Identity and Passport Service

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

With effect from 13 May 2013, the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) will be renamed and its functions carried out under the name of Her Majesty’s Passport Office.

The new title reflects the role of Her Majesty’s Passport Office in issuing passports to citizens of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Crown under the exercise of the royal prerogative. It also reflects the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to end the previous Administration’s plans for identity cards. Her Majesty’s Passport Office will retain responsibility for the work of the General Register Office for England and Wales.

The change in name does not affect the validity of existing British passports nor the form and content of future British passports.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, in the second half of the debate, and it was a great pleasure to serve under Mr Walker in the first half.

If Members will forgive me, I will not take many, if any, interventions. I will try, in the less than 15 minutes I have, to do justice to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who secured the debate, and to all those who contributed. You have indicated, Mr Howarth, that you wish me to finish at 7.53 pm to allow my hon. Friend to speak for a couple of minutes before the debate concludes, so I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not take many interventions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, which was in response to the petition—I will say a few words about its specific terms in a moment— but on the moderate and reasonable tone in which he introduced it, which clearly set a good example, because that was the way in which all other Members debated the issue. That is important if we are to have a sensible debate led by mainstream political parties and not extremists.

The debate was granted by the Backbench Business Committee, to which I pay tribute also, because the e-petition received more than 100,000 signatures. Once it passed that number it received a written Home Office response, which hon. Members can see on the website. I will discuss the e-petition because hon. Members alluded to it but did not go into its terms in detail. It contained two requests, and I can give a positive response to one. One is that

“the government suspends the easing on these restrictions for another 5 years.”

The other is about whether the Government should renegotiate some of the terms of our membership of the European Union.

The first of those requests relates to the point made by my hon. Friend about the extent of our ability to do something now about the ending of transitional controls at the end of the year. I assure my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members who made the same point that Ministers test the legal advice that we get from Government lawyers and outside counsel. I particularly like doing that. I have had legal advice in the past that I have challenged, and which turned out to be just that—advice. It is worth testing it, and Ministers do so. That is consistent throughout the Government from the Prime Minister downward. My hon. Friend talked about restricting movement on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, but the free movement directive says in terms that those grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends. I am not going to go into huge amounts of detail, or I shall do nothing for the next 15 minutes but discuss legal matters, but I do not think there is any possibility, under the directive or the accession treaties for Bulgaria and Romania, of complying with the request in the petition.

I think that we can be more positive about the second point in the petition, and my hon. Friend and several other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister’s clear commitment, in his capacity as leader of the Conservative party, to renegotiate, if we win the next election, the terms on which we are members of the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, we will put that to the people. Some hon. Members may take different views on that, but we can all agree that the public will then get a choice, and will be able to make a clear decision. We can deliver on that part of the petition.

It is also worth saying, in relation to the public debate, that the Prime Minister made it clear in a recent speech that the Government understand public concern about immigration and are not just willing but keen to encourage sensible debate about it. Those points were made by the Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). The Government do not believe there should be no net migration; we just think that it should be sustainable. We want to reduce it from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands to the sustainable tens of thousands. Various Members have talked about the benefits to be obtained from some migration, and the Government agree with them.

Of course, 1.4 million British people live in another EU country, either in retirement or working. We should always remember that, when we are engaged in this debate. Britain’s future, like its past, is as a global trading nation, which means that many British people will work and live abroad. We cannot expect other countries to allow us to do that if we do not allow movement too. It is right, however, to take account of public concern about free movement, and to deal with that. I want to flesh out some of the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made.

Several hon. Members addressed the point that actions that the Government took from the moment they took office have already reduced net migration by a third since the general election. That is significant. Also, only a third of the people coming to the United Kingdom are from the EU; 55% come from outside it and 15% are British citizens returning home, so the bulk of our net migration is from outside the EU. That is important to remember in a debate about migration from Bulgaria and Romania, and the point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has extensive European experience.

There was a lot of debate about Government attempts to forecast how many people would come here from Bulgaria and Romania when transitional controls ended. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to that in his Westminster Hall debate, and the right hon. Member for Leicester East asked whether the Government would commission advice. Of course they did commission advice, and asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee what we should do—whether it was possible to predict the scale of future migration. The committee made it clear that

“it would not be sensible, or helpful to policymakers…to attempt to put a precise range around this likely impact.”

It did not think it was possible to come up with accurate figures. The reason is that, unlike the previous experience, with the A8 countries of eastern Europe, eight other countries have transitional controls. We are not likely to be able to predict accurately how many people are likely to leave Bulgaria and Romania to work overseas, and to which of the countries with transitional controls they are likely to go.

I said in the previous Westminster Hall debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, that the reason the Government did not want to forecast was that we did not think we could do so accurately, and we wanted to be straight with people and say so, rather than making up a number. We could just make up a number, and use it for the rest of this year; but that would probably be as accurate as what happened under the previous Government. It would not be treating people as adults. We got clear advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, and it has been supported by the recent report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The institute said that

“it is not possible to predict the scale of future migration from Bulgaria and Romania to the UK numerically.”

I presume that that means it is not possible to do it accurately, because clearly it is possible to predict it, but the likelihood of being accurate is I think slim. That is a sensible point of view and we have been straight about it.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about a mysterious Foreign Office report, which the Department refused to publish. I think that he meant the report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which was commissioned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That might not have been published when he asked his question, so perhaps a reference was made to the fact that it was to be published. Of course it has now been published, and it reached the conclusion about predicting numbers that I have set out. It was perfectly sensible for the Government to say what they did; that was treating people with respect.

Several hon. Members wanted me to say more about the inter-ministerial group on access to benefits and public services. Rather than producing speculative projections, we have been considering the work being done across Government—I am pleased to say that all Departments concerned with delivering public services are involved, along with the Department for Work and Pensions, which deals with benefits—on cutting out the abuse of free movement, and addressing the pull factors. With reference to something that the hon. Member for Rhondda said, it is worth pointing out that Germany is strongly opposed to benefit tourism—the abuse of free movement. We have been working with Germany and, indeed, the Home Secretary—along with her German, Austrian and Dutch counterparts—recently signed a letter to the European Commission to ask it urgently to review the current arrangements on the availability of social security benefits to newly arrived EU migrants, and stressed the need for more robust legal measures, such as re-entry bans for individuals removed from the UK for abusing their free movement rights.

I mention that because we are not of course alone in sharing such concerns, and I am therefore quite hopeful about not only what we may be able to achieve in this Parliament, but the seriousness with which other European countries will take our views on changing our relationship with the European Union. As we have seen, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a close working relationship with his counterpart the Chancellor of Germany. That positive work will continue.

Let me briefly set out some of the work that we are doing. We will tighten the rules on access to benefits, and put in place a statutory presumption that European economic area national jobseekers will lose their right to benefits after six months unless they can show that they are genuinely seeking work and have a genuine chance of being engaged.

We intend to tighten access to social housing to insist that local authorities have to consider the local rules. I have a little more confidence than my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about their ability to do that. Local authorities where there is an issue—for example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) or elsewhere in Cambridgeshire—will, if we give them a nudge, want to have some sensible controls so that they can deal with their constituents’ concerns.

The final area is the national health service. Some Members have made the point that it is a national, not an international, health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who is no longer in his place, had concerns about how well we could implement that, given doctors’ Hippocratic oath. We do not of course propose to remove access to emergency treatment or to treatment required for public health reasons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health set out some of that in his response to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field).

There have been some positive views from GPs in their magazine, Pulse, which has undertaken a survey of them. A significant number of GPs want us to take action: three quarters are confused or frustrated about the lack of clarity about NHS entitlement; more than half—52%—said that they believe that NHS provision for migrants is too generous; and only 7% thought that it is not generous enough. In addition, 38% said that they did not want to agree to register people they think are illegal immigrants and 40% did not want to register people who had failed in their asylum claims. Therefore, a significant number of GPs and other doctors will, if we take the matter seriously—obviously we will consult both the public and the professions—support what the Government want to do, and that will be welcomed.

Let me turn, in my remaining two minutes, to criminality. That was raised by several colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, to whose service as a special constable we should pay tribute. Several things are going on. In London, to which he drew attention, there is the successful ongoing Operation Nexus between the Home Office immigration enforcement teams and the Metropolitan police to target high-harm foreign national offenders and immigration offenders. It has removed more than 400 such people just since last November, so it has been very successful, and we intend to roll it out across the country. There are several operations to deal with lower-level criminality, so a lot is going on.

I have one minute left, so I will conclude. If there are any issues that I have not touched on, the Chair of the Select Committee will no doubt put them to me when I give evidence tomorrow. We have real concerns about the abuse of free movement rights. The Home Secretary has consistently raised that at the Council of Ministers with her European counterparts. We will continue to do so at the European level, as well as through the work of the cross-Government committee, which the Prime Minister has asked me to chair.

In due course, we will introduce a package of measures that I hope colleagues on both sides of the House will welcome. Of course, I could not possibly prejudge what may be announced in the Queen’s Speech in a few weeks’ time, but I hope that my hon. Friends will not be disappointed about the measures that the Government are going to set out. I am glad that we could have this debate today, Mr Howarth, which you have excellently chaired.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to record the employment status of foreign nationals who reside in the UK; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We are rolling out biometric residence permits to non-European economic area nationals in the UK granted leave for more than six months to make it easier for them to prove their entitlement to live and work. From next year, all non-EEA nationals will require a biometric residence permit, and we expect employers to check a migrant’s right to work prior to offering employment.

[Gordon Henderson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, which I find encouraging, but will he explain how the success of that initiative can be monitored unless records are kept of where and by whom foreign workers are employed?

[Mr Harper]

I have two things to say to my hon. Friend. First, the sponsorship system provides a good mechanism for employers to track and record who is working for them when they come to fill skills shortages. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will, with the roll-out of universal credit, collect as a routine matter the nationality of those who claim benefits.

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

On the issue of foreign nationals and all others, is the Government’s response simply determined by the rise and threat of the United Kingdom Independence party?

[Mr Harper]

No, not at all—the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier today was informed by work that has been going on for a number of months in the cross-ministerial committee that I chair. It is a well thought-through policy area as we further tighten the immigration system. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since the Government came to power, we have reduced net migration to the UK by a third and will continue to reduce it.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of people in this country will support his work and the emphasis in the Prime Minister’s speech? Nevertheless, there is still a net increase in immigration of 160,000 every year. Will the Minister assure us that he will continue to do all he can to reduce that number further?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. We committed to reducing net migration from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands that it was under Labour to tens of thousands, which is much more sustainable. That is supported by the vast majority of British people, whomever they vote for. I am glad my hon. Friend also supports that policy.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister could help me to spot the difference. Currently regulations and Department for Work and Pensions guidance for jobcentres state that EU migrants cannot claim benefits after six months unless they are

“genuinely seeking work, and have a reasonable chance of being engaged”.

The Prime Minister today, in what is supposedly a new announcement, said that migrants can claim after six months only if they

“can prove not just that you are genuinely seeking employment…but also that you have a genuine chance of getting a job.”

Is that not exactly the same? There is no difference at all—it is not a new announcement. How many people exactly does the Minister believe will be affected by this supposed change?

[Mr Harper]

The Prime Minister set out a number of changes today. The one the hon. Gentleman mentions ensures that there is a statutory presumption in the system, which does not exist today, that, after six months, people have to demonstrate that they are taking all possible steps to seek work and that they have a reasonable prospect of getting it. At the moment, there is no presumption that they must do so. That is a weakness in the system, which is why we will strengthen it.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK’s visa system helps tourists and business people from China to come to the UK without a loss of control over immigration. [R]

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Last year, the UK Border Agency processed almost 300,000 visa applications for Chinese nationals, with 97% of visas processed within 15 days. China is a priority market for the UK, and we want to support both tourists and business people coming to our country.

[Mr Walker]

Following on from the Worcestershire business delegation that I took to southern China late last year, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in June we have a return delegation visiting Worcestershire from Nanning. While ensuring that we have proper immigration controls, may I encourage Ministers to do everything they can to facilitate business visits that can bring bilateral trade and investment?

[Mr Harper]

First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his personal contribution to increasing UK trade with China. He will want to know that there was an increase in visit visas issued to Chinese nationals of 6% last year. In December, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out a range of improvements to the visa process, particularly to support business customers, and they will be implemented this year.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We have taken a number of steps to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency. As the Prime Minister said earlier today in his speech, we face a big task of turning around the tanker that is the UK Border Agency, and we will be setting out the next stages of those reforms shortly.

[Lorely Burt]

My constituent, Pooja Ramchandani, has been waiting for more than a year for a decision on her application for further leave to remain. The UK Border Agency target is for 75% of applications to be resolved within four weeks, and it has attributed the delay to additional work caused by the Olympics. Can the Minister confirm when the Olympics will cease to be another excuse given to people such as my constituent, a single mother whose child has permission for leave to remain?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend raises a specific case, and if she contacts my office afterwards, I will certainly look into it. Generally, on in-country performance, we have acknowledged that the UKBA was not delivering within its service standards in the past year. By the end of this month, however, it will be delivering the required performance standards in those cases, and I hope that that improvement will be sustained.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I welcome the helpful comments the Minister made in response to the publication today of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, and his commitment to having a service that has the confidence of the British people? It is important that we discuss immigration in an open and transparent way, whether in the Prime Minister’s speech this lunch time, or in last Friday’s speech on bonds by the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he agree that we cannot implement the proposals unless the UK Border Agency is fit for purpose and we have cleared the backlog of a third of a million cases? Is it not time to take the agency back firmly under the control of Ministers?

[Mr Harper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman both for his question and for his work in chairing the Home Affairs Committee. I see the Select Committee as a partner with the Government, challenging us and ensuring that we keep focusing and improving the agency’s performance. Although it is an agency, I had not noticed in the past year any difference in the level of accountability that either he expects from me, as a result of its performance, or from this House, as is evidenced by these questions. However, I will reflect further on what he has to say.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow two excellent questions on the same issue. The Home Affairs Committee report on the UKBA published today has some astonishingly poor figures. In quarter 3 of 2012, 18% of tier 1 visas were processed within four weeks—astonishingly bad. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to try and fix that. Does he agree that we cannot have a coherent, fair and credible immigration system when the agency is performing so atrociously?

[Mr Harper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I agree: the figures for quarter 3 last year were not good, and I acknowledged that in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I am pleased to be able to say that by the end of this month, the UKBA will be making decisions for tier 1 visas and others within the service standards that it sets out to its customers, and which they have a right to expect.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Successive Ministers have come to the House of Commons and tried to defend the work of the UK Border Agency. Is the Minister aware that time and time again the agency admits, and has to admit, to a backlog of thousands of cases that have not been dealt with and that go back years—sometimes five, 10 or more? That is a shambles, and the sooner that is recognised by the Government, the better it will be.

[Mr Harper]

I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, while the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was doing this job, and since I have been doing it, we have not gone out of our way to defend the agency. We have acknowledged that it is a troubled organisation, but it has many hard-working and dedicated staff and we should not have broad-brush criticism that neglects the work they do. On his specific question about old cases, particularly legacy cases, I simply say that the Government inherited about 500,000 cases from Labour, which we have largely got under control. We are working through a relatively small number of cases and will get that done in the next few months.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to tackle cybercrime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

10. How many requests for a reconsideration of a decision to refuse leave to remain are outstanding; and what the oldest such cases currently being reconsidered are.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The UK Border Agency has approximately 14,000 requests for reconsiderations outstanding. The oldest request dates back to 3 March 2010. It is worth reminding the House that these are all people who have had a decision on their application and have either exhausted their appeal rights or chosen not to appeal, so they have no right to be in the United Kingdom and they should leave.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Now that the Home Office has agreed to reconsider all the cases in this category as soon as possible, will the Minister and his colleagues look at whether there could be a system for prioritising those cases that are clearly in urgent need rather than simply working through a date system, which I have to say has been pretty random in the past?

[Mr Harper]

The point I made at the beginning still stands. These are all people who have had a decision and have been refused the right to remain in the UK after going through the full appeal process. For those who submitted a reconsideration request prior to our policy change last November, we will work through all their cases in order. If the right hon. Gentleman has a clear case of where there is a particularly compassionate reason for looking at it earlier, I would welcome him getting in touch with me; otherwise, we will work through the cases in date order.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Given those answers, will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest single reason for the backlog in the UK Border Agency is the tendency of courts to go on allowing more and more appeals, thereby lengthening the process?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right that when the UKBA makes decisions, people in settlement cases frequently have a right of appeal. Some of those processes can often be very lengthy, so we will keep on considering whether there are ways of making the system smoother and more streamlined.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to increase the use of CCTV in communities where it is wanted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of the number of student visitor visas issued in the last year for which figures are available.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

In 2012, 68,372 student visitor visas were issued, 11% more than in 2011. Such visitors come to take short courses or to attend university summer schools. Most can stay for up to six months, but in order to support English language schools, we now allow those taking specialist English courses to stay for up to 11 months on extended student visit visas.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The UK Border Agency’s border inspector has warned that student visitor visas are open to abuse, so why has the number of people entering the UK with them risen by 76% under this Tory-led Government?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady ought to check what the chief inspector actually said. All he said was that the UKBA should monitor the route to ensure that it was not being exploited, and that is exactly what it is doing. If the hon. Lady looks at the nationalities in relation to which we have reduced the number of tier 4 visas, she will see that there is no sign of any increase in student visitor visas. In fact, nearly 50% of the people using the student visitor route are non-visa nationals, and a large proportion of those coming here with six-month student visitor visas are from the United States of America. There is no risk of abuse, but we remain alert to it and will ensure that we catch it out.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the number of university visas has increased by 3% while at the same time the number of student visas is actually falling shows that it is possible to strip abuse from the system while also ensuring that the UK is open to the brightest and the best?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a big drop in the number of students coming here, but that is because we have stripped abuse from the system. Five hundred fewer colleges are able to bring in foreign nationals, but, as my hon. Friend says, there has been an increase in the number entering our excellent universities sector.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

20. The Government have been caught napping by allowing the number of student visitor visas to rise by 30,000 since June 2010. Moreover, does the Minister accept that, in the words of Universities Scotland, he is damaging the brand of higher education by ensuring that genuine overseas students are included in the Government’s net migration target?

[Mr Harper]

That is a very good example of a Member reading out a question without having listened to my previous answer. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen at all to what I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). The number of students entering our excellent universities sector has risen, both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should also know that the student visitor visa is credibility-based. Entry clearance officers have full powers to say no to students if they believe that they are not genuine student visitors to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

14. What progress her Department has made on improving the detection and reporting of incidents of domestic violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

15. What assessment she has made of trends in the number of foreign criminals who have been deported since June 2010.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The UK Border Agency removed over 4,500 foreign national offenders in 2012, and have removed over 11,000 foreign national criminals since June 2010. There has been an increase in the number of appeals being lodged against deportation, which is why we implemented changes in the immigration rules last July to prevent criminals facing deportation from abusing the Human Rights Act.

[Graeme Morrice]

The fact is that this Government are deporting 900 fewer foreign criminals a year than the previous Labour Government did. Why is this Government’s performance so poor?

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my previous answer, he would know that there has been a significant increase in the number of appeals lodged by criminals; in 2012, the figure increased by 1,000. That is exactly why we have strengthened the ability to remove criminals by implementing changes in the immigration rules, and to ensure that that is enforced by tribunals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we will take powers in primary legislation to do so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Jamaicans and Nigerians make up a disproportionately large number of the foreign nationals in our jails. What assistance is my hon. Friend providing to the Secretary of State for Justice in negotiating compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with these two countries, and what progress is being made?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Nigerian Parliament has passed the legislation required to implement compulsory prisoner transfer, which means that in due course we will be able compulsorily to move prisoners to Nigeria, which I am sure he will welcome.

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

Might the trend in this area not be rather better if the Home Secretary had followed the advice of our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), rather than that of others who have been consistently wrong?

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The amendment proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton would in our judgment have made it more difficult to deport foreign national offenders, rather than easier. That is why the Government will look at introducing amendments to primary legislation, when we have a suitable legislative vehicle, to implement the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T5. Further to the earlier questions on student visas, and given that Lancaster is home to one of our top universities, is any extra support available when a university needs speedier visas so that overseas academics can come to conferences and seminars that are vital to the university’s international reputation?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am sure that he will have been encouraged by what I said earlier about student visas. He might be interested to know that last April we introduced the visitor route for permitted paid engagements, which is specifically helpful in such cases as it covers experts visiting to give a paid lecture, examine students and participate in or chair selection panels. They can do that for up to one month and receive a fee payment; I hope that is helpful to all those at his excellent local university.

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

I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about Sir Jonathan Evans. On a different subject, the UN convention on the rights of the child clearly states that every individual under the age of 18 should be regarded as a child, yet we still treat 17-year-olds who are arrested as adults. Will the Home Secretary agree to undertake a review of that situation, which sometimes has disastrous consequences, to ensure that any 17-year-old who is taken into police custody is treated as a child?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question follows on from the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). I hosted a meeting of health academics from Turkey, who experienced difficulties in visiting the UK because of delays in securing a visa for the visit. Given the economic opportunities flowing from Turkey, will he join my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and me in seeking an expedited service for this economic priority nation?

[Mr Harper]

Our overseas visa and entry clearance services have delivered a very good performance, with over 90% of visas issued within 15 days. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific example—and it sounds as if he does—in which there was a longer delay, I would be grateful if he gave me the details and I can investigate matters with the UK Border Agency.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that police and stewards can effectively control football matches, as they did yesterday at Wembley stadium, when they were able to witness Wrexham football club’s glorious victory over Grimsby Town in the FA trophy final?

UK Border Agency

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 9 November 2012 the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published its eighth report of the Session 2012-13 “The Work of the UK Border Agency (April-June 2012)”. I am today publishing by Command Paper the Government’s response to that report and to accompany that response would like to set out some of the measures that this Government are taking to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency.

This Government are bringing immigration back under control. The latest net migration statistics show another significant fall in net migration—down almost a third since June 2010—and visa statistics indicate that this trend is set to continue. The UK Border Agency is playing an important role in ensuring our reforms are having an impact in all the right places.

The agency has already shown signs of significant improvement. It has maintained and improved its performance against service standards in its international and visa operations and launched priority services in over 30 countries. Last year it closed the historic “controlled archives” of asylum and migration cases and helped to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic games by collecting over 15,000 biometric details in advance.

However there is further work to be done.

To improve processing times agency staff have been redeployed to front-line caseworking duties and additional employment agency staff recruited to deal with outstanding work. These measures are already making inroads and I expect the agency to be operating within service standards across most workstreams by the spring of 2013.

The agency is building on the success of its dedicated MP account managers to continue to improve and develop its services. Every MP will have a named contact for their queries. We will continue to expand the use of email and telephone to provide a more timely and responsive service. MP account managers will also continue to alert MPs about rules and procedure changes that might impact their constituents.

We are also driving enforcement activity: the agency removes around 40,000 people every year, including up to 5,000 foreign national offenders, and continues to focus on developing innovative approaches; a joint UKBA and Metropolitan Police Service operation is successfully using new methods to identify and remove foreign national offenders in London.

I am confident that these measures represent the start of a period of further improvement that will leave the UK Border Agency on the sure footing necessary to continue to deliver a safe and efficient immigration system.

EU Readmission Agreement with Armenia

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Government have decided not to opt in at this stage to the draft Council decisions concerning the signature and conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (European Union Document Nos. 16909/12, COM(2012) 703; 16910/1/12, COM(2012) 704).

There is little irregular migration from Armenia to the UK and we have no operational problems with returns which an EURA would help to resolve. It would be possible for the UK to seek to participate in the agreement post adoption if these circumstances were to change.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for giving me an opportunity to set out the Government’s thinking. As she was speaking, I was thinking through a number of responses, and I hope I can also respond to the multiple instalment story from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who finally got it all out, I think.

Let me first set out a bit of background to put this matter in context. As part of our general reform of the immigration system across all the routes coming to the United Kingdom, we undertook a major overhaul of the family routes. There were three aims: to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, to promote integration, and to tackle abuse. The hon. Member for Bristol East’s focus has been on the financial requirement, which is the minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor a partner of non-European economic area nationality to settle in the UK, with higher levels for those who also sponsor dependent non-EEA national children.

The point of the requirement is to prevent burdens from falling on the taxpayer and to promote successful integration. To put the story round the other way and to throw it back at the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), people can come here to establish their family lives, but we ask that they should not expect the taxpayer to fund that.

The hon. Lady raised the point about no recourse to public funds, which has always been in place, and suggested that was a sufficient protection for the taxpayer. The problem with that is twofold. First, under the immigration rules only some things the taxpayer funds are classed as public funds. The things that are not considered as public funds are NHS costs, social care, contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit, maternity allowance, retirement pension and statutory maternity pay. A range of funds, therefore, are not excluded under the no recourse to public funds measure. If someone comes to the UK under no recourse to public funds, we would still have to provide health care to them, therefore, which may well be a burden on the taxpayer.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Most of the benefits to which the Minister has referred are contribution-based, and therefore are not relevant. On health care, however, I think most of our constituents would be quite happy if there were a requirement looking at some way of paying for health care, because part of the point of this is that there are lots of cases where people will have enough money on any system, but not on this rule.

[Mr Harper]

Let me come back to that. The specific cases that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bristol East raised can I think be dealt with elsewhere in the immigration rules; that comes back to the point about representations.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It seems to me wrong that if someone is earning a modest income, their partner or child cannot access the NHS, but if they are wealthy, they can. Surely that goes completely against what the NHS is meant to be about. The Minister is saying that there is a different rule for people who earn more, meaning that their partners can get NHS treatment.

[Mr Harper]

No, the hon. Lady misunderstands me, which I am sure is my fault for not explaining the situation. The point is that if someone comes here and we say they have no recourse to public funds, they do have access to the NHS. I think the hon. Lady was arguing that because someone on a modest income who brings their family member here could not access public funds, that would not place a burden on the taxpayer. My point was that if, for example, that person needed to access the NHS, they could, and of course that burden would fall on the taxpayer, even though the income-earner’s contribution to the Exchequer may be very modest.

The other, wider, issue concerns the way our welfare system works. The presence of the partner may of course increase the benefits that the British national is entitled to. Although the migrant might not be entitled to housing benefit, for example, their presence may well increase the amount that the UK citizen is able to claim. That may give rise to a genuine issue about how our welfare system works—that is another debate—but given how it works, it is not quite as simple as saying that because there is no recourse to public funds there is no burden on the taxpayer from their presence.

I want to say something about a change relating to integration, albeit briefly as it does not fall within the category of finance. We think English language skills are very important, which is why, from October, we are increasing the level of English language skills we expect. That is partly to give those who come here the best possible chance of integrating—participating in the workplace and being part of the community.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Minister is making a really important point. People are welcome, providing they can contribute to the society they are joining. That is surely good for them, too. Does the Minister agree that the central point regarding language and income is that they feel comfortable, involved and included?

[Mr Harper]

I do, and that goes back to the central point of the debate.

I was about to give a little background to how we arrived at the particular sums of money involved, because that is helpful—

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to making sure that in every country, applicants who are trying to come here to join a spouse can actually get the qualifications he is going to require of them?

[Mr Harper]

My understanding is that people are able to do that. I can tell from the way the hon. Lady is looking at me that there is a point behind her question, so if she will do me the courtesy of dropping me a line, I will examine the argument she is making and get back to her, rather than diverting the debate away from its central point.

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

At the risk of diverting the debate for just a fraction longer, I worry a bit about this language test. I come from a third-generation immigrant family, and my grandfather to the end of his life spoke English haltingly and with a thick foreign accent. What mattered was that he was able to undertake a productive trade, and that his children and grandchildren were not cosseted by being taught in the language of the country they had left, but were properly educated in the language of the country they had joined. To have too stringent a language test is to look at the problem the wrong way round.

[Mr Harper]

I was listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I will reflect on it. I thank him for making that point.

Let me say a little more about the financial changes—

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

I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving on to that point, because residents in my constituency are surprised that the limit of £18,000 is so low, given that we hear concerns about the benefits cap of £26,000. I am delighted that he is going to explain why the limit is £18,000—of course, it is more for people with children.

[Mr Harper]

The previous requirement, which I think has been alluded to, was that applicants had to be “adequately maintained”. The courts generally interpreted that to mean income equivalent to the level of income support for a British family of that size, which was about £5,500 a year for a couple at that time. Our view was that that level of income was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance that UK sponsors and their migrant partners could support themselves and their children over the long term.

The previous regime also required quite a complex assessment, both for applicants and caseworkers, of current and prospective employment income and other financial means. It made decision making difficult, as was highlighted by the independent chief inspector’s report of 24 January on the processing of applications under the old rules for spouses and partners. Again, that was partly why we wanted a financial requirement that was clear and transparent; applicants would know where they stood, and we could make clear and timely decisions.

The minimum income threshold is £18,600 a year, with a higher amount with those sponsoring dependent children—it is £22,400 for those sponsoring one child and an extra £2,400 for each further child. We based that on the expert advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It gave us a range of figures and that was at the low end. Its figures went up to about £25,000, a level at which someone would be making a net contribution to the Exchequer. The £18,600 level we settled on is broadly the income at which a couple, once settled here, cannot access income-related benefits. It is not an exact match, but it was as close as we can get. Our approach broadly says, “If they are here earning that amount of money, they are going to be able to stand on their own two feet and not expect the taxpayer to support them.”

[Kate Green]

I understand the logic the Minister is outlining, but when benefits are assessed for a household they are assessed on a household basis. So this approach does not appear to address the point that has been made about ignoring the income of the incoming spouse.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, which I am coming on to address. In most cases—this comes back to the point about representations—including one of the cases the hon. Member for Bristol East raised and the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), there is often an alternative way, through the immigration rules, of someone getting to the United Kingdom. So the reason we do not take into account—

[Kerry McCarthy]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me just develop the point, because either I will answer it satisfactorily or I will not and the hon. Lady will then be able pick up the point she thinks I have not answered adequately, rather than getting in first. I will make two points. First, we do not take into account the previous income of the migrant partner when they apply for entry clearance mainly because what someone happened to be earning elsewhere is no guarantee of their finding work here. However, in the case she highlighted of the female British citizen with a South African husband and in the case that the hon. Member for Slough mentioned of the skilled science teacher, although the partner may not be able to get entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a spouse, they would of course be able to apply under our tier 2 skilled working visa to come to the United Kingdom. They could then get entry clearance on that basis and once here in work, earning an income, they would be able to switch into the family route. They could then show that they could earn that level of income and that would then be taken into account. So people who would be able to come here to work in a skilled job could come here under an alternative route and once they have established the fact of earning that level of income, they would be able to change their status under the spouse route, with the appropriate route to settlement. So certainly the South African husband could follow that route and it would work for him.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My understanding is that he would be able to do that only if his job could not be filled by a UK person. He is a computer programmer and, obviously, there are a lot of those in this country already, so he would not meet the criteria: no employer would say that the skills they required could be met only by him and not by anyone else. He has worked in the UK for six years under a work permit and it was unfortunate that the couple left the UK for a short time and the rules changed while they were out of the country. Had they not done so, they would have been able to go down the route that the Minister suggested.

[Mr Harper]

Under the tier 2 rule, it has to be a skilled job and they have to undergo a resident labour market test. So if he has a particular employer in mind, the rules may be a little more inflexible in the sense that he may not be able to say a specific employer, but if he has skills to offer, there are many occupations in which there is a shortage of people. If it is an occupation on the shortage occupation list, the employer is not required to undergo a resident labour market test. There are therefore opportunities in certain cases for someone to come here.

The hon. Member for Slough highlighted the issue of savings. Despite the fact that I managed to throw together some maths A-levels, that was a long time ago so I will not try to do the maths in my head. Savings can be used to make up the difference. We look at the amount of savings above £16,000, which is the threshold that is generally disregarded for income-related benefits. If someone holds savings for the period that they are hoping to come to the United Kingdom, which would be 30 months, the savings count as long as the applicants have them under their control for at least six months.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Even if they are self-employed?

[Mr Harper]

I believe that the answer is yes. If inspiration does not strike me before the end of the debate to confirm that, I will write to her.

In the immigration rules laid today, we have made some changes to the evidential requirements. For example, we had cases in which people were in receipt of tax-free stipends from universities. The net amount was below £18,600 and the rules were previously unclear about whether people could gross it up. I had a couple of cases raised with me and I thought it self-evident that people should be able to gross it up. So we have made it clear that that is indeed the case.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that plenty of companies in this country regularly secure permits to bring talented people to fulfil specific roles? So, it happens now and we are proud to welcome talent into our country to fill those roles.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. If people have married or are with a partner, they are looking at a particular route. It is worth saying, and her intervention highlights this, that there are alternative routes for people under the immigration rules for some of these difficult cases.

[Neil Carmichael]

May I go back to the qualification period, for both savings and income? Why did the Government choose six months?

[Mr Harper]

It was to ensure that people could not abuse the system by holding the money for only a day or two, making the application, succeeding and then giving the money back. It is to make sure that the money is genuinely under someone’s control and available to them rather than their borrowing money that belongs to someone else for a short period. We felt that six months met that requirement without being overly burdensome and putting unreasonable requirements on individuals.

Perhaps I will follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Slough if she speaks to me about the specific case. Inspiration has told me that the savings do not count in that way with self-employed people. If she has a specific case, which it looks like she has, perhaps she will draw that to my attention and I will look at it and see whether I think the rules are sufficient to deal with it.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

The House proceeded to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am on the verge of sending somebody to see where the Serjeant at Arms has gone. Has this got anything to do with Comic Relief by any chance? It is that time of year.

[Mr Harper]

Comic Relief is tomorrow.

Immigration Rules

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

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

Minor changes will be made to the general visitor rules to guard against abuse by those whose repeat visits amount to de facto residence.

New provisions are being made in the tier 1 (graduate entrepreneur) route, which we introduced last year. The category is being expanded to include additional places for talented MBA graduates from UK higher education institutions (HEIs) and to accommodate UK Trade and Investment’s elite global graduate entrepreneur scheme, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his autumn statement and will target the brightest and best entrepreneurs from overseas HEIs.

Changes are being made to the tier 1 (exceptional talent) route, for world leaders in science, engineering, humanities and the arts. These changes split the application process so that applicants will no longer have to pay the full fee up front, or have their passports held by the UK Border Agency while a designated competent body is considering whether to endorse them.

Changes are being made to tier 2, the route for skilled migrant workers with a job offer from a licensed employer. These changes further improve flexibility for intra-company transferees and for employers carrying out the resident labour market test. They also update the shortage occupation list, codes of practice for employers, overall salary thresholds and minimum appropriate salary rates for individual occupations, following reviews by the Migration Advisory Committee. I have also made changes that will remove the need to continually lay further rules changes to renew the tier 2 (general) limit. This means that the limit will continue to be set at 20,700 places per year unless further rule changes are made to amend it. We have previously confirmed that the current limit will remain in place until April 2014.

Changes are being made to tier 4, recently announced by the Home Secretary, that will extend the opportunities for talented graduates to stay and work after their studies. All completing PhD students will be allowed to stay in the UK for one year beyond the end of the course to find skilled work or to set up as an entrepreneur.

The provisions in tier 5 for temporary workers coming to the UK under the relevant commitments in certain international trade agreements to which the UK is a party are being updated.

The changes will delete temporary immigration rules which facilitated the entry and stay of certain Olympic and Paralympic participants and personnel during the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The rules ceased to have effect on 9 November 2012.

Minor changes are being made to the immigration rules on long residence and on work-related settlement, including clarifying the treatment of time spent working; in business or self-employment; or other economic activity in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Minor changes and clarifications are being made to the immigration rules relating to family and private life, mainly reflecting feedback from legal practitioners and UK Border Agency caseworkers on the operation of the new rules.

The changes also include the removal of the now obsolete provision in the immigration rules for parents and siblings of EEA national children who exercise free movement rights in the UK as self-sufficient persons, following the amendment of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 to create provision for such persons which is compliant with European and domestic case law. This provision gave effect to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Chen (C200/02).

In the subsequent case of M (Chen parents: source of rights) Ivory Coast [2010], the upper tribunal found that “Chen” carers persons have a right of residence under European law. This determination effectively prevented the UK Border Agency continuing to require Chen carers to apply for leave under the immigration rules, because section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 says that a person who has “an enforceable Community right” shall not require leave to enter or remain in the UK.

Amendments were made to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (“the regulations”) on 16 July 2012 to recognise a right of residence for persons with a derivative right of residence on the basis of Chen and to create provision for such persons to be issued with documentation confirming this right under the regulations. This provision rendered paragraphs 257C-E of the immigration rules obsolete, as all applications for a document confirming a right of residence on the basis of Chen are now assessed under the regulations.

Changes will be made to safeguard against an offender returning to the UK lawfully but in breach of a conditional caution. It replicates the effect of paragraph 320(7B)(vii) of the general grounds for refusal.

A new protection route is being introduced recognising stateless persons who are unable to leave the UK. According to article 1(1) of the 1954 UN convention an individual is stateless if they are not considered to be a national of any state under the operation of its law.

This new route has been formulated in line with the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons in co-operation with UNHCR and Asylum Aid. It is limited in its scope and requires applicants to demonstrate that they are stateless and cannot leave the UK.

Changes are being made to ensure the requirements necessary for granting discretionary leave to unaccompanied asylum seeking children are within the immigration rules.

Finally, there are also a number of minor technical changes, corrections and updates to lists contained in the immigration rules. Details of these are set out in the explanatory memorandum laid today to accompany the changes.

Operation Jasmine (Care Home Abuse)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this debate on an important issue, and I agree with his concluding remarks. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for waiving the sub judice rules so that I can set out some details that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with, but which it would be helpful to get in the public record.

The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in this issue because one of the care homes covered by the investigation was in his constituency. He and other hon. Members will know about family members of those who were neglected, or those who sadly died, who will be affected and will be concerned about what happened. I am sure that his interest, and the interest of other Opposition Members, will keep this issue at the forefront, to ensure that we learn lessons from it.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Marilyn Jenkins’s mother was in the Brithdir home and died. She is unaware whether her mother was properly treated or not. Will she ever be able to get answers to that question?

[Mr Harper]

I should have said that hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, will know of such cases, too. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked whether the prosecuting authorities would meet family members. That seems sensible. I have had experience of cases in the criminal justice system, in which—even if the outcome was not everything that people wanted—understanding what happened and having the facts, and understanding the thinking, at least gave people a sense that a proper process had been followed.

In my hon. Friend’s constituent’s case, and I suspect in that of many other families, even if they may not be happy with the outcome because the prosecutor has not been able to proceed with the case, it is important to know what happened to their family member and whether they were properly treated. Although that may not give them satisfaction, at least they may understand what happened and can ensure that they and other people learn the lessons, so that it does not happen again.

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no place in our society for anyone who abuses anyone for whom they are supposed to be caring, whether a child, a vulnerable adult, or any other member of the community. We should always be vigilant about dealing with that.

Operation Jasmine was a long and difficult case for all those concerned, with 103 alleged victims, 63 of whom have subsequently died. That must be incredibly distressing for their families. I thought that it would probably help, given the hon. Gentleman’s questions, if I gave the House some facts about the operation and the outcome of the police investigation, which commenced in 2005.

[Paul Flynn]

In March 2000, a ten-minute rule Bill was introduced, seeking better control of neuroleptic drugs in residential homes. Some homes did not use the drugs at all, but in other homes 100% of residents were on those drugs, which meant that they often lived shorter lives and died in misery and confusion. Has there been any improvement since 2000?

[Mr Harper]

I am not familiar, apart from in general terms, with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend with responsibility for care standards. I am sure that the relevant Minister in the Welsh Government will also hear of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The investigation commenced in 2005, when an elderly resident at Bryngwyn Mountleigh nursing home was admitted to the Royal Gwent hospital, where she then died. Partner agencies brought to Gwent police’s attention significant potential failings at Brithdir nursing home, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Both homes were owned by Dr Prana Das. Following the investigation into this incident at Bryngwyn, further investigation by Gwent police identified a series of deaths at the home that required further thorough investigation, with the police identifying a further 11 cases where elements of neglectful care may have been linked to the deaths of those residents.

Initial work at Brithdir nursing home identified 23 further cases of concern where allegations of neglect had been investigated. The operation eventually investigated allegations of abuse at two further care homes. Gwent police took this very seriously—I think that that was the general sense of the contributions from Opposition Members—and allocated a dedicated police lawyer and Crown Prosecution Service counsel early on in their investigation. I think that they sensed how significant it was going to be.

As the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said, it was a thorough police investigation, involving 75 police officers, more than 4,000 statements, more than 10,000 exhibits and 12.5 tonnes of documentation. The Home Office provided special grant support for the police authority in Gwent, so that the costs of this investigation did not fall entirely on the police authority and cause detriment to wider policing in Gwent. That was right and proper.

There were three convictions against care home staff in 2008 for wilful neglect. The investigation then continued with further charges being sought against the main defendant, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect. However, in February 2010 interim advice from CPS was that the cases had not reached the threshold required for criminal prosecution. The investigations were then completed. Further CPS advice to Gwent constabulary in February and June 2011 was that the threshold for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect had not been met in any of those cases.

I understand that the chief constable, not being satisfied with that advice, met the Director of Public Prosecutions to challenge the advice that he had received. The DPP reiterated the advice that, despite the thorough investigation, the case simply had not reached the threshold for reasonable prosecutions, given the difficulties of proving wilful neglect.

Hon. Members will be aware, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that the case was then taken forward as a joint investigation with the Health and Safety Executive. The decision was taken by the HSE to prosecute Dr Das, his company Puretruce Health Care Ltd and its chief executive, Mr Paul Black, in relation to neglect and fraud at two care homes, Brithdir and The Beeches in Blaenavon. The trial was set for January this year, but on 9 September 2012 Dr Das was badly assaulted in his home in an unrelated incident of aggravated burglary and has remained in hospital ever since, suffering from permanent brain damage. As the hon. Gentleman said, on 1 March Judge Neil Bidder, based on medical evidence that he had received, ordered that all charges relating to Das, Black and the company lie on file. If Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, which I understand from the medical evidence is unlikely, the trial could continue.

I cannot remember whether the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) or the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is sitting next to him, mentioned this, but the judge also ruled that Paul Black, the co-defendant, should not stand trial because it was not deemed appropriate to try him alone. I can understand, of course, that the fact the prosecution could not continue leaves families with a real sense that justice has not been done, but given that the judge decided the defendant is not in fit condition to stand trial, it is not obvious that there is an alternative prosecution scenario.

The judge also decided that, in the absence of the primary defendant, Dr Das, the company could not be tried either, because it is not possible for the company to have a fair trial given that the main individual controlling the company is not able to respond. The positive thing is that the charges lie on file, so if Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, family members may be reassured that the case will continue, although, as I have said, the medical evidence is that that is very unlikely.

One of the questions that underlies what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said is whether something like this could happen again. Important issues arise on whether we have proper arrangements to protect vulnerable adults from those who might seek to abuse and exploit them.

[Wayne David]

I heard what the Minister said about the evidence remaining on the table, as it were, but does he not accept my point that we need some sort of time scale? In theory, the evidence that has been accumulated could remain on the table indefinitely without there ever being an inquiry because it might not allow consent to be given for such an inquiry.

[Mr Harper]

I was just about to come on to the question of an inquiry. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) alluded to there being another factor in the case, because, obviously, some of these issues are for the UK Government and some of the issues on health and social care are for the Welsh Government.

If either Government decided that a public inquiry would be the right thing, they would need to think through whether the charges remaining on file were a roadblock and whether, therefore, steps needed to be taken. They would also need to consider the balance in terms of the interests of justice and openness.

At the moment it is important that lessons are learned, and I will set out what I think some of those lessons are. If we are to have a public inquiry, we need to think through the objective of that inquiry and what it is that we would learn that we do not already know. Given the exhaustive nature of the police investigation, and without doing some further thinking, I am not clear whether the answer to that question is that we would learn something from having a public inquiry.

Clearly, if it turned out that the fact the charges are lying on file and are pending is a roadblock, and if either Government wanted to have some sort of public inquiry, we would need to come back to that and the various agencies would need to think about the right solution. Without that being on the table, the fact that the charges are on file means that people can be reassured that there is no sense that someone could get away with it if they were ever in a position to stand trial. The fact is that the evidence is there, the charges are there and it would be possible for a prosecution to proceed if the defendant were ever in a position to be able to stand trial in a way a judge determined to be fair.

I have six minutes left, so I will try to address some of the other issues. As a result of the operation, 42 individuals were referred for consideration under the Care Standards Act 2000, which introduced a duty on care providers to refer care workers who have been dismissed or suspended or otherwise left their employment for misconduct that harmed a vulnerable adult or placed a vulnerable adult at risk of harm to the protection of vulnerable adults scheme. In October 2009, all cases under that scheme were referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which has since been replaced by the new Disclosure and Barring Service. That is a mechanism for ensuring that any care worker who does not perform at the level they should is unable to work with vulnerable children or vulnerable adults in the future.

More widely, the Government are completely committed to protecting vulnerable members of the community. Work is under way, as part of a Department of Health-led, cross-Government effort on safeguarding vulnerable adults, to legislate to put safeguarding adults boards on a stronger statutory footing to ensure that they are better equipped to prevent abuse and to respond when it occurs.

Given the role of the Welsh Government, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen suggested, I have taken the trouble to understand some of the issues they were dealing with. I know they have maintained close contact with Gwent police throughout the police operation, and I know they have taken account of lessons from the operation in developing their own policies and legislation in this area. The Welsh Government have introduced new statutory guidance on managing escalating concerns within care homes. They funded a dignity in care programme to improve practice, and I understand that, later in the year, they will publish a White Paper on the regulation and inspection of social care. The Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales has also modernised its approach to inspection and regulation to give a stronger voice to care home residents and their families.

Protecting vulnerable adults from abuse is clearly a core part of the police’s safeguarding and public protection responsibilities. The Association of Chief Police Officers recognises the importance of working together with statutory agencies, local authorities and their safeguarding partners.

ACPO has reviewed the overall learning from Winterbourne View, another very serious case in which adults with learning disabilities were treated incredibly badly. The one direct recommendation relating to the police was on the early identification of trends and patterns of abuse, the lessons from which will be disseminated nationally across England and Wales through training and practice.

[Wayne David]

Given that Gwent police has already said it is more than happy to co-operate with the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales on an immediate inquiry, does the Minister agree that that would be a positive step forwards?

[Mr Harper]

I will go away and look at that. From everything they have done, the police come out of this very well. The investigation was very thorough, and everyone seems to think they did the work that was required. The College of Policing has a public protection learning project that brings together a range of public protection disciplines, including adults at risk, and it will consider the training materials used by police forces across England and Wales.

What the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said at the end of his remarks is absolutely true. Protecting vulnerable members of our society is an absolute priority. This has been a difficult and disturbing case, and it has been very lengthy for everyone involved. The charges lie on file, and the case has happened.

From what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire have said, it sounds as if some work may be needed to ensure that all the families involved are properly briefed about what happened to each and every one of their relatives so that they fully understand the situation.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the DPP and the CPS meeting the families, and I will raise that with the DPP through the Attorney-General—I cannot think of any reason why such meetings could not happen—and report back to the hon. Gentleman.

If there are lessons from the case, they clearly need to be learned. It is right that all parties, including the UK Government and the Welsh Government, should consider what they can do. I know the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will continue to pursue the matter to ensure that whatever lessons can be learned are learned and that we are never here again with a similar case. I hope what I have said has helped the hon. Gentleman in what he has been trying to establish today, and I am sure this will not be the last time he raises the issue either in Westminster Hall or in Parliament more widely.

Carriers' Liability Consultation

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Border security is vital for the UK. While it is right that the Government are in the lead on this, carriers and the transport sector as a whole have an important role to play. We are therefore strengthening our partnership with this sector on a broad range of border security issues. We are today launching a consultation on a package of proposals around the liability of carriers for bringing undocumented passengers to the UK. This consultation is an important part of this partnership process.

The cost to the UK of undocumented passengers can be high as many go on to claim asylum. There can also be a security risk as individuals wishing to come here for organised crime or terrorism purposes may view this as a potential method of entry. The policy objective of the proposals is to reduce the number of passengers arriving in the UK without proper documentation, and to do this by working in partnership with carriers.

The consultation document includes two key proposals. The first is to increase the level of the carriers’ liability charge from £2,000 per undocumented passenger to £7,000. While this is a significant increase, the charge level has been at £2,000 for more than 20 years and no longer reflects the costs and risks involved. The second is to introduce a new approved route incentives scheme for carriers. This includes a number of charge waivers if the carrier is engaging effectively with us on border security issues, including document checking and data submission.

The consultation will last for four weeks and is targeted at airline and ferry companies, industry representative bodies and passenger groups. The consultation document is available on the Home Office website and we have also placed copies in the Library of the House.

Document Fraud (Specialist Printing Equipment)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I am today launching a four-week public consultation on proposals to prevent the supply of highly specialist printing equipment to fraudsters who then use that equipment to produce false documents.

These proposals have been developed following a rising trend in illegal document factories which buy specialist printing equipment to produce counterfeits of credit cards and Government-issued documents, including passports and driving licences. This trend is contributing to the £2.7 billion cost of identity crime to the United Kingdom each year and helps criminals to enter the country illegally, to commit benefit fraud and to evade criminal records checks.

The proposals would make it a criminal offence to supply highly specialist printing equipment to fraudsters, whether deliberately or without carrying out reasonable checks. The Government have held discussions with the specialist printing industry and the police, both of which originally requested that we address this issue. We are now seeking wider views which will enable us to evaluate the evidence and the impact on the industry to help shape potential proposals for legislation.

The detailed consultation questions can be found on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/printing-consultation/.