the National Offender Management Service, which is welcome, but on the allegations of inappropriate sexual contact at Yarl’s Wood, what examination is the Minister undertaking of Serco policy, management and staff supervision?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have highlighted, and as the chief inspectorate of prisons report highlights, further improvements are required. Steps have been taken, but serious reports have been made in the past. Yarl’s Wood has a troubled past, but steps have been taken to move it forward. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I, as a relatively new Minister for Security and Immigration, am focused on seeing that standards are further improved, and on ensuring that our immigration removal centres, which are necessary, do their work in a humane and fair way as part of supporting our immigration policy.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The appalling treatment of my constituent, Enid Ruhango, and her room-mate, Sophie Odogo, led to the damning 2006 report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. I am delighted to say that the courageous Enid is now living, as she should, as a member of the community in Leeds. Will the Minister tell me and the House exactly what was learned from that report in terms of access to medical treatment and humane treatment during transportation?

[James Brokenshire]

Significant changes and improvements have been made, including to the commissioning functions that the NHS has in respect of providing appropriate medical support in immigration removal centres. We constantly learn from cases as we seek to prevent further tragic incidents. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do that, and I will focus on these issues of medical support in respect of Yarl’s Wood. A report has been commissioned, and I will pursue the matter.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In reviewing this tragic case, will the Minister consider carefully the strong and passionate case that has been made over a long period by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)? Does the Minister also agree that too many people are in these institutions for too long, including the Dover removal centre, and we should hurry up the processing as much as we can?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree that we should always seek to minimise the time that someone spends in detention, but appeals can often delay matters. The Immigration Bill will reduce appeals from 17 to four. We want to ensure that we have a firm but fair system, and that is what we will deliver.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I wholeheartedly support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). How can a Government who are rightly proud to have ended child detention for immigration purposes keep an 18-year-old, who is a star pupil at her school, out of the classroom and in detention at Yarl’s Wood? What lessons should her fellow pupils learn from this episode?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand the concern my hon. Friend has expressed. I should just mention that the individual is 19, not 18. This case has been considered carefully by the Home Office and the courts, and it has been ruled that humanitarian assistance is not appropriate. The Home Secretary has indicated that it is not appropriate for us to intervene in such circumstances.

Bill Presented

Recall of Members of Parliament

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zac Goldsmith, supported by Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Stuart, Mr Dominic Raab, Nick de Bois, Mark Reckless, Mr Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Mr Michael Meacher and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their Member of Parliament in specified circumstances: and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 193).

Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme (Syria)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Our country has a proud history of granting protection to those who need it. We are still all too conscious of the appalling scenes of violence and suffering which are occurring every day in Syria.

The greatest contribution we can make is to work to end the conflict altogether and we continue to seek a peaceful settlement that enables a political transition and an end to violence. We are the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian relief effort and have provided £600 million so far.

As the Home Secretary outlined to the House of Commons on 29 January 2014, Official Report, column 863, while the greatest need is in the region and the United Kingdom can make the largest impact there, we have launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation (VPR) scheme to provide protection in this country to particularly vulnerable refugees who are at grave risk. Since that point, we have been working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to identify those who are most vulnerable.

I am pleased to report that we expect the first group of Syrians to arrive as part of the VPR scheme today, just eight weeks after the Home Secretary’s announcement. During this time, we have been working in close collaboration with the UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration and local authority services to ensure that the particular needs of the beneficiaries, with their extreme vulnerabilities, will be met. Given the absolute primacy of safeguarding the UK’s security, appropriate checks have also been conducted before bringing Syrians displaced by the conflict to the UK. We expect the next arrivals in April.

Those admitted under the VPR scheme will be granted five years’ humanitarian protection with all the rights and benefits that go with that status, including access to public funds, access to the labour market and the possibility of family reunion. We believe that the VPR scheme will make a real difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable Syrians displaced by the conflict by giving them protection and support in the UK.

I have agreed a ministerial authorisation (Equality (Syria—Entry clearance outside the immigration rules) Authorisation 2014) to allow differentiation in favour of Syrian nationals whom we want to bring to the UK under the VPR scheme.

This authorisation will remain in force until revoked. I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Library of the House.

Passport Fees

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Her Majesty’s Passport Office is committed to delivering better value for money for our customers.

In keeping with this commitment, I am pleased to announce that from 7 April the passport fee for customers applying for a UK passport overseas will be reduced by £45 for adults and £28.50 for children. The new fees are as follows:

Adult 32 page passport £83.00.

Child 32 page passport £53.00.

Jumbo 48 page passport £91.00 (child and adult).

This reduction comes as a result of efficiency savings made over the last three years by bringing back the processing and issuing of overseas passports to the UK, while maintaining the highest levels of security and customer service.

This reduction follows the 2012 decrease in fee by £5 for all UK citizens applying within the UK.

Immigration Rules

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules as set out below.

The Government are making a package of changes to points-based system work routes to improve flexibility for applicants and help to boost economic growth.

This includes expanding the tier 1 (exceptional talent) category to include leading talent in the digital technology sector, who are endorsed by Tech City UK, as well as making it easier for applicants in this category to apply from overseas, and to count time spent in other immigration categories towards qualifying for settlement.

I am responding to feedback from higher education institutions (HEIs) participating in the tier 1 (graduate entrepreneur) scheme by removing the ring-fencing of places for MBA graduates and the current restrictions on participants’ graduation dates. This will make the scheme more flexible and simpler to operate.

In tier 2, the main work route for those with a skilled job offer, I am improving flexibility for employers and migrants by allowing applications to be granted for up to five years at a time, rather than a maximum of three years at a time as at present. I am also today laying amending regulations which will ensure that changes to tier 2 requirements are also applied to Croatian nationals.

I am adding Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates to the list of countries whose nationals benefit from different documentary requirements and ending the exemption from the genuineness test that applies to nationals on this list when applying for a tier 4 visa.

I am also making scheduled updates to salary and maintenance fund requirements, as well as a number of other minor changes to points-based system categories. The maintenance fund changes will take effect for applications made from 1 July.

I am creating a new category for overseas Government-sponsored language teachers under the tier 5 Government authorised exchange route. This will enable Government sponsored teachers to share knowledge and awareness of foreign languages and cultures in the UK. The first of these schemes will support a Mandarin teaching scheme designed to foster good cultural relations between the UK and China.

I am making changes to the curtailment provisions in part 9 of the immigration rules (general grounds for refusal) to support the Home Office in its work to take robust action against those who attempt to abuse the immigration system and ensure that migrants do not retain leave to which they are no longer entitled. In particular, I will:

incorporate the grounds in section 10(l)(b) and (c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in preparation for the changes made by the Immigration Bill;

enable leave to be curtailed where a points-based system sponsor notifies the Home Office that a migrant’s period of study or work is due to end earlier than had been originally planned when leave to enter or remain was granted;

make further minor changes to ensure that the wording and the intentions of the rules are clear and consistent.

I am making changes to the visit visa requirement for Bahraini nationals. Bahraini nationals who hold diplomatic and special passports issued by Bahrain when travelling to the UK for the purpose of a general visit will no longer have to obtain a visit visa to travel to the UK.

The Government keep visa regimes under constant review to ensure that the UK has the right visa requirements set in the right places, aligned to risk. Today, I am laying changes to the immigration rules to require all Venezuelan nationals to obtain a visa before visiting the UK. UK visas and immigration continues to be focused on delivering an excellent customer service and ensuring that the UK maintains a competitive visa system that can innovate in order to ensure that Britain succeeds in the global race.

In order to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Munir, we are incorporating into the immigration rules discretionary policies for civilian employees of NATO and the Australian Department of Defence, and employees of firms under contract to NATO.

I am making minor changes and clarifications to the immigration rules relating to family life. These mainly reflect feedback from caseworkers and legal practitioners on the operation of the rules.

I am also clarifying the knowledge of language and life provisions which apply for settlement applications by partners and children of members of HM Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What additional funding she has made available to the security agencies to cover costs associated with the ending of TPIMs.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Additional funding of tens of millions of pounds has been made available to the police and the Security Service each year for surveillance, technical capabilities and other measures to mitigate the overall risk as part of the TPIMs package. That has significantly enhanced the police and Security Service’s counter-terrorism capabilities.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Will additional funding continue to be made available to the police and the security services specifically to manage those suspects who otherwise would have been on TPIMs?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because her question allows me to confirm that there is no intention of reducing the additional funds that have been made available. We have also increased spending on the security and intelligence agencies, and protected counter-terrorism policing budgets to ensure that capabilities are maintained. That includes resources for surveillance and the management of TPIMs subjects.

[Gemma Doyle]

There are reports that around 400 Brits have travelled to Syria to fight in the terrible conflict there, and that around 250 of them have returned to the UK. There is therefore a pressing and urgent need to set out the measures which will be used to manage the threats that individuals may pose to the UK after TPIMs expire. Why is there a delay in providing the details of those measures?

[James Brokenshire]

There is no delay. The UK has some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with terrorist suspects and we will not hesitate to use every power at our disposal to protect the security of this country. The hon. Lady makes a fair point in relation to travel to Syria. We are very clear that people should not travel to Syria, and our counter-terrorism legislation is there to uphold the law. We are using the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who it is believed wish to travel abroad to take part in activities such as terrorist training or other fighting.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that many of the problems we have with counter-terrorism and TPIMs would be made vastly easier if we had reform of European human rights so that we can ensure that the Supreme Court is supreme once again?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has consistently made this point about human rights, and he is obviously well aware of a number of the measures that we have been looking at. Clearly, we have taken steps to ensure, for example, that we are better able to deport individuals and that our focus remains on deportation with assurance to ensure that those who would cause us harm and can be removed are removed from this country.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that TPIMs are but a part of the array of powers available to the police and surveillance services to protect us from harm, and that they are far more able to withstand the sort of legal challenges that caused huge problems under the previous control order regime?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. What the Opposition do not say when they raise this issue is that control orders were struck down on a number of occasions for a range of reasons. I am clear that prosecution is always the best route to deal with terrorists, and we should recognise the success of our agencies in securing the conviction of 40 individuals for terrorism-related offences in the past year.

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

4. What steps she is taking to increase the number of people who are investigated and charged for carrying out female genital mutilation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

5. How many sponsor notifications of potentially bogus higher education students there have been since 2010; and how many have been actioned to date.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

UK Visas and Immigration received 315,598 notifications between 2010 and 2013 from all Tier 4 sponsors, of which 299,586 were actioned in the same period. All notifications receive an initial consideration within 28 days of receipt.

[Steve McCabe]

May I wish the Minister well in his new post? The issue of bogus students figured strongly in his recent Demos speech, even if it did not get quite the same prominence in the press. Of the backlog of 153,000 notifications that the chief inspector has identified, how many have now been attended to? When I next ask him this question, will that backlog figure have gone up or come down?

[James Brokenshire]

As I said, all notifications received from sponsors receive an initial consideration within 28 days of receipt. Notifications can be for a number of different reasons, whether that is failure to enrol or whether there is something serious that may mean students, or their dependants, have their leave curtailed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am looking closely at sponsorship and whether the thresholds for sponsors on the failure rates for students that they put forward, are appropriate. I assure him that I am looking very closely at this issue.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that net movements of students are the largest non-EU contributor to net inflow. Will he look beyond bogus students and ask whether, at a time when we have very high levels of graduate unemployment, it is right that there is an automatic right to remain for someone who graduates here and gets a job?

[James Brokenshire]

Our focus is on attracting the brightest and the best. It is important to note that applications for visas from outside the EU to universities have gone up by 7%. My hon. Friend will know that requirements and rules are in place to restrict how students can stay on—university graduates can stay if they get a graduate job earning £20,300, and there are certain other requirements—but we keep them under review.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to prevent extremism.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Under the Government’s Prevent strategy, which aims to stop people becoming involved in and supporting terrorism, we work closely with local authorities, the police, and other agencies to confront and disrupt extremism. The Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce has identified further practical steps to strengthen our response to all forms of extremism, and these are being taken forward.

[Henry Smith]

What increased steps are being taken to meet the security threat from British-born foreign fighters coming back from Syria? How can local communities in this country, where they identify radicalisation, be better supported?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend. I know the particular focus he attaches to this issue in relation to his constituency. Syria is the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world. Our priority, through the Prevent strategy, is to dissuade people from travelling there. Messages are given at a local level, and I note that in my hon. Friend’s Crawley constituency there has been a community briefing event to discuss Syria-related issues and that faith leaders are taking an active role. I welcome that community action.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that if we are to tackle extremism at the roots we must do something about our schools, which even now have been neglecting the whole citizenship agenda? Is he as disturbed as I am by certain spokespeople on the radio and television denigrating democracy as a form of government? Is it not at school that we should be extolling the virtues of living in a free and open democratic system?

[James Brokenshire]

I thoroughly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. Many Members from across the House go to schools to underline key points on democracy and the values that define our country, and that work continues in our schools. The Department for Education is a key partner in the work of Prevent and in examining steps to be taken forward by the Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

22. My hon. Friend will know that there are websites and social media that seek to radicalise young Muslims in our community. What steps is the Home Office taking to try to interfere with, or completely stop, those websites and social media?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on the impact of online radicalisation. The counter terrorism internet referral unit is removing more illegal terrorist content than ever before—since 2010, it has removed more than 26,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material online—but there is more work to do. We continue to work with the industry to ensure that, where we can prevent extremist material from getting into people’s homes, that is precisely what we will do.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Has the Minister seen the evidence which shows that counter-speech is one of the most effective ways of driving people away from information online? Will he put more effort into supporting it, so that we can divert people from extremism?

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to ensure that different perspectives and points of view are articulated online. I continue to have discussions with internet service companies about how we can best help them with the good work that many are doing in helping community organisations to provide that counter-narrative.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the proportion of reported rapes which resulted in prosecution or conviction in the last two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

9. What comparative assessment she has made of trends in the levels of EU and non-EU migration; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Our reforms have cut non-EU migration to its lowest level since 1998 and there are now 82,000 fewer non-EU nationals arriving annually than when this Government came to power. Net migration of EU nationals and their family members, who are not subject to formal immigration controls, has doubled over the last year. Across Government, we are working hard to address the factors that draw people to Britain for the wrong reasons.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the comments of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that freedom of movement should not mean freedom to claim and that the only way to tackle this is through the Prime Minister’s plan to reform the EU?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Freedom of movement is not and cannot be a freedom to claim benefits. The Government have introduced a series of domestic measures to restrict access to benefits and we are committed to working with our partners to reform the rules on access to benefits, which were designed for a different era and are no longer fit for purpose.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Institute of Directors that the Immigration Minister’s first major speech in his new job was

“feeble, pathetic and divisive and more about political positioning than what is good for the country”?

Did she see it in advance?

[James Brokenshire]

I did not know that I had been promoted but I will obviously answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. There is nothing feeble and weak about an immigration policy that continues to attract the brightest and the best to this country while resolutely focusing on reducing net migration to sustainable levels. That is why our policies are having an effect, reducing net migration from outside the EU by 82,000. What was feeble was the last Government’s failures that let immigration get out of control. It is their mess that this Government continue to sort out and with our reforms cutting non-EU migration to its lowest levels since 1998, we are having an effect.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

10. What estimate she has made of the number of students from India who have received visas to undertake studies at universities in Scotland in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

We do not have figures for the numbers of visas issued to Indian nationals for study at Scottish universities, but the latest higher education statistics show that India remains within the top five most common non-EU nationalities at universities in Scotland. We have cut abuse of student visas, but continue to attract the brightest and best students from around the world.

[John Robertson]

The Higher Education Statistics Agency says that Indian student numbers on higher education courses are down by 25% since 2011 alone and in Scotland they are down by 32%. What does the Minister think is the reason for that and why is Scotland so much worse off than the rest of the UK?

[James Brokenshire]

We have seen falls in student numbers from India, but we have also seen that in the USA and Australia, so a similar picture has been seen. However, visa applications from sponsored UK universities increased by 7% in 2013 and he may want to look at the figures for sponsored visa applications relating to the university of Glasgow, which are up 24%; for Heriot-Watt university, which are up 13% and for the university of Strathclyde, which are up 16%. We continue to attract the brightest and best and that is what our policy is doing.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister outline to the House how the highly trusted sponsor scheme will allow the assessment of the ability and intention of students to complete their courses in this country?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend has highlighted, sponsors do have responsibilities, and I responded to a previous question on the notifications they provide in relation to their students. We do need to keep a clear focus on those responsibilities and it is my view that where the Home Office is receiving applications from those universities, the failure rate is high and that does need to be examined further.

[Mr Speaker]

Keeping our clear focus on Scotland, I call Mr Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Of course the Minister knows the rises he pointed out in his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) are all down to the reciprocal arrangement with China. That figure is down 25% from Pakistan, and down 14% from Nigeria. This Government’s United Kingdom Independence party-based immigration policies are hurting our universities and our ability to attract students to Scotland. Why should our universities suffer because of the appalling race to the bottom between the Minister’s Government and UKIP?

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to welcome the fact that we have seen an increase from China of 6%. The figure is also up 3% from Malaysia and 15% from Hong Kong. That shows there is nothing intrinsic in our policies that is putting off high quality students. That is why we are focused on ensuring that we continue to attract the brightest and the best to the whole of the UK and Scotland, and there is nothing to suggest that our policies are having any negative impact on that.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What assessment she has made of the change in the number of black and minority ethnic police officers in England and Wales since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution, but family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense, and family migrants must be able to integrate. That is precisely what our rules are about. We believe that this is fair to applicants and to the public. The hon. Lady may know that there is an ongoing court case. Therefore, while we absolutely maintain our position on this, applications are currently being put on hold pending the outcome of that case.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—