Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Renumeration and Conditions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Tom Winsor has today published the final report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.
The review began its work on 1 October 2010. The terms of reference asked it to make recommendations on how to:
use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to frontline roles where their powers and skills are required;
provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to and reasonable for both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;
enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.
The review was asked to report in two stages. The first report, on short-term improvements, was published on 8 March 2011. I announced on 30 January that I had decided to accept the recommendations made by the police arbitration tribunal and Police Negotiating Board on its proposals. This final report is on longer-term reform.
Tom Winsor has conducted the review with the support of former chief constable Sir Edward Crew and labour market economist Professor Richard Disney. I am very grateful for all their work on both parts of the review and for this report. I will now consider it very carefully.
The final report has been laid before Parliament today and copies are available from the Vote Office. It is also available electronically to the service and the public on the review’s website at: http://review.police.uk/.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 8 March in Brussels. I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.
The Council began in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The presidency opened a debate on illegal immigration by outlining some of the pressures facing member states. The presidency reported that it was working on a roadmap for the April Council grouping current and future measures into a single strategy. The Commission (Malmström) supported the presidency and saw the response as being threefold: member states needed to make full use of existing legislation; the EU Agencies (Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office) needed to work more closely together; and there needed to be further co-operation with countries of origin and transit, with Turkey a priority. Frontex’s update showed that despite a decrease in the flows from Libya and Tunisia, the situation overall was not improving. Ministers were supportive of the presidency roadmap and all agreed that the Greece-Turkey border was a priority. The UK supported the presidency’s work and noted concerns over visa liberalisation. In addition the EU needed to begin to take action to tackle fraud and abuse of free movement rights where third country nationals were using these rights to facilitate their travel across the EU and to circumvent immigration controls. The UK also supported work upstream with partner countries, and suggested that a more concerted EU dialogue with Turkey needed to be initiated.
There followed presentations by the Commission, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Frontex on the situation in Greece in relation to Schengen. The Commission noted there was evidence of progress but it was still uneven, particularly in the area of asylum management. EASO provided an overview of the training support currently underway. Whilst the backlog in asylum decisions was still too big, EASO welcomed the announcement that Greece’s new asylum service would be operational from this September. Frontex reported seeing real progress on border management and once again appealed to member states to increase their deployment of expertise. The presidency suggested developing returns strategies to help the Greek authorities increase their capacity to return failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants, and invited the agencies and Commission to report again in April.
The Council adopted conclusions on strengthening Schengen governance. Ministers from EU and associated states would meet twice a year in mixed committee to discuss the functioning of the Schengen area, including any serious shortcomings highlighted by reports under the Schengen evaluation mechanism. Member states welcomed the Commission’s intention to present regular reports, starting in May, which would cover planned and existing visa liberalisation and its consequences, co-operation with key countries of origin and transit, and the implementation of the Schengen acquis, including at the internal borders.
The presidency introduced its paper on co-operation with third countries in the area of border management and on strengthening internal security during major sporting events. There was little discussion. Updating Ministers on preparations for the Olympics, the Home Secretary underlined that the safety and security of the games were of paramount importance. The UK Government had been planning for years and had recently conducted live exercises, including a simulation of a terrorist attack and a test of the inter-operability of emergency services and other responders. The Home Secretary thanked Schengen states and the Commission for their assurances that requests from games’ family members for transit visas would be expedited and said the UK would disseminate information to participants informing them that they needed to meet any visa requirements of transit countries. Lastly, the Government were working with a number of member states to tackle the few instances of illegal ticket touting.
The presidency reported on the recent conference on innovation border management. Participants had acknowledged the benefits of a biometric EU entry-exit system and registered traveller programme, and agreed on the need to balance data protection considerations with the benefits of access to data for law enforcement agencies.
The presidency emphasised the importance of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) in enabling the Schengen area to remain secure without internal borders. Commissioner Malmström noted they had completed all activities on schedule to date, but issues with the national testing tool could cause the timetable to slip.
Moving into the main Council meeting, the adoption of the A points (the list of items agreed without discussion) confirmed Rob Wainwright’s directorship of Europol for another four years.
Before inviting Ministers to approve the Council conclusions on solidarity, the presidency underlined the importance of having a ‘toolbox’ at member states’ disposal to counter the challenges presented in the field of asylum and managing mixed migration flows. The conclusions provided the framework for increasing mutual trust. The Commission stood ready to undertake their commitments and thought the conclusions should maintain the momentum required to complete the Common European Asylum System negotiations by the end of 2012. EASO presented its own view of the early warning mechanism to be agreed within the Dublin regulation, with EASO analysing member state data to identify trends and push and pull factors; a Commission lead on preparedness with EASO support; and emergency support which was already being provided to Greece. The UK was pleased with the balance of solidarity measures and member state responsibilities and the fact that the conclusions recognised the value of practical co-operation. However, the UK called for caution in striking the right balance between the roles of the institutions in the early warning mechanism. For the UK, EASO should have the leading role, but in close partnership with member states. The UK also supported the view that internal relocation would simply move the problem around Europe, creating pull factors, but noted that the reference in the conclusions was on a voluntary basis.
In the last session of the Council, the presidency gave a brief overview of progress on the asylum package and signalled its intention to move with commitment and energy to complete as much as possible, in view of the 2012 deadline. The Commission was pleased with the progress made, and urged the presidency to maintain momentum.
Transit Visa Requirements (Syrian, Libyan and Egyptian Nationals)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I will inform the Governments of Syria, Libya and Egypt that we will be introducing a change to the transit visa regime for the citizens of Syria, Libya and Egypt travelling to the United Kingdom. We see this as a necessary measure to protect the security of our borders.
Britain is a major hub for transit passengers travelling on long haul flights. The volume of traffic passing through the UK is increasing and poses new challenges. Since 2003 certain nationalities have been required to obtain a visa before they travel, including if they are in transit to another destination and are arriving at and leaving from the same airport. This is known as a Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV). Since the introduction of the DATV regime a number of countries have been added to the list of those required to obtain a transit visa before transiting the UK. This has been done as a direct response to emerging security and immigration threats to the UK, and we will continue to monitor risks and threats.
The implementation of the DATV regime allows us to run comprehensive checks on those transiting the UK, and prevents high harm individuals from travelling here. Since the original introduction of the DATV there has been a noticeable fall in transit passengers destroying their travel documents before claiming asylum. The visa process means that we are able to collect pre-travel information as part of the application process which makes identification and checks more robust.
The situation in Syria continues to pose a serious concern to us and the wider international community. Libya and Egypt are emerging from a period of instability. We therefore assess that requiring nationals of these countries to obtain a visa for transit through the UK is both a sensible and proportionate response to the threat posed to the UK’s national and border security.
Violence Against Women and Girls
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today, on international women’s day, we are publishing an updated violence against women and girls action plan. A copy will be placed in the House Library.
Each year, over 1 million women suffer domestic abuse, over 300,000 women are sexually assaulted and 60,000 women are raped. This is wholly unacceptable in modern-day Britain.
Soon after coming to office we set out a new strategy to end violence against women and girls, placing prevention at the heart of our approach. This document updates the actions underpinning that strategy, and details the progress made. Our key themes of prevention, provision of good quality services, improved partnership working, better justice outcomes and risk reduction remain so this revised document builds on the previous plan and makes it clear what we expect from local areas and local partners.
The previous action plan set out 88 specific actions. More than half of them have been completed, including the provision of almost £40 million of earmarked funding for specialist support services over the spending review period; the implementation of new laws to make all local areas hold a domestic homicide review after every domestic violence death; and the piloting of domestic violence protection orders. We are making good progress on almost all of the remaining actions.
This updated plan includes new actions to help keep women safe. For the first time, we will pilot a process for the police to give women access to information about the past actions of a new partner where that may help keep them safe. We will also create two new specific criminal offences of stalking and we are today tabling amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill so that these new offences can be enacted as soon as possible. And we will work to reduce the harm suffered by the vulnerable women working in prostitution.
We are proud of the progress this Government have made in protecting the lives of women and girls and remain committed to ending the violence and abuse which continues to blight the lives of too many of them.
Police and Crime Commissioners (Pay)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 3 November 2011, I placed a copy of the Senior Salary’s Review Body (SSRB) report and recommendations on police and crime commissioners pay in the House Library. On that day, I undertook to give the report and the recommendations thorough consideration and report my final decision in good time to allow potential PCC candidates to be clear on what they can expect their salary to be.
I would like to thank the SSRB for its work. I believe that the report sets out clearly the justification for its proposals and I intend to accept all but one of the recommendations made by the SSRB.
Recommendation 1 on PCC pay structure has taken into account the issues I consider to be important and, overall, I believe a sensible and appropriate approach has been taken. With regard to the salary range which is the subject of recommendation 2, the report has made the case for a proposed PCC salary range of £65,000—£100,000. While salary itself should not be a key motivational factor for these important new roles, the SSRB has agreed that these are important new posts. I believe their salary range ensures the right balance in terms of attracting suitable candidates while at the same time addressing the fact that public funding is constrained.
Recommendation 3 relates to the issue of performance-related pay and I agree with the SSRB’s recommendation that it would not be appropriate for PCCs to receive performance-related pay. The performance of PCCs should be judged solely by the electorate.
Recommendation 4 considers the need to reduce the salary of a PCC pro-rata for any PCCs that do not carry out the role on a full-time basis. Having reflected on the advice put forward by the SSRB, I do not propose to accept this recommendation.
We understand the intention behind it, but we believe that the best way forward is for PCCs to be clear with their electorate about what outside interests they have and for the electorate to judge them accordingly. Last year, I laid before Parliament a specified information order 2011 which sets out what information we expect PCCs to publish in order to ensure that they are sufficiently transparent on critical issues. I intend to ensure that a PCC declares any paid and/or unpaid interests that may conflict with their role or affect the amount of time that they will be devoting to it.
I also intend to accept the SSRB’s last two recommendations. Recommendation 5 relates to carrying out an independent annual review of PCC salaries and Recommendation 6 relates to completing a full review of PCC roles and their remuneration in the third year of office in order to make pay recommendations to take effect from the second round of elections in 2016.
By settling the pay structure as early as possible, I hope to ensure that potential candidates have plenty of time to consider their respective positions when deciding whether they should stand.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 8 March in Brussels. I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). There will be presentations by the Commission and Frontex on illegal immigration, continuing the Council discussions on this issue under the previous presidency. The UK supports increased efforts to combat illegal flows across the external border and within the EU, and welcomes proposals for a presidency “roadmap” for a more coherent response to these flows. In particular, the UK believes it is vital that the EU response includes action to tackle fraud and abuse of free movement rights, as well as consolidation of efforts at the Greek-Turkish border, closer partnership working with Turkey, and work further “upstream” in countries of origin and transit using the tools of the EU’s global approach to migration.
The presidency will present its Council conclusions which aim to strengthen political governance over Schengen co-operation through regular political and strategic discussions at ministerial level in mixed committee format. The use of mixed committee format will allow the UK to participate in discussions which affect the control of illegal immigration flows that impact on the UK. The UK supports this proposal and the list of suggested topics for inclusion in the Commission’s periodic reports. The UK will use these debates to call for stronger practical co-operation on measures to protect the external border and prevent illegal immigration.
There will be an update from the presidency on attempts to secure agreement on the date for the removal of controls on Bulgaria and Romania’s sea and air borders with countries in the Schengen area. This issue will also be discussed at the preceding European Council. We do not expect a vote.
Next there will be an update on the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project. The Commission has committed to deliver the central element of SIS II in early 2013.
There will also be a presentation by the presidency on the EU conference on innovative border management, which the UK attended in Copenhagen on 2 and 3 February 2012.
There will be a discussion during lunch on combating organised crime through multi-disciplinary and administrative approaches.
The main Council will start with a “state of play” report by the presidency on the Common European Asylum System. This will set out the progress that has been made on the package to date: negotiations continue on the reception conditions directive and the Dublin III Regulation, with the development of a new article to enshrine the “early warning mechanism', which was the subject of discussions in JHA Councils at the end of last year.
The presidency will present draft Council conclusions which set out the outcome of discussions on solidarity and practical co-operation that took place at the informal Council meeting in January. They are intended to provide a framework or “tool box” for practical co-operation within the EU, focusing in large part on maximising the opportunities presented by existing arrangements. This is the first time the Council has been asked to consider the conclusions but there is a high degree of support for the direction they set out. The UK strongly supports the conclusions as currently drafted. They present the right balance on key issues including that the focus of “solidarity” should be practical co-operation between member states based on their individual responsibility to build migration management capacity; strong references to the “early warning mechanism” to be included in the new Dublin regulation in place of a suspension clause; and an explicit confirmation of the lack of support for any mandatory intra-EU relocation of beneficiaries of international protection.
Next there will be a presentation by the Commission, the European Asylum Support Office and Frontex on the Greek action plan (GAP) of August 2010. The GAP outlines Greece’s proposals to build its capability to manage migration, including through the creation of an improved asylum service which complies with EU legislation. Legislation has now been adopted in Greece to provide a new institutional framework by creating three new agencies (Asylum Service, Appeals Authority and Initial Reception Service). However, the implementation of these reforms has been significantly hindered by systemic deficiencies in the Greek Administration and constraints imposed by austerity measures. The UK supports the GAP and has a vested interest in its success, not least because a weak border with Turkey presents a security risk. Up to 80% of illegal migrants enter the EU through Greece, and many of these may travel on to the UK. Without significant improvements to the asylum system, use of the Dublin regulation to return asylum seekers to Greece will remain suspended. But the Government are concerned by the slow progress of reform and the limited evidence of the impact of EU support, including that provided through the European Asylum Support Office. Members of the Council are likely to discuss whether any further support would be appropriate and will push to secure further political will from Greece to bring about meaningful reform.
Under any other business the presidency will provide information on current legislative proposals.
Domestic Violence
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse. The fact that two people are killed by their current or former partner each week in England and Wales shows just how urgent is the need for action. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police and other agencies have the tools necessary to tackle domestic violence to bring offenders to justice and ensure victims have the support they need to rebuild their lives.
Today, I am announcing that a one-year pilot will take place from the summer of 2012 to test out a domestic violence disclosure scheme in the police force areas of Greater Manchester, Gwent, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire. The pilot will test a process for enabling the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner where this may help protect them from further violent offending. The pilot will test two types of process for disclosing this information. The first would be triggered by a request by a member of the public (“right to ask”). The second would be triggered by the police where they make a proactive decision to disclose the information in order to protect a potential victim (“right to know”). Both processes can be implemented within existing legal powers.
The pilot follows the consultation I published in October 2011 where I sought views on whether the protection available to victims of domestic violence could be enhanced by establishing a national disclosure scheme with recognised and consistent processes for the police to disclose information to potential victims. While a clear majority of respondents favoured the introduction of a national disclosure scheme, the consultation raised important issues on the scope and proportionality of the information that should be disclosed to potential victims and the safeguards that will be needed against malicious applications. I believe that it is right that these issues are addressed and tested in a pilot to ensure that the disclosure scheme is compatible with all relevant law.
We will consider the outcomes from the pilot very carefully. I want to ensure that the public have confidence that a clear framework exists with recognised and consistent processes for disclosing information that supports their needs.
A copy of the summary of responses to the consultation will be placed in the Library of the House.
Border Force
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
From today, the Border Force has been split from the UK Border Agency to become a separate operational command within the Home Office. We will finalise the detail of the operational and structural arrangements over the coming weeks, but I would like to inform the House of the high-level arrangements that we have put in place.
Brian Moore, chief constable of Wiltshire police, has taken up post as the interim head of the Border Force and, with the agreement of HM Treasury, I have designated him as the director of Border Revenue under section 6 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Rob Whiteman will remain chief executive of the UK Border Agency. The Border Force will be responsible for entry controls and customs functions at the border, including our juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. The UK Border Agency will be responsible for immigration casework, in-country enforcement activity, the immigration detention estate and our overseas immigration operations.
All obligations, commitments and undertakings given by the UK Border Agency will continue to be honoured by the Border Force where they relate to operations at the border. Relevant agreements, guidance and documentation will be amended in due course but for the time being should be read, where appropriate, as applying to the Border Force as well as the UK Border Agency.
John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, will be responsible for the inspection of both the UK Border Agency and the Border Force.
Immigration
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In June last year, I published a consultation document on employment-related settlement, tier 5 of the points-based system and overseas domestic workers. That document set out proposals to break the automatic link between coming to the UK and settling here permanently, and to reform the other routes. Today, I am setting out our plans following the consultation.
Until now, settlement has been a virtually automatic consequence of five years’ residence in the UK as a skilled worker. Those who have settled have tended to be less well paid and lower-skilled than those who have not. And the volumes of migrant workers settling have reached record levels in recent years. In 1997, there were fewer than 10,000 migrant workers and their dependants were granted settlement, but by 2010 this had risen to 84,000. So in future, we will exercise control to ensure that only the brightest and best remain permanently.
Following advice commissioned from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, we will apply a minimum pay threshold to skilled workers in the tier 2 (General) and tier 2 (Sportsperson) routes who want to settle. The threshold will be £35,000 per annum. In order to settle, a worker must be paid at that threshold or at the appropriate rate for the job as specified in codes of practice published by the UK Border Agency, whichever is higher. The £35,000 figure reflects the median pay of UK workers in tier 2 level jobs.
To provide flexibility where there are skills shortages in the domestic labour market, we will waive the £35,000 threshold for migrants who are being sponsored to do jobs which are on the shortage occupation list, or have appeared on the shortage occupation list at a time while the migrant has been sponsored to do that job. Similarly, to help maintain the UK’s position as a hub for the world’s best scientists and researchers, we will not apply the threshold to those scientists and researchers, who are in specified “PhD level” jobs. However, as now, these settlement applicants will need to be paid the appropriate rate for their job, as set out in the UK Border Agency codes of practice.
We will apply the new settlement pay threshold to tier 2 migrants applying for settlement from April 2016. To provide certainty for migrants and employers, we will hold the threshold at £35,000 until April 2018. We will confirm the threshold for 2018-19 next year and review it annually thereafter.
Tier 2 is intended to provide a solution to temporary skills gaps in the domestic labour market. So in future, temporary leave as a skilled worker will be limited to a maximum stay of six years and tier 2 migrants who leave the UK will need to wait 12 months after the expiry of their leave before they may reapply to return under tier 2. At a time of high unemployment, we owe it to British workers to ensure that our migration system does not perpetuate reliance on migrant labour.
We intend to leave the settlement rules for tier 1 migrants unchanged. These arrangements, for investors, entrepreneurs and those of exceptional talent, were put in place as recently as 2011 and are consistent with welcoming the high value individuals the UK needs to drive economic growth.
The predominant message from the consultation was that employers wanted a settlement system that provided certainty, simplicity and flexibility. These measures will deliver that.
Turning to the overseas domestic worker (ODW) routes, we will introduce changes to align these categories with our wider migration policy. At a time when we are reserving settlement for the brightest and best and moving towards a more selective system in general, it is not right that domestic worker routes should lead to settlement in the UK. In 2011, 16,430 visas were issued to ODWs in private households, including dependants, and 1,280 grants of settlement were made to ODWs and their dependants. So we shall reform the rules as follows.
ODWs in private households will only be permitted to accompany and work for visitors. They must leave the UK with the visitor, after a maximum of six months. They may not extend their stay, switch employer, sponsor dependants or settle here. ODWs in diplomatic households will be able to remain for the diplomat’s duration of stay, up to a maximum of five years. They may not switch employer or settle but may be accompanied by their dependants.
We recognise that the ODW routes can at times result in the import of abusive employer/employee relationships to the UK. It is important that those who use these routes to bring their staff here understand what is and is not acceptable. So we will be strengthening pre-entry measures to ensure that domestic workers and their employers understand their respective rights and responsibilities. Key to this will be written terms and conditions of employment that are agreed by both employee and employer. But the biggest protection for these workers will be delivered by limiting access to the UK through these routes. We are restoring them to their original purpose—to allow visitors and diplomats to be accompanied by their domestic staff—not to provide permanent access to the UK for unskilled workers.
Tier 5 of the points-based system caters for people coming to the UK for temporary, primarily non-economic purposes. The consultation revealed that the routes in tier 5 are too diverse to adopt blanket rules, for example on length of leave, ability to sponsor dependants and skills requirements. However, there will be some tightening of the current provisions. Internships and work experience type schemes within the Government authorised exchange scheme sub-category will be restricted to one-off stays of a maximum of 12 months, as this is sufficient time to obtain the necessary experience. From the autumn, leave for contractual service suppliers and independent professionals using the international agreement sub-category will be restricted to six months in 12, in line with our commitments under the general agreement on trade in services (GATS) and other free trade agreements.
We shall also make some deregulatory changes. In response to feedback that sponsorship requirements in the PBS can be unduly onerous and inflexible in some circumstances, we intend to create a new route outside the points-based system for certain fee-paid activities. Visitors in this new category (“permitted paid engagements”) will be able to undertake specific fee paid activities for up to one month without the need for formal sponsorship by a UK-based employer. Those who will be able to benefit will include certain professionals, for example visiting lecturers and examiners, artists exhibiting works, authors undertaking book signings, entertainers giving one-off or a very short series of performances and sportspeople undertaking broadcasting work. They will have to demonstrate they intend to leave the UK after a month.
We have already overhauled much of the immigration system since May 2010. We have closed the old tier 1 general route that allowed migrants to come here without a job and replaced it with reformed routes for entrepreneurs and investors and a new route for those of exceptional talent—the people the UK really needs. We have limited the number of skilled workers who can enter through tier 2 to fill specific vacancies; tightened the skills and language requirements and introduced new rules on intra-company transfers. We have refocused the student visa system so that only high-quality, genuine students can come to the UK and we continue to tighten the rules. A statement of intent published on 13 February sets out how changes to the student rules, which were announced to the House last March and which are due to come into effect from April, will operate. We have a clear goal: to reduce net migration to sustainable levels and to build an immigration system that is smarter, more selective and more responsive.
The changes already made are starting to deliver results. The policies described in this statement represent the next phase in our programme of immigration reform. Taken together, they form a balanced package of measures that will contribute to reducing net migration and delivering a sustainable, selective immigration system. They will break the link between coming to work and settling permanently helping to ensure that we remain in control of who comes and who stays.
Today, I shall publish a statement of intent on the Home Office and UKBA websites setting out in more detail the measures that I have announced to the House today. Two further documents which I shall make available on the departmental websites are a summary of the responses to the public consultation and an analysis by the UK Border Agency of the salary and occupations of a sample of skilled workers who settled in 2011. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Library.
We will lay the necessary changes to the immigration rules before Parliament in mid-March, to come into effect from 6 April. The exception is the changes to the tier 5 international agreement sub-category, where we shall bring forward rules changes in the autumn.
With the exception of the tier 2 settlement rules changes, the rules changes laid in mid-March will apply to those submitting applications on or after 6 April 2012. As previously notified, the new tier 2 settlement rules will affect those who entered the points-based system under the rules in force from 6 April 2011 and who will be eligible to apply for settlement from April 2016. Further details are provided in the statement of intent.
UK Border Agency
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on border security. In November last year, it became apparent that certain border security checks had been suspended without ministerial approval. As a result, the head of the UK Border Force was suspended with immediate effect, full controls were reinstated, and I commissioned John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to report on what had happened. Today, I have laid the report before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office.
The Vine report reveals that security checks carried out at the border have been suspended regularly and applied inconsistently since at least 2007. In June of that year, Ministers accepted a policy that allowed the limited suspension of warnings index checks on certain health and safety grounds, but the Vine report found that those checks were suspended on many occasions for other reasons.
In July 2008, Ministers approved the relaxation of warnings index checks for school coach parties at specified French ports, but the Vine report found that the Border Force had waived checks for other passenger groups over and above what had been approved by Ministers. The report also uncovered evidence that, between 2007 and 2011, warnings index checks were not carried out on European economic area nationals travelling to the UK on Eurostar services from a number of French resorts. This is likely to have resulted in 500,000 EEA nationals not being checked against the warnings index. To put those numbers into context, around 100 million passengers enter the UK each year. These Eurostar passengers are judged to be low risk and they still had their passports checked, but the fact remains that these suspensions were completely unauthorised and that is simply not acceptable.
The Vine report is clear that the risk to the border needs to be kept in perspective. No one was waved through, everyone had their passports checked, and warnings index checks were almost always carried out so that those who had previously come to the attention of the authorities would still be identified and refused entry. Quite reasonably, Ministers in the previous Government gave permission for warnings index checks to be suspended in limited circumstances, but the report shows that the Border Force went much further, suspending those checks in unauthorised circumstances and abandoning them entirely for some passengers. The report is clear that that happened without the authorisation of Ministers in either this or the previous Government.
The report also makes it clear that the suspension of checks of which I informed the House in November occurred without ministerial approval. I have just described the suspensions of warnings index checks, which date back several years, but the report also finds that secure ID, the system for checking the fingerprints of foreign nationals who require a visa to come to Britain, was suspended on a number of occasions without ministerial approval. Although the report makes it clear that there should have been a policy setting out the use of secure ID when it was introduced from 2009, it finds that Ministers and senior Border Force officials believed that secure ID should be a mandatory check.
In May 2011, when officials asked for permission sometimes to suspend secure ID checks, I explicitly refused. The report finds that, despite that clear instruction, secure ID checks continued to be suspended at Heathrow. It also confirms that checks on the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, were sometimes suspended without ministerial approval.
The report makes it clear that the suspensions of checks were, as I told the House last year, entirely separate from the pilot I authorised. I remind the House that that pilot meant that in limited circumstances EEA national children travelling with their parents or as part of a school group would be checked against the warnings index only when assessed by a Border Force official to be a credible risk. It also allowed Border Force officials the discretion, in limited circumstances, to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, in the passports of EEA nationals.
The pilot was designed to focus resources on the highest risk passengers and journeys and allow Border Force officers to conduct more targeted, intelligence-led checks. As the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded, it could have been a promising framework for a new approach to border security. However, as a result of the unauthorised suspension of checks, it is impossible to know fully what effect the pilot had. Although we can remain open-minded about the principle of risk-based checks, they must be implemented only in a controlled and authorised way.
The Vine report also uncovered a local initiative at Heathrow that allowed students from supposedly low-risk countries to enter the UK even when they did not have the necessary entry clearance. There was no ministerial authorisation for this activity. The report finds that Operation Savant, as it was called, was potentially discriminatory and unlawful. The Home Office permanent secretary is undertaking a review of this activity and will decide whether any disciplinary action should follow. That review will report by the end of March.
The Vine report reveals a Border Force that suspended important checks without permission; spent millions on new technologies but chose not to use them; was led by managers who did not communicate with their staff; and sent reports to Ministers that were inaccurate, unbalanced and excluded key information. The report makes a series of recommendations on how to improve the operation at the border, and I accept them all. Many of them we are already implementing, and the rest we will implement in full. Most importantly, I want to make it clear to the House that all the suspensions detailed in the report have now been stopped. We will shortly issue an operating policy on the use of secure ID fingerprint checks, and we will follow it up by implementing a new operating mandate for border control. This will detail the minimum level of mandatory checks for all passengers; set out which additional checks apply to which groups of passengers; and cover the opening of chips on passports, interviews for visa holders and the use of secure ID. It will detail explicitly the additional checks that border officers can apply at their discretion. It will specify the record-keeping standards to be maintained and make it clear that no unauthorised suspension of checks is acceptable under any circumstances.
As part of our wider work to improve the border, we have already made a number of other important improvements. We have separated immigration policy work from operations. We have created a Strategy and Intelligence Directorate to analyse intelligence; measure performance; develop rules, procedures and guidance; and monitor compliance with those rules. We have established a new UKBA training academy to raise professional standards and are reviewing service standards for queuing times and staffing levels. But I do not believe that the answer to the very significant problems exposed in the Vine report is just a series of management changes. The Border Force needs a whole new management culture, and I can tell the House today that I have appointed Brian Moore, currently the chief constable of Wiltshire police, as the interim head of the Border Force. In addition, from next year the new National Crime Agency will be charged with improving our intelligence capability at the border, investigating serious and organised border crime and tasking law enforcement assets across all the relevant agencies.
There are many hard-working and dedicated members of staff in the Border Force. They want to get on with their work securing our border, and I want to make it clear that this report is in no way a criticism of them, but, as the Home Affairs Committee and its Chairman have argued consistently, there is no getting away from the fact that UKBA, of which the Border Force is part, has been a troubled organisation since it was founded in 2008. From foreign national prisoners to the asylum-seeker backlog and the removal of illegal immigrants, it has reacted to a series of problems instead of positively managing its responsibilities.
I believe that, with a new chief executive and a plan for comprehensive change, UKBA is in better hands for the future, but I believe also that the extent of the transformational change required—in the agency’s casework functions and in the Border Force—is too great for one organisation. I can therefore tell the House that from 1 March the UK Border Force will split from UKBA and become a separate operational command, with its own ethos of law enforcement, led by its own director general and accountable directly to Ministers.
Many of the changes that I have outlined today cannot happen overnight; they will take time, but we will make them as quickly as possible. They will ensure not only that we have a stronger border in future, but that the Border Force becomes the disciplined law enforcement organisation that it was established to be. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement, in which she makes important points about the fiascos at our border last summer, but it does not cover everything in the report from John Vine. In less than the hour that we have had to look at the report, we have found that it says something very different from the points that the Home Secretary has made.
For example, on the watch index checks from Calais, the Home Secretary’s statement today gives the House reason to believe that the problems had been going on since 2007. In fact, the watch index checks were suspended zero times in 2007, zero times in 2008, six times in 2009, 33 times in 2010 and 50 times in the first nine months of 2011. The report states:
“Although the figure for 2011 only covered nine months to the end of September, this represented a 51% increase over the previous year. The Agency should assess whether this increase can be attributed to changes in port infrastructure, increases in passenger numbers, a reduction in staff or a combination of all three.”
So the clear suggestion in the report is that a lack of staff may have increased the problems at the UK Border Agency in the past year, but the Home Secretary in her statement to Parliament has hidden that information.
On secure ID, the report states that it was suspended 482 times under this Government. The Immigration Minister approved the reduction in secure ID checks as part of the risk-based approach in January 2011, and again the Home Secretary has not explained how far Ministers’ authorisation, even if provisional, contributed to the downgrading of secure ID checks.
On the Immigration Minister’s further agreement to proposals, the report quotes the former head of the Border Force, who said:
“The Immigration Minister was clear that this did not require Home Secretary sign-off and he had followed up with a note stating that we should progress with the implementation.”
Time and again the Home Secretary has not set out the full information in the report.
On the level 2 pilots, the report is clear that they were downgraded over 2,000 times. That is not occasional, or under the “limited circumstances” that the Home Secretary told us about last year.
We have asked the Home Secretary before about the operational instruction that states:
“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”
She told the House on 9 November 2011 that that operational instruction did reflect Government policy, and that is the very guidance that led to checks being downgraded 2,000 times, for hours at a time, covering huge numbers of people.
On page 12, the report states:
“We found that the language used in both the ‘Summer pressures’ submission to Ministers and the response provided, was not clear and as a result was open to misinterpretation… For example, the written response from the Home Secretary’s office said that ‘the change in checks should not be a routine measure but only used when the queues get beyond a reasonable length.’ As the key terms were not clearly defined, we found this had been interpreted and operated in different ways at different ports.”
The report is clear:
“Given the importance of decisions to suspend border security checks, it is imperative that the language used is absolutely clear and unambiguous.”
Clearly, the language from the Home Secretary’s private office was not clear and unambiguous, and that led to huge confusion in the Border Force across the country.
There is no evidence in the report of proper monitoring by Ministers. It is scathing about the way in which checks were downgraded and talks about unauthorised activity. Why on earth were Ministers not asking for information and not properly monitoring the pilot that they had authorised and introduced? One of the updates, which it appears did not go to Ministers, makes it clear that secure ID was suspended as part of the checks over the summer. Why did that update not go to Ministers and why did they not ask for that information? Why did they accept only three updates over the course of the summer, when seven were provided? Why were Ministers not visiting the ports to ensure that the pilot that they had introduced was being properly implemented? Ministers decided to roll back the principle that had been in operation for many years—that we should gradually strengthen and tighten our border checks, using new technology and biometrics—and to introduce a huge experiment with border security. They made no proper checks to see what was happening during the fiasco last summer.
Finally, when confronted last November with the problems that had arisen, the Home Secretary told us that
“initial UKBA statistics show an almost 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants and a 48% increase in the identification of forged documents compared with the year before.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 318.]
She said that that had happened as a result of her pilots. However, the facts in the report show something very different. The Heathrow data alone show that the number of people refused entry was more than 100 lower each month—not higher—compared with 2010. The official statistics show a 10% drop in the number of non-asylum seekers who were stopped at ports compared with the previous year. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to apologise to the House for giving it premature and inaccurate information about the supposed success of her pilots, when clearly they were a huge failure in controlling the border?
The Home Secretary told us that her pilots did not weaken border security. The report states that
“it is not possible to quantify the extent of the risk that these measures presented to the border.”
The implications of that for our border are very serious, yet the Home Secretary continues to hide. She has hidden behind a report and not set out its full consequences, just as she has blamed officials, hidden from the media and hidden behind spurious statistics. In opposition, she said of a former Immigration Minister:
“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”
That is what she is doing now. It is time for her to stop hiding and to take responsibility for things that have happened on her watch: the unclear instructions from her office, the policy decisions to downgrade our border controls, the failure to monitor and check what was going on, and her failure to take responsibility. This mess escalated on her watch with every month that went by. Unless she accepts responsibility for this fiasco, she will fail to sort it out and she will fail to reassure the House that she can cope with future fiascos and that she is the Home Secretary to keep our borders secure.
Mrs May
The shadow Home Secretary’s mock outrage would have rather greater credibility if she had shown any real interest in immigration or border control at any stage over the year for which she has been doing her job. I remind her that the Vine report states that security checks have been suspended without ministerial authorisation since at least 2007. The suspension of checks of which I told the House in November happened without ministerial authorisation, and that unauthorised suspension had nothing to do with the pilot that I authorised last summer.
The right hon. Lady makes a number of claims in relation to the report. I suggest that she consider her track record on such claims. The Vine report exposes everything that she claimed last November as plain wrong. She said that the pilot was reckless, but the Vine report shows that Labour Ministers approved similar measures. She said that the pilot gave the Border Force the green light to suspend other checks, but the report shows that the suspensions were unauthorised.
The right hon. Lady said that by sometimes suspending warnings index checks on certain children, we risked an increase in trafficking. Not only is that wrong, but the Vine report makes it clear that Labour Ministers approved the suspension of checks on children. She said that we should have known about the unauthorised suspension of checks, but the Vine report makes it clear that information was withheld from Ministers and that unauthorised suspensions have been going on since at least 2007. She repeated that Labour increased checks on passengers and improved security, but the Vine report shows that it did not.
The right hon. Lady mentioned information about what happened during the pilot. I did indeed report figures to the House in November. They were the ones that were available at the time, and I faithfully reported them to the House. Since then, the chief inspector has discovered that unauthorised suspensions were made, so it is not possible to give a full picture of what effect the pilot had. We remain open-minded about risk-based checks, but they must be implemented in a controlled and authorised way.
The right hon. Lady blamed what has happened on cuts. I know that is her Pavlovian response to everything, but I would have thought she had noted that on the second page of the Vine report the chief inspector states that the suspensions were
“affected by a number of factors including…the numbers of staff deployed”—
the numbers deployed, not the numbers employed. As with the police, the right hon. Lady seems to find it very difficult to get her head around that. Just in case she has forgotten, I remind her that the previous Government planned to cut UKBA budgets.
The right hon. Lady talked about information that was available to Ministers about the pilot. I remind her that the Vine report makes it clear that updates to Ministers on the pilot
“were not balanced…presented an inaccurate picture of performance”
and
“could not be relied upon to determine the success or otherwise of Level 2.”
There is nothing more important than the security of our border, so it is a shame that the right hon. Lady has taken the approach that she has and has not addressed the measures that we are undertaking to secure our border and ensure that the Border Force is the law enforcement agency it should be. We did not hear any of her views on the recommendations in the Vine report, the proposal to take the Border Force out of the UKBA or the proposal to change the approach that the Border Force takes, because she has nothing positive to say about immigration or border security.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As someone who supports what the Home Secretary is trying to do to get better control over our borders and a risk-based approach, may I ask her what explanation she has been offered of the failure of some officials to accept ministerial instructions? There is no point in having Ministers and Parliament if officials ignore everything that they tell them.
Mrs May
Sadly, the chief inspector describes in the report poor communication and poor managerial oversight in the Border Fore. He makes it clear that the information systems within the UKBA and the UK Border Force were not being used properly to enable proper assessments to be made of the proposals that were being made.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I take it from what the Home Secretary has said that she agrees with my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary that the number of those refused entry is 100 lower than she claimed, rather than higher? Will she say briefly what she thinks she has learned in the past 18 months about how she manages her Department?
Mrs May
I did not say in November that the overall number of refusals was higher. The report does indeed say that the number of refusals was lower, which was a result of the chief inspector’s investigation of what was happening at the border. We reported to Parliament about certain numbers of individuals who were stopped and about numbers of drug seizures.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It is clear from the Vine report that some immigration checks have been suspended since at least 2007 and that they were abandoned without ministerial authority. However, is not the important point that the country and our constituents do not want to hear a lot of huff and puff from Opposition Front Benchers trying to score points but to know that Ministers are now taking action to make our borders more secure? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate to the House, so that the information does not get lost, the new action that she is taking to make sure that our borders are more secure than they have been in the past?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that the public want to know that we are dealing with these issues. That is why I have appointed the chief constable of Wiltshire police to be the interim head of the Border Force and why the Border Force will be separated from UKBA. We will put a much greater focus on the Border Force as a control body that is securing our borders and has a greater emphasis on law enforcement. At the same time, we have made a number of changes to the way in which UKBA operates—for example, we have taken policy away so that there is a greater concentration on operations.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is to implement all the recommendations by John Vine. This is about a root and branch reform of a very troubled organisation. She was right not to personalise the matter, because it is a cultural problem to do with the way in which UKBA operates. Only last week, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, I wrote to the chief executive to ask for certain information, which he refused to give. It is very important, not only for UKBA but for the new organisation that she is creating, that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the agencies. I warn her that if she does not reform the organisation, it will come back and bite her and other Ministers in future. I therefore welcome her proposals.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the serious and constructive way in which he has engaged in his comments. As I said, he and the Home Affairs Committee have consistently, over a number of years, pointed out the problems at UKBA. Through the Vine report, we see in depth the problems that were occurring, particularly in the Border Force. He is absolutely right that this is about a change of culture within the organisation. That is why we have separated the Border Force from UKBA, and we have a new chief executive at UKBA who has already made a number of changes that are starting to change the culture. We will have a new interim head of the Border Force, which will be separate from UKBA, and that can be the start of the culture change, but it does take time to change a culture.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary set out what regular performance assessment of UKBA there will be to ensure that it does not fall back into the ad-hoc, events-driven approach to border security and management that was so prevalent under the previous Government?
Mrs May
We will issue the UK Border Force with a new operating mandate that makes absolutely clear the circumstances in which certain discretion may be applied and which checks should be mandatory at our borders. We are already receiving more detailed reports on what is happening in relation to the Border Force and UKBA. UKBA’s task will be to deliver the Government’s immigration policy, and I am very pleased to say that we intend to deliver that policy by the next general election.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree with the report that it is imperative that the language used by ministers is absolutely clear and unambiguous? If so, does she agree that her key terms were not clearly defined because the pilot was interpreted and operated in different ways in different ports—or will she just blame the officials again?
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
The Home Affairs Committee report found that one primary reason the problem continued for so long undetected was that the chain of communication from Ministers to senior managers to front-line staff at UKBA had become convoluted and fragmented. Today we hear that the Vine report finds that Border Force senior managers felt themselves unaccountable to Ministers. What does the Home Secretary intend to do to put an end to that culture once and for all?
Mrs May
That is one of the issues with how the UKBA was originally set up—it was one of those so-called arm’s length agencies. Separating the Border Force from UKBA and making it part of the Home Office—the director general will be within the Home Office—means that it will be directly accountable to Ministers.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
When the scandal broke last year, it was reported that checks were suspended at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Prestwick airports. In her previous statement, the Home Secretary said she would be happy to speak to Scottish Ministers about that. What discussions has she had with Scottish Ministers and what discussions did John Vine have with the authorities in Scotland? More importantly, what will the impact of a new Border Force, with its own operational command, be for border and port security in Scotland?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the impact on Scotland. We will discuss the impact of the report with Scottish Government Ministers and my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will write to them today about the implications. We will obviously take up more detailed discussions on the precise operations at official level—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) to calm himself. Perhaps he should take up yoga. It is only Monday, and I know that he will want to hang on every word of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I do not know what he is chuntering about with such good nature from a sedentary position, but it cannot be as interesting as what the Home Secretary has to say.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Having heard the bluster from the shadow Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary confirm to the House one thing: that the Vine report entirely vindicates what she and the Immigration Minister said last November, and that all the suspended checks that she told the House about in November occurred without ministerial authorisation?
Mrs May
The report makes it clear that the suspension of checks outside the limited pilot that had been approved took place without ministerial authorisation. The shadow Home Secretary raised an issue in her opening remarks about my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister. He and I have made it clear that his comments on the proposed pilot early last year were provisional; that, crucially, no new operating instructions were issued to staff as a result; that there was no change to policy as a result; that secure ID checks were suspended before January last year until May; and that, sadly, despite my explicit instruction that the checks should not be suspended after May, they continued to be suspended.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Does the Vine report include any criticism of, or comment on, the behaviour of Ministers?
Mrs May
The Vine report goes through the facts of what happened over a period in relation to the potential suspension of checks. It makes it clear that, sadly, the UK Border Force was undertaking checks without ministerial authorisation, and that it withheld information from Ministers and gave inaccurate information to them.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that because the previous Labour Government were so uninterested in protecting our borders, they allowed the bizarre culture of ignoring ministerial direction to embed itself at the head of the UKBA? Will she assure the House that that culture will not be allowed to continue following this Government’s measures and the Vine report?
Mrs May
The precise reason for separating the UK Border Force from UKBA is to give the UK Border Force a much clearer focus on its key job of maintaining security and conducting controls at our borders. However, I am bound to comment to my hon. Friend that, as he knows well, this Government have a proper immigration policy and are doing our best to control it.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Home Secretary understand one of the points made by the Home Affairs Committee, which is that the Border Agency, of which the Border Force is a part, is not a separate agency but an integral part of the Home Office, for which she is responsible? Does she accept that communications within the Home Office, including that agency, were poor and sometimes shambolic, which is why officials frequently thought that Ministers knew what Ministers should have known? Will she now publish, alongside the Vine report, the document on which she relied in giving evidence but which she has denied so far to the Home Affairs Committee? Can we have it all out in the open?
Mrs May
I am interested in the comments that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the relationship between Ministers and the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force. I return to the point I have made previously that of course what we saw was decisions being taken within UK Border Force that were contrary to ministerial authorisation, not just under this Government but under the previous Government as well.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the suspension of border checks had nothing to do with budget cuts and began under the previous Government when budgets were rising and our immigration system was in a shambles?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The suspension of checks did start under the previous Government. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), this Government have a proper immigration policy and intend to control immigration. We also need to ensure that UK Border Force is the law enforcement agency with control at our borders that we all want it to be.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When the Home Secretary made her statement to the House on 7 November, there was some initial confusion about whether Manchester airport was included in the pilot. Can she now confirm how many passengers passed through Manchester airport without biometric or fingerprint checks during the period of the pilot that was authorised by Ministers?
Mrs May
I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that Manchester airport was indeed part of the pilot scheme, but one of the problems—as shown in the report by the chief inspector—is that some of the record-keeping at ports was not complete in relation to the operation of the pilot and the suspension of checks, and that records were kept on a different basis between different ports. While the chief inspector has put the figures into his report as far as he is able, it is not possible to get the complete picture of the operation of the pilot precisely because the records are incomplete.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As part of the culture change to which she refers, will she ask the management of the successor bodies whether they will use English of a type that is understandable to the rest of the English-speaking world?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
On occasions such as this, when Opposition Back Benchers have not seen the report that is the subject of the statement, we depend on a comprehensive and non-partisan presentation of the report by the Minister responsible. The Home Secretary has given us the impression that the report is in no way critical of Ministers, but we have heard suggestions that the report does contain criticism of a lack of clarity in the language used by Ministers in their instructions to the Border Agency. Is there criticism in the report, and if so will she apologise for her Department’s failings?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
The failure of the previous Government to manage our borders and even know how many immigrants had come into the country was rightly punished by the electorate at the election. Does the Home Secretary agree that, unlike Labour, this Government will not tolerate failure by the Border Agency?
Mrs May
Indeed, that is why we are responding fully to the recommendations of the Vine report. Furthermore, as I have made clear to the House, we are changing the structure of the UKBA and the UK Border Force so that we can focus more on the need for the Border Force to secure our borders. That is what people want it to do, and it is what we want it to do.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given the Home Secretary’s decision to split the Border Force from the UKBA, can we expect a corresponding reduction in the salary of the UKBA’s chief executive to reflect his reduced responsibilities, or will this end up costing us more and adding to the complexity of a situation that Ministers are already struggling to control?
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Apart from the political posturing and point-scoring attempted by the shadow Home Secretary last November, will my right hon. Friend remind me when the Opposition Front-Bench team last took the slightest interest in immigration and border control?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the Government’s first acts was to abolish plans to put fingerprints in British passports. We now hear that the Immigration Minister gave the impression to officials that it was okay to implement the suspension of secure identity checks. Does he have the Home Secretary’s full confidence?
Mrs May
Absolutely, and I have already answered the points about the Immigration Minister’s comments. The hon. Lady needs to recognise that secure identity checks were suspended before January/February 2011, that they were suspended until May, and sadly, despite the fact that I explicitly said that they should not be suspended in May, they remained suspended. That was without ministerial authorisation. It is high time that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends recognised what was happening without ministerial authorisation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The establishment of a new operational command for the UK Border Force and the appointment of its interim head sound like positive and constructive steps forward, but they come just five months before the London Olympics. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the interim head has all the resources he needs to cope with the increased number of visitors that this country can expect?
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK Border Force has already undertaken a great deal of work within the UKBA, and will continue to undertake it, to ensure that we can accommodate people coming to London and other parts of the country for the Olympics and Paralympics. We are doing a great deal of work, including, crucially, with the airport operators.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
A couple of months ago, I toured the border controls at Dover. I would like to make the Home Secretary and the excellent Immigration Minister aware of the following: first, the problems at Calais are the result not of budget cuts but of coaches queuing back on to the motorway, causing the police to put pressure on the UKBA to hurry people through; secondly, the previous Government also did nothing about eye scanners that did not work properly; and, thirdly the previous Government supplied laptops that did not work properly and took too long to load up. While she is addressing the problems of the past, will she take an interest in those things too?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend, given his constituency, takes a particular interest in border matters. He is assiduous in dealing with these issues, in liaising with those at Dover port responsible for such matters and in taking up any issues with Ministers. He raised several matters. I am happy to say that despite this weekend being the busiest weekend for returning school coach parties—the thoughts of the House must be with those affected by the terrible school coach accident in France—the UKBA, by working with the French authorities and putting in place mitigating measures, achieved a greater throughput than was achieved previously. There were also fewer problems with coaches on the motorway.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of the separation of the UK Border Force as a separate entity, but it is clear that the organisation urgently requires a period of stability. In order to provide it, will she say when she envisages a permanent head being appointed?
Mrs May
We will, of course, be holding an open competition for people to apply for that post. I hesitate to give my hon. Friend a date, because we have to be cognisant of the fact that, with the Olympics and Paralympics coming up, we need to ensure minimum disruption to the Border Force. It is with that in mind that an appointment will be made, at an appropriate time.