Immigration Bill

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Government remain strongly of the view that specifying a maximum time limit for immigration detention would be arbitrary, would not take account of individual circumstances and would encourage individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until the time limit was reached, so having a negative impact on our ability to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety. In response to the concerns expressed by a number of Members here and in the other place, we accepted that there should be greater judicial oversight over detention, and we tabled a motion, the effect of which would be that individuals would automatically be referred to the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after their detention began or, if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the person within the first six months, six months after that consideration.

This House approved that motion but, although some peers accepted that the issue of judicial oversight had now been satisfactorily addressed, others remained concerned that six months was too long without that oversight. After careful consideration, we propose again a duty to arrange consideration of bail, but we are now reducing the timing of an automatic bail referral from six to four months. This earlier point of referral reflects the fact that the vast majority of persons are detained for fewer than four months.

Moving on to amendments (a) to (f), the Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in this House and the other place on the issue of detaining pregnant women. The motion agreed in the other place would maintain the 72-hour time limit agreed in this House, extendable up to a week with ministerial approval. We have listened carefully to the points raised by the peers who have tabled these amendments. In order further to strengthen the safeguards, we have tabled amendments that will make it clear that pregnant women will be detained for the purpose of removal only if they are shortly to be removed from the UK or if there are exceptional circumstances that justify the detention. The guidance will also make it clear that they should be used in very exceptional circumstances, underlining our expectations in regard to the use of this power.

We have also proposed an amendment that would place an additional duty on officers making detention decisions in respect of pregnant women to have due regard for their welfare. These additional measures, alongside the 72-hour time limit, would act as statutory safeguards to complement the Government’s wider package of reform, which includes the new adults at risk policy, a new gatekeeper function and new safeguarding teams. We also intend to ask Stephen Shaw to carry out a short review to assess progress against the key actions in his previous report.

I turn now to Lords amendment 87. The Government have always been clear about our commitment to identifying and protecting vulnerable refugee children, wherever they are. We wholeheartedly share their lordships’ underlying intentions in this regard. We have a moral duty to help. Our efforts to date, both within and outside Europe, have been designed to do just that. Our commitment to help those in need stands comparison with any other country. The UK has been playing its part in supporting European neighbours to provide support to those who have arrived, by already providing nearly £46 million of funding to the Europe-wide response to help the most vulnerable, including infants and children. This assistance will support vulnerable people including children on the move or stranded in Europe and the Balkans. In addition, the £10 million Department for International Development fund announced on 28 January will support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee to work with host authorities to care for and assist unaccompanied or separated children.

As the Prime Minister made clear last week, we will accept the amendment. However, we have always made it clear that, in implementing it, we must do nothing that would inadvertently create a situation in which more children put their lives at risk by attempting perilous journeys to Europe. That is why only those from Greece, Italy and France who were registered in the EU before 20 March will be eligible for resettlement, when it is in their best interest to come to the UK.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Among the most vulnerable children are the 10,000 who have gone missing. Will the Minister clarify whether those children, who were probably not registered before 20 March, are to be excluded from the provisions he has just outlined?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to the issue of registration, which has been highlighted by a number of people, in a moment. To be clear, we are not seeking to impose an over-burdensome or legalistic requirement on children to prove that they have been formally registered, but we will need to see some evidence that they were present in Europe before 20 March. This will avoid creating a new and perverse incentive for families to entrust their children to people traffickers. Our focus will be on reunifying children with families in the UK, but we will also consider cases of children at risk of exploitation or abuse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Two weeks ago, when four of my colleagues and I were in Calais, the French authorities tear-gassed the Calais camp simply because a protest was going on outside it. Does the Home Secretary approve of such measures, and if not—if she agrees with me that measures should be proportionate to the situation and that refugees must be treated humanely—will she contact her French counterpart and express the concerns of this Parliament?

[James Brokenshire]

I was in Calais last week having discussions with the French authorities about those issues, and the very clear message was that those who are there should claim asylum. That is the best and most effective way for them to get the help that they need, and that is the clear message that needs to come from this House.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Monday 29th February 2016 General Committees

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated in my opening comments, in the first six months since its introduction, the immigration health surcharge raised more than £100 million in income for the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is important to make that point, and we will report on the first year’s income, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras asked me to do.

I also want highlight the fact that a comprehensive study of migrant use of the NHS in England commissioned by the Department of Health found that the total cost of visitors and temporary visitors accessing NHS services in England alone was estimated to be up to £2 billion a year, with around £950 million spent on temporary migrants, such as students and workers, from whom no charge had been recoverable previously.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Am I not right in thinking that that is the Prederi report, which states that those are the best estimates, but that accuracy is by no means assured because of uncertainty about the numbers of people and their behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

These are always estimates, but we judge that to be a reasonable estimate on which to base our policy. That was the basis on which the House legislated for the creation of both the immigration health surcharge and the previous order. In our analysis, non-EEA temporary migrants—workers and families—here for longer than 12 months had a weighted average cost to the NHS of a little more than £800 a head and a total estimated gross cost of more than £500 million a year. The figures for non-EEA students, for any length of stay, were just over £700 and about £430 million respectively.

The Government believe that those subject to immigration control should have a form of access to public services that reflects their immigration status. The previous order brought migrant access to the NHS into line with existing policy on access to benefits and social housing. It is a migrant’s immigration status, not their tax contributions, that governs their access to those services. We believe that the levy is appropriate and reasonable, and recognises the contribution that temporary migrants make to the wider economy.

Questions were asked about reciprocity, and in particular the reciprocal healthcare agreements with Australia and New Zealand. There is no intention to discontinue those agreements. They are more than 30 years old, however, and all three Governments concur that the time is right to review them and ensure that they are appropriate to the contemporary needs of our travelling citizens. The Department of Health has therefore entered into discussion with Australia and New Zealand on the scope of the agreements. The Government have no intention of discontinuing the agreements, but Ministers and officials in the Department of Health are looking at them.

Reciprocal healthcare agreements provide for a national of one country on a short, temporary stay in another country to receive free treatment. The agreement with Australia provides for a resident of one country who is visiting temporarily in the other, without becoming an ordinary resident, to be provided with free immediate medical treatment. However, all our Governments highly recommend the possession of adequate travel insurance because the agreements do not cover all treatment needs. In particular, they do not cover the costs of a medical evacuation.

What happens to our citizens going to Australia or New Zealand is a matter for consideration. Australia already levies a health charge for certain categories of visa applicant, including older migrants applying to become permanent residents and those with existing healthcare needs. In addition, students are required to have health insurance. In New Zealand, there is a consultation fee for anyone accessing GP care, and all foreign fee-paying students applying to study there are required to hold acceptable medical and travel insurance. Most visa applicants to the two countries are also required to meet minimum health standards, and in some cases they must undergo a medical examination. A visa may be refused if a migrant has a health condition that is likely to result in significant healthcare and community service costs.

It might be considered that this measure makes it harder for Australians and New Zealanders to come here, but I have already indicated that visitors would remain unaffected as a consequence of the reciprocal arrangements. Some 97% of Australian and New Zealand nationals who apply for a UK visa are successful. We continue to place great value on our links with both countries and remain committed to strengthening our relationship with them. However, we operate in a wider context, which includes the challenges of healthcare costs and managing migration flows. I find it interesting that the Scottish National party appears to be turning its face against additional funding for the NHS in Scotland. That is obviously the SNP’s prerogative, but we judge that this measure is appropriate, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

[James Brokenshire]

I am interested that the hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West have suggested that the fees for admin reviews are rising to £400. The proposals published by the Home Office represent an increase in fees from £80 to £84.

[Anne McLaughlin]

If that is the case, why am I reading a figure of £400? The Government may charge up to that amount, and no one knows what the cost will be in the end. I remind the Committee about the large number of decisions that are found to be wrong at review stage and therefore overturned.

Perhaps the Minister forgets—I am sure that he has not—that I was a member of the Immigration Public Bill Committee. I am as certain as I possibly can be that he stated during our consideration that it did not matter if appeal rights were removed because an administrative review would be a cheaper option. Perhaps he is about to guarantee that all administrative reviews will cost the £84 he just cited, rather than £400, but I will be interested to hear what he has to say about the situation, given that he plans to increase the fees by an eye-watering 500% in some cases, although we do not know how many.

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the situation in the light of some of more excitable statements that we heard from the hon. Lady about the increase in certain fees. It is important to state that the Government believe that those who use and benefit most from the immigration system should contribute more to that system’s cost, which means that it is appropriate to increase charges to users of services, application and processes, rather than continuing to rely on the UK taxpayer to meet the costs. As we set out at the spending review, the Government’s intention is that the border and immigration system is fully funded by those who use it by 2019-20. I think that that answers a question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

The order is, in our judgment, an essential part of the immigration fees framework, enabling us to set fees regulations over the next four years, setting maximum amounts, which will provide the flexibility to adjust fee levels within those ceilings. However, as I think I indicated at the outset of the Committee, the important point is the framework and that flexibility. It is not our intention to try to maximise revenue. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Glasgow North East looks at the maximum fees we allowed ourselves in the last such order that was before this House, she will see that we certainly did not use the full flexibility allowed by that order, and we would not seek to do so in these circumstances. It is about ensuring that we have that broad basket—that broad range—to enable the move to the process that I have outlined.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister has said a couple of times today that the reason for the change is that the service should be self-funded by those who use it, but the impact assessment—and everything else the Government have put out—refers to

“those who use and benefit”

from it. Maybe it was an excitable statement, in his view, when I talked about whether he recognised that we benefit from immigration, but can I ask: does he, in fact, recognise that this country benefits from immigration and that therefore we should share the costs?

[James Brokenshire]

If the hon. Lady looks at the things I have said and the approach we have taken, for example on the growth routes—she highlighted the 2% increase in tier 2 and tier 4—she will see that it recognises the contribution made in those circumstances. Therefore, that is the approach we have taken to the fees that we would propose for 2016-17. It is important that we strike a good balance between the economic interests of the UK and the need to maintain a sound immigration system. We will seek to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services enable the UK to retain its position as an attractive destination to work in, study in and visit.

Donald Trump

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the policy that the Prime Minister has rightly identified today, in seeking to ensure that language is there to make sure that we help migrants to participate and integrate better in everyday life. That is the building block behind the policy that the Prime Minister has rightly identified.

Equally, the Prime Minister has been prepared to look at some uncomfortable facts; for example, the fact that in 2011 22% of British Muslim women spoke poor or no English compared with just 9% of British Muslim men. Therefore, it is how we can target that support at those communities in the greatest need that is important, and that is precisely why Louise Casey has been engaged, as part of her work, to go about identifying that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the Minister understand the point I made earlier, that making this help available for migrant people who do not speak English is different from saying, “You must do it if you are a Muslim woman”? This support should not be aimed at a religion but at people who require it.

[James Brokenshire]

This is not a Muslim-only scheme, and the point that I rightly make is that it is targeted at those communities that are most impacted and most affected. Equally, that is why I make the point about the 22% figure that the Prime Minister has rightly highlighted today.

I will address the issue of exclusion. The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a national from outside the European Economic Area and refuse them entry to the UK if they have personally directed that that person’s exclusion from the UK is conducive to the public good. This power is derived from the royal prerogative and is exercised by the Home Secretary in person. Exclusion decisions are not taken lightly or in isolation. The Home Secretary makes every decision on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the information available and a wide range of policy and operational factors. These factors include views from across Government, including from the Department for Communities and Local Government, and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They also include consideration of any interference with the person’s human rights under the European convention on human rights, such as their article 10 right to respect for freedom of speech. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has also underlined some of those factors and elements that are part of the policy that we adopt in considering matters of exclusion.

The Home Secretary uses her power to exclude foreign nationals to protect us from national security threats, to protect us from radicalisers and hate preachers, and to protect us from people who seek to undermine our core British values. The policy is not targeted at any particular community; it is targeted at all those who advocate hatred or violence, regardless of their origins or beliefs. The Home Secretary has prevented neo-Nazis, Islamist extremists and anti-Muslim hate preachers from entering the UK. She has excluded more preachers of hate than any other Home Secretary before her—103 since 2010—and she will continue to use the exclusion power against those who seek to do us harm.

The Government have a long-standing policy of not routinely commenting on those who are being considered for exclusion for sound legal reasons, and I will maintain that position this evening. However, what I can say is that the US remains our most important bilateral partner. It is in the UK’s interest that we engage all presidential candidates— Democratic and Republican—even though we may disagree profoundly on important issues. Where there are clear differences of opinion, the most effective way to influence our American partners is through a frank and open exchange of views in taking on those arguments. Today’s robust debate has provided a platform to do just that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; I have almost forgotten what I was going to say. He said that the Home Secretary has a policy position of not commenting on people who are being considered for the exclusion list. Does that mean that he can neither confirm nor deny that Donald Trump is being considered for that list?

[James Brokenshire]

As I say, we do not comment on individual matters, but I would cite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly underlined in saying:

“The best way to defeat such nonsense is to engage in robust, democratic debate and make it very clear that his views”—

that is, Donald Trump’s views—

“are not welcome.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 990.]

We have also had remarks about Donald Trump’s comments in respect of investment in Scotland. The appointment of Global Scots is, of course, a matter for the Scottish Government. The UK Government have never given Mr Trump awards or appointments, honorary or otherwise. Mr Trump has threatened to withhold investment in Scotland in response to the calls to ban him from the UK. Over the years, Mr Trump has made a number of different statements about the scale of his investments in the UK and his willingness to maintain them. The UK is the No. 1 destination in Europe for inward investment and the World Bank has ranked the UK as the sixth easiest place in the world to do business. So, any organisation that makes promises about investment in the UK should live up to those promises.

In conclusion, we will not win the fight against extremism by demonising communities and tarring an entire religion because of the actions of a few, and we will not defeat the threats we face by acting in isolation. We will win the fight by working together, standing shoulder to shoulder with people of different faiths and different backgrounds, defending our values, and by showing that division, hatred and hostility have no place in our societies.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We discussed this matter in Committee. The hon. Lady refers to asylum seekers. Does she mean failed asylum seekers—in other words, people who have claimed asylum but whose claims have not been upheld—because obviously, those who are asylum seekers are supported through the system?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make a point about the language that we use. He says “failed asylum seekers”; I say “refused asylum seekers”. Let us not forget that the majority of those who are refused—or failed—by this Government go on to win their appeal when it comes to court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the Minister agree that the children of parents who will not return—to my mind, mostly because they cannot—face genuine obstacles to returning, namely their parents, and that we should therefore support those children because they have absolutely no choice in the matter?

[James Brokenshire]

We had detailed and considered debate about this in Committee, to which the hon. Lady was party. The point I made there is that the family returns process engages with this so that we assist and work with families to bring about their return. She will recall our debates about the support that can still be made available by local authorities in respect of destitution cases. That support is potentially still available as we continue, as part of this process, to assist families in their entirety, with the appropriate safeguards, in seeing that they are returned if they do not have the right to remain in the UK.

The appeal statistics on asylum support do not give the full picture. In the year to August 2015, 37% of asylum support appeals were dismissed. Forty-one per cent. were allowed, but in many cases this was because the person provided only in their appeal the evidence required for support to be granted. Many of the remainder were remitted for reconsideration or withdrawn, in many cases also in the light of new evidence provided in the appeal. Few appeals related to the issue of whether there was a practical obstacle to departure from the UK. The previous independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found in his July 2014 report on asylum support that 89% of refusals were reasonably based on the evidence available at the time.

Amendments 42 to 45 would reverse the Bill’s reforms of support for adult migrant care leavers and require that they be provided with local authority support under leaving care legislation, even though all their applications and appeals to stay here have been refused. We believe that these changes are wrong in principle. Public money should not be used to support illegal migrants, including failed asylum seekers, who can leave the UK and should do so. The amendments would create obvious incentives for more unaccompanied children to come to the UK to make an unfounded asylum claim, often by using dangerous travel routes controlled by smugglers and traffickers. We are speaking of adults. If their asylum claim has been finally refused, automatic access to further support from the local authority should cease at that point. The Bill makes appropriate provision for their support before they leave the UK.

Amendment 2 would allow permission to work where an asylum claim has been outstanding after only six months, remove the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making, and lift all restrictions on the employment available. As we debated in Committee, we do not consider this to be sensible. We met our public commitments to decide all straightforward asylum claims lodged before April 2014 by 31 March 2015 and to decide all straightforward claims lodged from 1 April 2014 within six months. About 85% of cases are straightforward. We judge that this policy strikes the right balance. If an asylum claim remains undecided after 12 months, for reasons outside the person’s control, they can apply for permission to work in employment on the shortage occupation list. This is fair, reasonable and consistent with EU law.

Immigration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

As the Government have explained, the new offences relating to landlords and agents will be targeted at cases where there has been repeated or particularly serious behaviour as regards renting to illegal migrants or failing to evict them. As I made clear and as we have debated previously, it is not intended to target landlords who are unaware that someone is disqualified from renting, nor will such landlords meet the

“knows or has reasonable cause to believe”

threshold required for commission of the offence. It is not intended to take steps to prosecute landlords who are taking reasonable steps to remove someone they know to be disqualified from their property. I recognise that, in part, new clause 8 goes over ground that we have debated at length in Committee, therefore I do not see a need to rerehearse some of the issues debated previously.

New clause 9 touches on some different points and seeks to place lodgers and instances where a person is renting to a family member outside the scope of the right to rent scheme. That was debated at some length at the time of the Immigration Act 2014 and was considered by the House in the context of its application to lodgers. There is already guidance about the position of those renting to close family. For example, undertaking a right to rent check provides a landlord with an excuse as regards the civil penalty. Where someone is confident that their family member is lawfully in the UK, there will be no need for them to undertake the checks to establish that excuse.

Our concern is that taking lodgers out of the scheme will mean that a significant number of illegal migrants and those who exploit them are left untouched, in essence creating a gap in the legislation. That would provide an easy means by which rogue landlords could avoid any sanctions, for instance by arguing that the property was their family home or by arranging for one tenant to take in another occupant as a lodger. Sadly, we know that there is exploitation, there are rogue landlords and that that is a risk. We believe that the checks are straightforward and should be no more difficult for someone letting out a spare room than for any other person who might be within the ambit of the Bill, for example through a formal tenancy. Anyone who accepts remuneration for renting property should accept the responsibilities involved in doing so, such as carrying out the basic checks previously debated and discussed in Committee. The concern about the gap that would be created and the risk that it might lead to further exploitation, with people being taken advantage of, means that we judge that this provision is not appropriate.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

The Minister might remember that in a Committee sitting a couple of weeks ago I asked whether people who let out or gave a room via a charity, for no money or a token sum to cover their rising costs, were already exempt. I did not get an answer at the time, and I do not know whether that was because the Minister forgot, or did not want, to answer. Might this be an appropriate time to ask the question again? There are charities that fix destitute people up with others who have a spare room, and with some of the charities the person gets no recompense and with others they get a tiny amount to cover the increased fuel and other costs. Were such people already exempt, or will they be covered by the provisions?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry if I did not respond previously and I can assure the hon. Lady that it would certainly not have been from not wanting to answer. As she knows, a number of points are made during a debate and sometimes one might inadvertently pass over one of them. In respect of the right to rent scheme, and therefore the statutory excuse, which is what we are talking about, if no money changes hands the arrangement is exempt. I do not know if that helps her. There has to be what would be described in legal terms as some sort of payment or consideration for someone to be captured.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am pleased to hear that, but some charities give a tiny, token amount for a donated room. It obviously costs more to have somebody living in a spare room, so the amount is not a profit or a commercial arrangement—it is just a token amount to cover the additional costs. Would that circumstance be exempt or would we have to introduce a provision at a later stage to exempt it?

[James Brokenshire]

It is obviously difficult, nor would it be right, for me to comment on specific arrangements. I have already talked about refuges and the separate exemptions that apply regarding the support provided for victims of trafficking, and in other circumstances within the definitions that were set out. I have spoken about the issue of nothing of monetary value changing hands, but ultimately we are looking at those with no right to be in the country. That is, I suppose, the basis of the question, and therefore some charitable support might be provided in other circumstances. That is why I must be careful in understanding the specifics, but I think that existing exemptions apply, and these were considered in detail when the right to rent scheme was original considered by the House. There are specific exemptions that we judge to be appropriate, and which cover, in particular, issues of vulnerability and abuse. Refuges play an incredible and essential role in providing appropriate support, and they are normally run by charities and other non-governmental organisations. It was right to put in those exemptions and we judge that they remain appropriate.

Immigration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Anne McLaughlin]

In the immigration debate that took place in the Chamber, I spoke about a child who had been in detention. I know that the policy, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, is no longer to detain children, but I want to repeat what I said about that child, and I will explain why.

I talked about a 10-year-old boy who was detained with his mother in Dungavel in Scotland and was then moved to Yarl’s Wood. He lost 10 lb in three weeks and lost so much hope that he turned to his mother one day and whispered, “It would be easier if we died. Mummy, please can we die?” I appreciate that there is not a person in this room—I have absolutely no doubt—who, if that child were standing in front of them, would not do whatever they could to help that child. This was somebody I knew pretty well.

Okay, so we only detain adults now, but I am not willing to believe that there is any Member here who, if they had a woman standing in front of them who had been through so much trouble to get here, who was a victim of sexual violence, and they could make the decision about that one person standing there, having heard her story, would not help her. I do not believe that any of us would not use the key that we have to free her from detention if we were able to do it. They are not standing in front of us now, but we are the ones who hold the key to whether those people suffer in the way that many hon. Members have described. That mother wanted to comfort her child. She wanted to reassure her child that it would be over soon, that “this will be happening” in two weeks or one week, three days or three months or whatever, but she could not. She could not reassure herself because she had no idea how long they were going to be there.

I think that the worst thing for people is not having a clue when or where it is going to end. I visited a family in Dungavel a number of years ago, as an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament and I felt intimidated. I felt intimidated by the surroundings and the uniforms, by the big jangle of the keys, by the prison-like atmosphere and the fact that I was fingerprinted. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and they fingerprinted me as I went in. If I felt intimidated, what must it feel like to somebody who has absolutely no control over their life, and has not had any for a long time because they have had to flee their country and ask for help in a foreign country? I cannot imagine it.

I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has done, to the organisations that support people in detention. I particularly encourage the organisations that demonstrate outside such facilities to continue to do so, because it makes a big difference to the people inside. There was a demonstration at Dungavel a couple of weeks ago. I know people who went, although I was unable to attend.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady is making her case and has indicated that she thinks that the measures do not go far enough. Just so that I understand, does she believe that there is a role at all for detention in immigration removal?

[Anne McLaughlin]

As a last resort. I have never said that we should never detain anybody, but detention is to be used as a last resort. In fact, I think the Minister himself said that the power to detain should be exercised only sparingly and for the shortest possible time. I do not know whether that is the case, but it should be the case.

If it is for the shortest possible time, that is a good argument for having a time limit in statute. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, who said—I think the report of the inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK also made the point—that, without a time limit, the casework will suffer. We are all human beings. I am a deadlines kind of person; I do things at the deadline. I would love to be the kind of person who does things in preparation for a deadline, and I am always telling myself that I will be that kind of person, but we are all human and we all work to deadlines. If there is no deadline, of course things take a lot longer.

I also wanted to say something about the categories of people who could not be detained if the new clause were accepted. They would include people who have been trafficked. In an earlier sitting, several Conservative Members and I had a debate about people allowing themselves to be trafficked. I was pretty upset at the time, as were a lot of people, but I realise now how that misunderstanding came about: it is because there is an awful lot of talk in the media about people trafficking when it is actually people smuggling. I accept that is not the fault of the people who pick up the term, but the language that we use is extremely important. If we all accept that trafficking involves coercion and is done against the person’s will and that those people have effectively been kidnapped, I hope that we can accept that detention is an absolutely dreadful experience for them and affects them even more severely. I certainly support not detaining that group of people.

On the assisted returns project, I reassure the Minister, as I have said, that I understand that sometimes people must be detained. I also understand that sometimes they must be deported—removed from this country—because not everyone is entitled to live here. If that is done, it is far better to continue with schemes such as the family returns project. I have constituents and friends who do not want to return because their memories are of the country that they came from as it was when they left. All they need is reassurance from somebody that they trust that it is not the way it was, that it is safe for them and that there will be provisions and protections for them.

Most people who come to live in this country do so in such circumstances. They do not come here because they desperately want to live here. Most people would rather live in the country that they have come from. In leaving, they are leaving their family, their friends, their neighbourhood and the school that they went to. Most people do not want to give that up. Sometimes they need reassurance that they will be protected and that life is very different in the country that we are returning them to. That is why the approach must not be to criminalise them, lock them up or refuse to tell them when or if they will be leaving. The approach should be more humane than that, and should be about working with them rather than against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I wish to ensure that we publish the report and the Government’s response before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. Equally, I want to ensure that we come back when we can. It is important that we reflect properly on the report and the recommendations, which we are actively doing.

During our debate on bail, I made it clear that vulnerable people should not normally be detained under immigration powers. I reiterate that point now. This approach is our published policy. We have a clear list of individuals who are not normally suitable for detention unless there are exceptional circumstances in play. The list includes pregnant women, the elderly, and those who have been identified by the competent authority under the national referral mechanism as victims of trafficking and torture. It is unlawful to act in a way that is contrary to our published policy.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of mental health and release from detention. He asked whether there would ever be circumstances where a high-risk individual may need to be released from immigration detention because of their poor mental health. I can confirm that there will be some cases involving mental health issues where an individual should not be detained under immigration powers, no matter how high the risk and no matter how imminent the removal. In those cases, the right course of action will normally be to transfer to the appropriate authorities.

The new clause lacks definitions of the relevant exclusions and, as such, would be open to broad interpretation, so it contains weaknesses. Such an approach could leave the Home Office open to damages. For example, if a woman was pregnant at the point of detention but not aware of the fact or chose not to disclose her pregnancy, the Home Office could be sued for damages after the fact. It is an unfortunate reality that, in some cases, individuals will not comply with the requirement to leave the UK and their removal must be enforced, which often requires a short period of detention.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying but could he not just write safeguards into the legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

I am making a technical point on the drafting of the new clause. There are issues of principle, but we believe that even if the principle were accepted, there are technical deficiencies in the drafting that Members might wish to reflect on, given that no amendments have been tabled.

Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

That is why the arrangements have been framed as part of a continuing process in respect of those whose asylum claims have not been upheld by the courts, in terms of the notification periods and further safeguards that exist.

The hon. Member for South Shields has highlighted on a number of occasions the position of local authorities and whether this measure will transfer costs and obligations to them. I have responded to that previously. We propose that Home Office support will continue to be available to a failed asylum seeker with a dependent child or children while there remains a legal obstacle to their departure from the UK—for example, outstanding further submissions, documentation not being available or practical obstacles such as medical reasons. Human rights issues should not be engaged by the cessation of Home Office support, as any risk of destitution could be avoided by the family’s departure from the UK with assistance with the required travel costs or by their compliance with the conditions of Home Office support—for example, in applying for any travel documents required to facilitate their departure. The package of measures will be subject to the new burdens assessment process in the usual way. I say to the hon. Lady that a system has been put in place to ensure that issues related to the transfer of burdens are properly factored in and addressed.

Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides for a process whereby local authorities assess human rights-related issues such as destitution. That will continue to apply. Equally, our duties in respect of children under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 will still apply. We are discussing with local authorities the practical implementation of streamlining some of the processes in schedule 6 to those in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, to ensure that they operate efficiently and effectively. That feeds into the concept of family returns, which I spoke about previously, and the considered fashion in which we are approaching this. This is not come automatic cliff-edge point, as the provisions will apply to those who have a negative asylum decision subsequent to the Bill being in place. Therefore, it forms part of the overall removal strategy that I have previously explained.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I cannot remember his exact words, but the Minister seemed to say that families are choosing, and refusing, to go back to where they came from, and therefore they cannot get support. Without going into the arguments of whether they can go back, do the children of those parents have any choice? Can the children choose to go back to where their parents came from, or are they at the mercy of decisions made by the adults around them? If the answer is that they are at the mercy of those adult decisions, do we owe them anything?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand how the hon. Lady seeks to argue her points and I know how strongly she feels on these issues. If one follows the line of what she has just said, it would be impossible to deport any families who are here illegally. She indicated that because someone had a child, it is not the child’s fault that the family are about to be deported; therefore the family cannot be deported. I respect her position in articulating that, but I cannot agree with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

On a point of clarification, I was not saying anything of the sort. I said that while they are here and those children have no input into the decision making, should we support them or punish them as well, because of the decisions of their parents?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady says that if parents who are deliberately trying to frustrate the system have children, the state should automatically continue to support them. The point of the measures is that, on the basis of remaining obstacles, support will continue for all of the family in that situation.

That is why we have the family returns process. We have assisted return, where families are actively encouraged and assisted to leave while we put the family returns process in place, which has the humane nature of supporting people to see that they return. Obviously, where there are barriers to removal, support will remain, as I have already indicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister is talking about people who have barriers to returning being exception, but regardless of the arguments about whether the adult is able to make that decision, the barrier to the child returning may be the parent’s decision. In that case the child will have barriers, but will not be an exception because the parents are not seen to have barriers.

On abdicating responsibility, I thought that if a parent was deemed to do that—I am not arguing that asylum-seeking parents are doing that—the state was supposed to take over. I thought that was what the legislation that the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned was about. Is there a duty on the state to take over if responsibility has been abdicated?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the hon. Lady is confusing certain issues. As I have already indicated, certain obligations exist under schedule 3 and also under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. We are discussing in detail with local authorities the interrelationship between such backstop support powers and how the different regimes fit together. That needs to be done in the joined-up fashion of understanding that if families are here unlawfully, they could and should leave and there needs to be encouragement through the returns process to ensure that they do. It is in that considered way that we propose the provisions, although hon. Members may disagree with our approach. That is, however, the stance that we seek to take, given the factors I identified and the interrelationship with local authorities I indicated.

Let me turn to amendment 227, which seeks to set the level of the cash allowances given to asylum seekers at 60% of the income support rate for people aged over 25. That would raise the amount provided from £36.95 to £43.86 a week.

The cash allowance is only one element of the support package provided to ensure that asylum seekers are not left destitute. That package needs to be seen as a whole. Accommodation is provided free and comes fully furnished and equipped with bed linen, towels and kitchen utensils. Utilities such as gas, electricity and water are also provided free. Recipients receive free healthcare and schooling for their children. The cost of travel to appointments to pursue an asylum claim—to attend asylum interviews, appeal hearings and meet legal advisers, for example—is also provided separately.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The reason why I intervened on the hon. and learned Gentleman was that his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, I think, had alluded to the timing of the reports. The point that I was trying to get across—I will make it briefly in this intervention—was that, sadly, we do see people traffickers, through social media and other means, seeking to set out the position of certain member states and what people are entitled to and, in a very deliberate way, encouraging people to try to come to other European countries.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Thursday 5th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am going to speak very slowly and clearly. For many years, this country and other countries have struggled to support children who are leaving the care system. It has been well documented that those children’s life chances are measurably lower than those who do not go through the care system. Of course, various Governments have taken different measures to address that issue over time. When it comes to asylum seekers, however, we have a situation where children who are even more vulnerable find themselves destitute and without proper legal support when their appeal rights are exhausted, despite growing evidence that approximately 3,000 unaccompanied children come to the UK each year. This is another example of immigration legislation not keeping pace with the legislation protecting the rights of children and young people who are in our communities already but are no longer being supported by the Home Office.

We know that destitution forces young people into grave situations, some of which will be made worse by the Bill. Exploitation in all its forms, homelessness and ill health all follow on from the state turning its back on a desperate and isolated young person who has left care. It is worth highlighting an example given by the Children’s Society of a torture survivor from Iran who came to the UK aged 17. His initial claim was rejected and he went without legal representation for his appeal. Once that, too, was rejected, his support from children’s services was cut off and he was made homeless. He lost the support of the counsellor who had been helping him to deal with the trauma of the torture he had suffered. His health deteriorated further as a consequence of sleeping on the streets. I always find it useful to try to put myself in someone else’s shoes, and I think that sleeping on the streets for one night would be enough to finish most of us off. The good news is that he then received support from a charity and a fresh solicitor. His new claim was successful and he was granted leave to remain. His life was on course to be so much worse than I imagine it is now he has that support.

Amendment 223 is a sensible measure that would provide some protection for asylum seekers who have been in the care system and who are, by their very nature, among the most vulnerable in our society. I feel confident and hopeful that the Minister will support it.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for their comments, which were brief, clear and to the point.

Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

I think all I will do in response is amplify some of the points I raised in the previous debate on notices by the Secretary of State and the factors that he or she would take into consideration as part of the removals process. I indicated that medical issues may be a factor that he or she can take into account when determining whether to issue a notice. The clause is part of that process and builds on the debate we have had.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 15, page 16, line 6, leave out “Scotland”

This amendment would limit the ‘right to rent’ provisions of this Bill so that they do not apply to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I think the swan wanted me to give way to him as well.

[James Brokenshire]

I hesitate to intervene after the last intervention. All that I would say to the hon. Lady is that she is wrong; that is the fundamental thing. There is clearly a difference of view between us, but I am certain of the ground on which we stand and the points that I have elucidated about our belief that this is a reserved matter. She is obviously entitled to her particular view, but I would not want to give her an indication of any irritation with her at all. Far from it; she has made her points in a fair and reasonable way.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to find some common ground with him at last, because I too think that he is wrong. I think that the Scottish Refugee Council, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government are right, and that he should reconsider the so-called respect agenda between the two Governments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, the Minister refused a meeting with the Scottish Government Minister for Housing and Welfare, who has significant concerns not just at a policy level but at an implementation level. She requested a meeting and was refused with a “My people will talk to your people; I don’t have to talk to you” sort of response, although maybe—definitely—not in those words. If there is respect between the two Governments, why would the Minister not just sit down with the Scottish Government Minister to go through things if he is so convinced that he is right? I do not withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Start at the left and move to the right—

[James Brokenshire]

I would have said “to the right”, but I did not think it was necessarily appropriate.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister is looking at things very differently from how I see them.

The Minister made a good point about discrimination—it will be harder for landlords, for example, to discriminate, because people will be able to say, “But I have ticked the check list and I have the passport or whatever.” However, it is hard to prove discrimination. If five people are going after one place—it is rarely only five—what would the potential tenants who are discriminated against do? They will not take the landlord to court. They might have evidence in their mind that they have been discriminated against, but what will they do with it? How successful would any case be?

That was not my main point, which is—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

In fairness to the hon. Lady, she focuses on an important point that reflects a comment made on Second Reading by the Scottish National party Member—unfortunately, I cannot remember her constituency name off the top of my head.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Glasgow North East.

[James Brokenshire]

Glasgow North East—how could I forget? The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said that because of her name, property not might be rented to her. A similar point is now being adduced by the hon. Member for South Shields. The point is that, sadly, discrimination would happen anyway if the landlord was not minded to rent for that reason. It is nothing to do with the scheme itself, which is simply about identifying individuals. If we are talking about a name, a racist and discriminatory landlord would, sadly, act that way anyway. That is my point. We have the right to work check and we wish to extend the right to rent check. But I think the hon. Member for Glasgow North East had another point to make.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The point I wanted to make has been made, but possibly has not been understood by the Minister. Yes, there are people who will discriminate anyway, but the Residential Landlords Association has said that its members were fearful that they would be forced, for fear of committing a criminal offence, to go the other way and behave in what they called a racist way. There are people who already behave in that way; we are referring to people who do not want to do so, but who say that fear of the law or not understanding what is required under the law will make them behave in that way.

[James Brokenshire]

That is why the offence is framed as it is. It is not about negligence but about conscious or deliberate turning of a blind eye. I take the hon. Lady’s point, but it is not set at that lower level.

Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill is doing both. It is taking steps in relation to employers and to employees, including with the overall enforcement approach. That is why I put things in that broader context. I will respond later to some of the specific questions on purpose, intent and how things fit in the overall deportation strategy. It is important to contextualise that so that the Committee understands the intent of the Government.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The argument I was making was not that we should allow people who are not permitted to work in this country to work in this country; my point was that those people are often the most vulnerable. A man who is fit and healthy and in his mid-30s might not appear to be that vulnerable on the face of it, but imprisoning him would not make him less likely to commit the offence—he was left with no choice—nor would it change his situation. My argument was not that it is in some way acceptable for people to lose their jobs because others are working illegally; I was arguing that the imprisonment aspect, the criminalisation, is not necessary and will make no difference.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point that the hon. Lady is making, although I do not want to get into the specifics of the case, as I am not entirely familiar with it, so it would not be appropriate or fair, for her or myself, for me to do so. In many cases, however, there is that choice of leaving the country. She might want to make a broader point about assisted voluntary returns and other means of appropriate removal, but that is the context for my arguments about the purpose of the clause and how it fits with other measures in the Bill to support the approach of discouraging people from coming to this country and to deal with some of the broader impacts of illegal working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Is the Minister not concerned that making it easier to bring about prosecutions and prove negligence will mean that employers are much more fearful of employing someone who, to them, does not sound, look or seem British? My fear is that people who genuinely intend to do the right thing will steer clear of employing anyone who does not appear to be British because they will be frightened of being prosecuted. They will be taking a big risk.

[James Brokenshire]

That is why I made the point about negligence and how that is dealt with under the civil penalty regime but not the criminal provisions that I explained earlier. That feeds back into the debate we have had in respect of the bar that needs to be set for bringing prosecutions. That is why I made the comments I did in the previous debate about discrimination. The most serious cases involving the exploitation of illegal labour will continue to be dealt with under legislation that prohibits facilitation and trafficking. It is important to make that point in the broader context of the provision.

Subsection (1) amends section 21(1) of the 2006 Act by inserting, after “knowing”,

“or having reasonable cause to believe”.

That is the test. It is not negligence. The effect is to amend what is known as the mens rea, the knowledge or intention needed to make out the offence, in order to make the test more objective and the offence easier to prove, but still with that safeguard.

Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

Q 123 Thank you for that detailed and comprehensive answer on the provisions, which is quite helpful and instructive on the level of detail that is engaged here. Just briefly, perhaps you could reflect on the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 and their implementation. What has been the practical experience? Clearly a lot of this quite detailed analysis was engaged there as well. What has been the situation to date?

Eric Leenders: On volumes, I think we have seen about 1.9 million searches go through the CIFAS database. From that we have identified some 14,000 matches against the database, and those have been referred back to the Home Office. That has in turn identified some of these issues such as people with no fixed address or those elderly consumers. So we can draw on that experience to inform our thinking around the Bill.

We consider that the CIFAS process is working quite well. The truncated timeline was difficult, frankly; there was an element of manual processing, and with manual processing there is, unfortunately, a higher propensity to or risk of error. So that is why we called for that slightly longer timeline—to ensure that as far as possible we can automate and therefore reduce the error rate within the process.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Q 124 I want to talk about potential discrimination under the right to rent aspects of the Bill. Not everyone is as enlightened as Mr Lambert, and so not everyone believes that you cannot tell by a face, a name or an accent whether someone is British. I was very struck by a statement sent out by the Residential Landlords Association, which I am going to read from:

“Whilst the Residential Landlords Association condemns all acts of racism the threat of sanctions will inevitably lead many landlords to err on the side of caution and not rent to anyone whose nationality cannot be easily proved.”

How concerned are you that the Bill will allow some people to use it as an excuse for their racism and that others will inadvertently end up acting in a racist manner, not because they want to but out of fear that they may end up breaking the law if they do not?

Richard Lambert: How concerned am I that some will use it? Very. How concerned am I that some will use it inadvertently? Fairly, but our experience is that most of the concern about the provisions is from people who have not gone into the detail, are worried about what they might have to take on, are concerned that they do not have the expertise or knowledge and are very focused on the penalties, because what has been pushed hardest is not the responsibility or the practicality but the level of penalty for getting it wrong.

Having had a quick look, like my colleague, at the evaluation report that was published this morning—we had a chance to look at it before we came in here—something like 22 of the 26 landlords who responded said that it was actually relatively easy to undertake the checks and that there did not seem to be an obvious level of overt discrimination, although there is still an undertone, and in a few cases that does happen.

It is a real risk, but when I said what I did about awareness of the fact that we live in a multicultural, multiracial, multifaceted society, that was not me speaking—obviously, I believe that—but me recounting what has been said to me by landlords at local meetings around the country. They are very concerned about the practicalities of how you make this work, and they realise that you cannot make assumptions, from looking at somebody, about whether they have the right to rent or whether they are a British national. The only way is to check and to check everyone. I recall anecdotally from my colleagues on the Home Office working group on the evaluation report that the largest level of resentment coming back from tenants was from the indigenous white British population, who did not understand why they were being asked to prove the right to rent. You actually get a counter-intuitive response.

David Smith: People who will discriminate would discriminate anyway, so in a sense people who are going to actively discriminate as a result of the Bill would have been actively discriminating before. Our biggest concern is what we have chosen to call document discrimination. Of the UK indigenous populace—or however you want to describe those people—17% do not have passports. If a landlord has two people walk through his door who want to rent the same property, and one says, “I have a passport and can do the right to rent check right now,” and the other says, “I do not have a passport but will come back tomorrow with two forms of identification off the secondary list,” the landlord is technically not breaking the law by taking the first person, and in practice I am sure that he will take that first person.

Our concern is that there are groups of people who are not in possession of passports and driving licences. As a lawyer, I have many such people as clients, because I have a large client base of elderly people or people who are in care. There are substantial numbers of those people, and a lot of them are renting, increasingly in the private rental sector, as there is a change from social renting to private renting. There is a potential difficulty with providing those people with proper identification.

We have called for a much simpler document for people who are on benefits and would already have been checked to receive benefits. Local authorities could provide a single document—perhaps watermarked or stamped—that landlords could be clearly told was acceptable as a single document. At the moment those people are going to need to produce two separate documents. They may not have them to hand, or it may take time to acquire them. The benefits letter has to be signed by a named official, and named officials may be reluctant to put their names on these documents. Our concern is that groups of people who should have no reason to be concerned by this legislation at all may find themselves being put through checks that they cannot easily meet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

T4. A month ago a very impressive young woman came to my surgery asking for my help. She is in her mid-20s and is a high-flying accountant—or she would have been had her wings not been clipped by the shock news that she has no status in this country through no fault of her own, but because her parents have overstayed their welcome. She is now estranged from them. Does the Home Secretary have any sympathy with children in those circumstances who have done nothing wrong? Could I write to her and ask her to use some discretion in looking at this case?

[James Brokenshire]

It is very difficult to comment on an individual case without knowing all the facts and circumstances, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me with that information, I will consider it carefully.

Immigration

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and James Brokenshire

Thursday 9th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I join other right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing this afternoon’s debate, which has been measured and wide-ranging and has underlined the concerns that our constituents have about migration. Although there is unlikely to be agreement between all parties, it is of benefit that we have had this afternoon’s debate and been able to air points on a range of different themes to do with migration policies.

We have had a chance to consider various issues, including the pressures on public services and how we can ensure that we continue to attract the skilled and the talented, and the brightest and the best, to contribute to our economy. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) in using that terminology, but when we reflect on the past, we see that the operation of the immigration system has not always achieved that. Some of the routes intended for skilled migration have ended up being used for unskilled migration. That is why it is important to continue to have a resolute focus on abuse and to ensure that our immigration system meets the needs of our economy, but is also sustainable. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight fairly and rightly raised points about the pressures on public services and housing and about other issues that our constituents raise and are concerned about.

Before I respond to the points that have been raised and the challenge that my hon. Friend posed at the start of the debate, I want to set out some of the changes and benefits that we have seen from provisions that the coalition Government introduced. Since the Immigration Act 2014 received Royal Assent, it has been implemented across Government at speed over the past 12 months. The Act makes it easier and faster to remove those who have no right to be here, and it restricts their access to our national health service, to bank accounts and to rented property.

Since the 2014 Act was introduced, we have revoked more than 10,000 driving licences belonging to illegal migrants; deported more than 1,000 foreign criminals who would previously have had the right to stay in this country for their appeal; implemented new powers in the west midlands to require private landlords to check the immigration status of new tenants or risk a civil penalty; and introduced the immigration health surcharge on 6 April as planned, which has already generated more than £20 million in net income for the NHS. We have also implemented a new referral and investigation scheme to tackle sham marriages. Since March 2015, when our new powers came into effect, we have made more than 230 arrests and removed 150 people from the UK.

It is worth focusing on the steps that we have taken on EU migration. Under the Labour Government, an EU national jobseeker could arrive in the UK and claim jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit and housing benefit shortly after arrival, with few checks as to whether they had a genuine chance of finding a job in the UK. That has changed. Now, owing to the reforms we have introduced, EU jobseekers cannot claim jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit or child tax credit until they have been in the UK for three months. Then they cannot claim benefits for more than three months unless they can prove that they really have a genuine prospect of finding work here.

EU jobseekers cannot access housing benefit, and we have introduced a new test to check whether EU nationals who claim in-work benefits really have genuine employment here. We have toughened the habitual residence test, the gateway test that all migrants have to satisfy to access benefits. We have introduced tougher checks for the payment of child benefit and child tax credit to EU nationals, and we have issued statutory guidance to ensure that local authorities set a residency requirement for qualification for social housing.

In response to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), we have introduced new powers to tackle abuse, so that EU nationals who do not meet the requirements of residence are removed and banned from coming back for 12 months unless they have a valid reason to be here. We can also remove and bar for 12 months EU nationals who facilitate sham marriages or the fraudulent acquisition of rights. I recognise my right hon. Friend’s points, however. I am willing to meet him following the debate to talk through some of the challenges that Westminster clearly faces. I had some discussions before the general election, but I will be pleased to have more, because I recognise the challenges, and we can work together on some operational matters. I will be pleased to take things forward in that way.

We have touched on a number of themes to do with how the immigration system works. One was student migration and the tier 4 route through our points-based system for students to study in the UK. Five years ago the coalition Government found themselves in a situation in which people who could not speak English were coming here and going to bogus colleges. They were not coming here to study at all, so the system was being abused. Action by that Government led to more than 880 colleges losing their sponsorship. We tightened up on the evident abuse that was profoundly undermining the system, but we did so in a way that still allowed the numbers of those attending our universities from abroad to increase. The figures show a 16% increase in student visa applications for universities compared with 2010, and a 20% increase in visa applications for the Russell Group of universities.

It is also important to underline that there is no cap on the number of students coming into this country to our universities. Those numbers are reflected in our net migration statistics, because almost every other comparator nation uses the same set of measures as we do—there is not some disadvantage in adopting that approach—but it is important to recognise that net migration by the student route was 91,000 according to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, so there is an issue with students coming here and not going again.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister says that there is no cap on the number of students, or on those who apply to come to universities here, but our point is about not allowing them to stay. If we say, “The minute you graduate, off you go, you can’t come back again,” and we do not allow them to stay and find work, they will not want to come to this country in the first place, so we will lose some of the best possible talent that could be attracted to the country.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and welcome her contribution to the debate. The Scottish Government have raised the issue of post-study work, which is the point that she is making. I have a number of observations about that. Student numbers continue to increase, notwithstanding the assertion that they might go down because of the changes we have introduced, and the UK remains open for study at our world-leading academic institutions.

As for post-study work, it is available through the tier 2 route. Students who find graduate employment may take up that route, in which case they are not counted against the cap. One of my challenges to many firms and businesses is, “What are you doing to harness that? What are you doing about working with universities and using the existing tier 2 provisions to make the most of graduates coming out of our universities?” There are ongoing discussions between my officials and the Scottish Government, and the Home Secretary will consider some advice and meet the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice to discuss that and other shared matters of interest.

As for a separate arrangement for post-study work in Scotland, under the Fresh Talent scheme that operated until 2008, one of the issues that arose was that many international students granted entry under that route then chose to move to London and the south-east, rather than staying in Scotland. The issue needs to be considered with care, given the practical impact of some of the schemes.