National Identity Register and ID Card Cancellations

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am today placing in the Library certificates of destruction from contractors confirming compliance with section 3 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. These certificates are accompanied by a covering note that sets out the process and method of delivery of destruction of the national identity register.

I can also confirm that all ID cards ceased to be valid legal documents on 22 January 2011. Cardholders were notified by post to their registered address shortly after enactment of the 2010 Act and border agencies and other interested parties were informed of the cancellation of the scheme.

The cost of decommissioning ID card systems and securely destroying the personal data is, subject to final invoices, £375,000. The cost of terminating and amending National Identity Service contracts with suppliers was £2.253 million. I will also be placing in the Library a copy of a letter sent on 10 February 2011 to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) that sets out the breakdown of these costs in more detail.

Immigration Rules

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before Parliament a statement of changes in the immigration rules that will reshape tier 1 of the points-based system (PBS) for migration, tighten the requirements of tier 2 of the PBS, and tighten criteria for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The changes also include a route of entry for family reunion for those granted protection; reduce the re-entry ban for immigration offenders who leave promptly, and facilitate visits by diplomatic and special passport holders from Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The statement of changes will take effect from 6 April 2011.

This Government are committed to reducing net migration to the UK to the tens of thousands. We review all routes of entry to the UK and implement a range of measures spanning all aspects of the immigration system.

In July 2010 the Government implemented an interim limit on tier 1 general and tier 2 general of the points-based system. These measures were taken to prevent a surge in applications through these routes while the Government consulted on the design of a mechanism to operate a permanent limit on non-EU economic migrants.

The UK Border Agency consulted employers in all sectors and received around 3,200 responses. Those responses helped shape the new tier 1 and 2 policies that formed the basis of the Home Secretary’s statement on 23 November and were elaborated upon in our tier 2 statement of intent published on 16 February. I will today place a copy of our tier 1 statement of policy in the House Libraries along with the impact assessment for the tier 1, tier 2 and settlement changes. The policies detailed in the statements will be given effect by the immigration rules laid before Parliament today.

Tier 1

Tier 1 is being re-focused to provide a route for migrants that have real value to offer the UK.

In support of the principle that all non-EEA workers should be sponsored by their employer, we will close tier 1 general to new applicants from 6 April. We closed the route to new applicants out of country on 23 December. Transitional measures will be put in place to ensure that tier 1 general migrants already in the UK will be able to extend their stay so long as they meet the requirements in place at the point they entered.

Current tier 1 investor and entrepreneur categories will be reformed to fit the profile of the high-value migrants they are intended for and to ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy does not stand in the way of these important individuals.

Investors will continue to qualify for settlement after five years if they have invested £1 million in the UK. Additionally, those who have invested £10 million will be able to apply for settlement after the investment is in place for two years. Those investing £5 million will be able to apply after the investment is in place for three years. Allowable absences will be increased from 90 to 180 days, enabling international business people to better manage their affairs abroad.

A new prospective entrepreneur visa will be introduced to allow entrepreneurs to come to the UK to secure funding. Switching in to the tier 1 entrepreneur category will be allowed.

For the tier 1 entrepreneur category: the existing £200,000 funding threshold will be reduced to £50,000 where the funding was provided by a venture capitalist, a Government Department or a seed competition. Up to two business partners will be able to use the route if they have equal access to the funding. Finally, successful entrepreneurs who create 10 full-time jobs or have a turnover of £5 million will be able to apply for settlement after three years.

A new category for exceptionally talented migrants working in science or the arts will be introduced in tier 1. The scheme will be administered by competent bodies in the arts and science. We will announce the details of these organisations in due course. We will apply a limit of 1,000 places in the first year. That limit, and the success of the route, will be monitored throughout the first year.

Tier 2

The number of certificates of sponsorship available for out of country migrants in tier 2 general will be limited to 20,700 for the year from 6 April.

The route will be reserved for graduate level occupations only. On Monday we announced that we have accepted the Migration Advisory Committee’s (MAC) recommendations on graduate level occupations on the current shortage occupation list. I have also asked the MAC to undertake a full review of the shortage occupation list.

In addition the minimum English language requirement for tier 2 general will be raised to B1 on the CEFR scale.

The limit will be operated on a monthly basis. A total of 4,200 places have been reserved for the first month and 1,500 places per month thereafter. When the limit is undersubscribed in a given month the places will be carried over to the next month. Where the limit is over subscribed we will prioritise according to scarcity of skills in the first instance and then according to salary. Scientists, academics and researchers will be afforded an additional premium. A points table will give effect to this prioritisation.

The tier 2 intra-company transfer route will be reshaped and focused on specialists and managers. Transferees will be able to come to the UK for up to five years if they are paid over £40,000, including allowances. Other transferees will be able to enter for up to 12 months if paid £24,000 or more. There will be a 12-month cooling off period at the end of the migrants’ stay to prevent individuals being perpetually sent to the UK for 12-month periods.

Transitional arrangements will ensure that the new requirements do not apply to those granted a tier 2 visa before 6 April.

Settlement

On settlement the rules change applies a new criminality threshold to settlement applications, requiring all applicants to be clear of unspent convictions and also extends the income criteria that applies to those on a temporary route, so that it also applies when they apply for settlement, and to require such applicants to pass the “Life in the UK” test prior to gaining settlement, subject to some transitional provisions.

Re-entry bans

I am also introducing an amendment to the immigration rules relating to the general grounds for refusal. The existing re-entry ban for those previously removed from the UK is being amended to make it clear that where migrants participate in an assisted voluntary return programme or leave otherwise voluntarily, we expect them to do so promptly after being told to leave the UK. Those who voluntarily leave the UK promptly at public expense will have their re-entry ban reduced from five years to two years. Those who continue to delay receive a five-year or 10-year re-entry ban. This addition seeks to bring cases to a conclusion earlier by providing a clear incentive for people to depart from the UK sooner and increase participation in assisted voluntary return programmes.

Asylum

There are also changes to the immigration rules in respect of certain family members of refugees and those granted humanitarian protection, where the family relationship arose after the sponsor in the United Kingdom left his or her home country.

Visit visas

I have also made provision to enable nationals of Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates who hold a diplomatic passport to be able to come to the United Kingdom for a visit without the need for a visa. This will facilitate travel and close working relations between these passport holders and the United Kingdom.

Quilliam Foundation

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

In congratulating the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), let me say how grateful I am for the constructive way in which he made his suggestions and asked his questions; indeed, I am grateful for the constructive tone in which the whole debate has taken place. I am particularly grateful to have had the benefit of the experience of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who clearly grappled with these absolutely vital, difficult and sensitive issues when she worked in various Departments.

I should say at the outset that there is no doubt that Quilliam has done important work in support of counter-terrorism efforts in this country. Various Members on both sides have quoted the Prime Minister’s Munich speech, in which he set out the course that the Government will follow on counter-terrorism, and Quilliam continues to contribute to that. The Home Office understood the role that Quilliam could play when it helped the organisation get off the ground in 2008. Officials and Ministers provided it with extensive advice and assistance at that time.

The Home Office envisaged that Quilliam would be able to work in and with Muslim communities, and particularly with young people, challenging and exposing terrorist ideology and contributing to the aim of stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, to observe the distinction made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). The Home Office judged that, as former radical Islamists themselves, Quilliam’s founders would be able to draw on their own experiences to describe that ideology, explain why it might seem superficially compelling and demonstrate its incoherence. Quilliam subsequently developed a significant research function, and has published some papers on important issues, including radicalisation on the internet, in prisons and in further and higher education.

It is fair to say that, since 2008, Quilliam has developed a brand, a message and a clear public position. It is known not only in this country but overseas, notably in the USA. Throughout that period, both the Home Office and the Foreign Office provided Quilliam with significant financial assistance. Quilliam has received more Home Office Prevent funding than any other single organisation—nearly £1.2 million over the past three financial years. The Foreign Office has provided nearly £1.5 million in project funding over the same period.

Regarding funding for Quilliam and other organisations, Pakistan was mentioned and the important work that needs to be done there. Tackling radicalisation in Pakistan is clearly important but, to put it into context, there are nearly 100 organisations, large and small, supporting Prevent overseas. More than 20 of those are in Pakistan, many of them working anonymously for obvious security reasons. All of those are funded by the Foreign Office.

This financial year, the Home Office has provided Quilliam with six-figure funding. It has been invited to submit bids for project funding in the next financial year.

[Dr Lewis]

I wish Ministers would stop using the phrase, which has clearly been given to them, of six-figure funding. Six-figure funding can be from £100,000 to £999,000. There are big variations in it.

[Damian Green]

There are indeed, and I will come to exact figures in a second.

The funding provided to Quilliam has been unique, not only in its scale but in its scope. It has been used not just for projects and programmes but, exceptionally, for significant overheads and running costs. The Government agree that Quilliam deserved some support in the past, and we continue to believe that Quilliam is capable of useful work. However, following a review of all the organisations, projects and programmes supported as part of the Prevent strategy, Home Office Ministers have taken the decision to end funding for Quilliam’s running costs from the end of this financial year. Clearly, that is the heart and purpose of the debate.

I say to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that there is an offer on the table to Quilliam of tens of thousands of pounds to cover the next few months of basic operations. He and the array of distinguished ex-Ministers on the Opposition Benches will recognise that this not the place to conduct detailed financial negotiations. I want to assure him and everyone who has attended the debate that there is an offer. It would be foolish for me to start negotiating here; I will merely gently observe that the £150,000 transitional money referred to by several right hon. and hon. Members is actually more than the total Home Office money given to Quilliam over the past 12 months, as decided by the previous Government. I would not want anyone to leave the debate with the thought that £150,000 is a small percentage of what Quilliam might have expected to receive. It is actually more than the total budget received from the Home Office in the past year.

[Hazel Blears]

Will the Minister give an indication of when Quilliam was first told that it would need to replace the Home Office funding with funding from other sources?

[Damian Green]

In December. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East asked for specific numbers. The trajectory of Home Office direct funding for Quilliam is quite clear. In 2008-09, it was £665,000; in 2009-10, it was £387,000; and in 2010-11, it was £145,000. There was a clear trend in the direction agreed with by everyone who has spoken in the debate: that is, that Quilliam does good work but that a think-tank of that kind should not be reliant for its core running costs on Government funding.

[Dr Lewis]

rose—

[Damian Green]

If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I need to make some progress, because others have asked interesting “in principle” questions, which I need to address. He himself gave the impression there was some kind of conspiracy afoot, and I wish to reject that.

Home Office Ministers have taken the decisions they have for three reasons. First, Quilliam has, as we all agree, evolved into a think-tank; it is no longer fulfilling the role for which it was originally funded by the previous Government. Secondly, Quilliam has continually committed to broadening its sources of funding and to becoming more self-reliant, and I think we agree that that needs to happen. Thirdly, Home Office Ministers believe that the Department can no longer make an exception for Quilliam by paying for its ongoing running costs as well as funding specific projects. The Home Office does not support any other think-tank on that basis, a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

Let me deal with each of those points in turn. As I have already said, the original purpose for which Quilliam was funded by Government was to work in and with Muslim communities to challenge the ideology of terrorism and extremism. In some cases, that has not been done as successfully as Ministers originally hoped. Since 2008, Quilliam has progressively engaged in a different and rather broader range of activities consistent with its declared intention of being a think-tank. It publishes work on a range of security issues, not confined to the narrower and hugely important issue of countering radicalisation. In doing so, I emphasise again, Quilliam makes important contributions to the overall debate.

[Mr McFadden]

I appreciate the pressure of time. I am not sure that I accept the distinction the Minister makes between think-tank work and countering extremism. The publication of the reports is important in countering extremism. To get to the point, can the Minister say who he thinks will step forward and do this if Quilliam folds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am trying to come to that point. The principle we want to uphold is that Quilliam should be free to contribute to the wider debate, but not depend on Government funding to do so. The other think-tanks that have also published on radicalisation—including Demos, the Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion—all operate on that basis. It is the way that all successful think-tanks need to operate. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked a reasonable question about whether think-tank work can contribute to countering radicalisation. That is done by a number of think-tanks. There is an important point of principle about whether think-tanks should continually depend on direct state funding for their core activities to continue their work year after year.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way: all of us who have been Ministers recognise that the timing of winding-up the debate is a fine art, and there is much ground to cover.

The Minister has recognised the contribution that Quilliam has made. He talked about an offer running into tens of thousands of pounds. We have argued for £150,000. If there is good will, a real interest in making sure that the organisation can survive, will the Minister agree to meet me and other colleagues to pursue that, to see if what may be a narrow gap can be closed?

[Damian Green]

I am always willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I know he met the Home Secretary yesterday, and the situation on the subject has not changed radically in the 12 hours since he met her.

Let me address the issues. The Foreign Office and the Home Office fund a number of small organisations, charities, civil society organisations and faith communities to deliver the Prevent programme, overseas and in this country. There are more than 130 such organisations. To protect them and their credibility we do not disclose their names. I am sure everyone will recognise that they are sometimes working in high-risk environments. Their credibility needs protection because research that appears to be British Government-inspired will inevitably have less credibility.

The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked about RICU. It has clearly received staff and resources from the Foreign Office, from the Department for Communities and Local Government and from the Home Office, recognising the challenge of producing a coherent narrative overseas, nationally and among local communities. I will write to her on the details.

Worker Registration Scheme

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before Parliament regulations which will have the effect of closing, on 30 April 2011, the worker registration scheme for workers from those member states from eastern Europe that joined the EU on 1 May 2004. This means that after 30 April 2011 nationals of those countries will no longer be subject to a requirement to register their employment as a condition of working legally in the United Kingdom and will be able to work and reside in the United Kingdom on the same basis as nationals from other EU member states.

The worker registration scheme is being closed because the terms of the treaty of accession mean that the United Kingdom cannot apply restrictions on access to the labour market to nationals of those member states for more than seven years from the date of accession. Those other EU member states—that is, Germany and Austria—that have maintained such restrictions to date will also be required to lift them.

The Government intend to apply transitional controls on labour market access, in accordance with the relevant accession treaty, to nationals of any country joining the EU in the future. This is part of the Government’s commitment to reducing net migration to the tens of thousands, alongside the steps that the Government are taking to reduce immigration from outside the EU, including new limits on numbers of workers admitted under tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system and reforms to other routes of entry including students, families and marriage. Economic migration routes will remain closed to lower-skilled migrants from outside the EU while UK and EU labour continues to be available to meet labour needs at this level.

The UK Border Agency will be publishing guidance on its website for workers from the relevant accession member states and for employers, clarifying their responsibilities in relation to compliance with the worker registration scheme until its closure on 30 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

6. What further steps she plans to take to control illegal immigration; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

UK Border Agency enforcement officers are continuing to crack down on immigration crime and remove illegal migrants. Our proposals to tackle abuse by foreign nationals using student visas to gain work in the UK, alongside new plans to toughen up marriage and family routes, will further tackle illegal migration into the UK.

[Mr Leigh]

As Members of Parliament, we are approached all the time by constituents who want to marry somebody from abroad and it is only humane and right that we should try to help them, but our job is made doubly, even trebly, difficult by the existence of sham marriages. What is my hon. Friend doing to tackle the problem without making the system so bureaucratic for everyone else?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend identifies one of the key loopholes that did exist in the immigration system. Last summer, I asked our enforcement teams to focus on sham marriages, and 53 sham marriage operations were undertaken, resulting in 126 arrests. Between November and January, a further 86 operations followed that up, focusing on sham marriages, with an additional 29 arrests. This has been one of the big loopholes in our immigration system, but we are becoming ever more effective in closing it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

In seeking to strike the right balance on student visas, will the Minister and the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that they will listen carefully to the representations of universities in the UK, including mine in Exeter, and of our reputable language schools, which say that the current proposals would be devastating to their sector and to the economy as a whole?

[Damian Green]

We are indeed speaking to many universities and listening to their representations, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the vice-chancellor of Exeter university. I am sure that when our proposals are put forward, universities will discover that they defend the rights of legitimate students to come here to study legitimately at legitimate institutions. At the same time, we will also crack down on the huge and widespread abuse of the student visa.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Which three countries are responsible for the largest number of illegal immigrants into Britain and what specific steps are being taken with those countries to take those people back when they are caught?

[Damian Green]

By definition, illegal immigrants do not go through the system, so it is quite difficult to give accurate figures about where they come from, but we know the main routes by which people come into the country, one of which is from Asia, through Turkey into Greece. We are working very hard with both the Greek and Turkish Governments to stop that route and minimise the problem. One of the most effective things we are doing is improving our border controls at Calais, which mean that the number of people who are identified as coming across illegally into Britain is now running at about a third of the level it was 18 months ago. That is a significant strengthening of our border defences.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Any action to control illegal immigration depends upon a properly staffed and effective border agency which can both detect and remove illegal immigrants. With cuts of 20% and job losses of 5,200 for the UK Border Agency, detection and enforcement officers are already warning that their work is being undermined. The Government are talking tough on illegal immigration. Is the Minister sure that the Home Secretary has given him the resources to deliver?

[Damian Green]

Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady will, of course, recognise that the reason there must be cuts in public services is the appalling state of the public finances that her Government left us with. We are confident that by using technology, better intelligence and flexible working, we can maintain and improve levels of border security with fewer staff. I invite her to consider the example of Calais. We can now check 1.5 million lorries a year, and in the past year we have found just over 9,700 individuals trying to cross illegally, compared to just over 29,000 in 2009, so the new system that we are operating does work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

12. If she will bring forward proposals to change immigration bail conditions to make them consistent with proposed conditions for control orders.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government see no need to review the range of bail conditions that may be imposed in immigration cases. We will continue to seek bail conditions that enable us to manage the threat posed by the individual. These will vary from case to case.

[Richard Fuller]

I hear that answer, but how can it be right that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is able to impose conditions on people, perhaps those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain, on charges that are not disclosed to them, that restrict their communications and movement and force relocation, conditions that the Government say are unacceptable in control orders? How can that be right for people in those circumstances?

[Damian Green]

SIAC deals primarily with cases where an individual poses a threat to national security, so we must take all the issues surrounding those individual cases extremely seriously. As such, SIAC sets bail conditions that it considers necessary to control any risk of absconding and the threat posed to national security, whether or not the individual absconds. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that SIAC has enormous responsibilities and takes them very seriously in each individual case.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I agree with the question from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). Will the Minister go one step further than is being suggested and make both immigration bail conditions and the conditions for control orders more like regular bail conditions?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend will recognise what I have just said about SIAC, which you will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat, Mr Speaker. The conditions for immigration bail and for control orders, and for the regime that will replace control orders, have rather different surrounding contexts than the setting of normal bail conditions, so it is entirely reasonable for SIAC to come to different conclusions and have different powers.

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

13. What plans she has for the future of the student visa entry system.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

We are considering the responses we received following closure of the recent consultation on reform of the student immigration system, which closed on 31 January. We are concluding our analysis of responses and will announce future plans for the student system in due course.

[Mr Brine]

I thank the Minister for his reply. May I press him to reassure legitimate English language schools, such as the Winchester School of English in my constituency, which he has visited, and higher education institutions, including the university of Winchester, that new B2 English entry level requirements will not wipe out a critical source of their respective revenues?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is right: I have visited that language school in his constituency and admired its work. One proposal in the consultation was to raise the English language requirement from B1 to B2, because we believe it is right that students should have a good command of English to complete their course. In responses to the consultation, universities and others have expressed concern about that proposal, and we are considering those representations as well as the many others that we have received.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that, if the changes to student visa entry requirements are wrong, it will have a devastating impact on our universities and other educational institutions?

[Damian Green]

I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that we need to strike the right balance so that the brightest and best students can come to this country and benefit it both in the short and the long term. At the same time, however, we recognise that we need to crack down on the many abuses of the student visa system under the previous Government, which have led to the widespread lack of confidence in our immigration system. Of course we need to strike a balance between those two demands, and we are confident that we will do so.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May I suggest to the Minister that all he has to do to deal with the unintended consequences of the proposals is to look at the findings and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament? All problems would be dealt with.

[Damian Green]

It is a universal truth that reading Home Affairs Committee reports always leads to greater enlightenment. I have read the relevant report, and I always absorb the Committee’s reports, but I will redouble my efforts to ensure that I am familiar with every last detail of every report.

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

We all agree with the Home Secretary that bogus colleges should be closed, and most seem to be in the private sector. She and the Immigration Minister will know that further education colleges’ fee income from foreign students is £42 million, with a contribution to the economy of £80 million. We have 184 colleges that are registered as highly trusted sponsors, with more than 20,000 international students. When can they expect to know what will happen about non-degree courses? It does and will affect the budgets not only of colleges, but of universities.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the main abuse that we have found has been in private sector colleges at below-degree level, which is why one principal proposal on which we have consulted is that nobody will be able to offer a course at below-degree level unless they become a highly trusted sponsor. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on the whole, public sector bodies that apply for highly trusted sponsorship obtain it successfully, but many private sector bodies do not have such status, and that is one key distinction that we need to maintain—that only people whom we can trust to do the job properly should be enabled to bring foreign students to this country.

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

16. What assessment she has made of the trends in levels of complaints against police forces in England and Wales in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

22. What recent discussions she has had with stakeholders on the asylum improvement project.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Home Secretary and I, and our officials, have discussed aspects of the asylum improvement project with a number of corporate partners. The National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, the Scottish Asylum Stakeholder Forum and the Still Human Still Here coalition have also discussed the project recently.

[Mr Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he establish pilot schemes and where exactly are they likely to be?

[Damian Green]

We have established a number of pilot schemes already. There is one in the north-west concentrating on using early intervention to help asylum claimants. We have set up the early legal advice project in the west midlands, and a project to attempt to improve the flow of decision making in London. If those pilots are successful, we will of course move them on to a national scale.

[Mr Speaker]

Angela Smith is not here so I call Tony Baldry.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

25. What plans she has for the future of the student visa entry system.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Tony Baldry]

This morning, I met a young Chevening scholar from Iraq who is studying for an MSc in engineering and robotics at Sussex university. He is hoping to go back to his country to make a contribution when he has completed his degree course. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we want as many overseas students like that young man as possible to come to the UK, because they enrich our university life and take the skills and knowledge that they acquire back to their home countries when they complete their courses? Will he confirm that while seeking to achieve that, we also want to bear down on the abuses of sham institutions that have been set up to bring about immigration abuses?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman is gearing up for an Adjournment debate on this subject. I do not know why he gave such a full question, but it was very helpful and we are grateful to him.

[Damian Green]

As ever, I agree completely about the helpfulness of my hon. Friend’s question. He presents the House with an extremely good example of what should happen, in that a foreign student came here to learn on a high-quality course and to develop skills that he can take back to his country. As is crucial, he is planning to leave at the end of his course. That is precisely the sort of thing that benefits our university system and brings confidence in the immigration system. What does not do that is students coming here and simply staying. Published information shows that of the students who came here in 2004, more than 20% were still here five years later in 2009. That is the kind of thing that we must investigate, to establish whether those people are still genuine students or are just exploiting the system to work in this country.

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

Last week, the Minister for Universities and Science told the Home Affairs Committee that he wanted foreign students to come to this country, but admitted that he found Government policy in the area “fuzzy”. The Select Committee was told on the same day by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), that he wanted a cut in immigration but an increase in the number of students coming from Latin America. What exactly is the Government’s policy on the future of the student visa entry system?

[Damian Green]

Under the student visa scheme, we want good students to come here to study genuine courses at genuine institutions. Under the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished supporter for so long, the student visa system became the single biggest loophole in an already chaotic immigration system. That is why we are having to deal with it. It is significantly the biggest route of immigration into this country—about 60% of visas are issued for students. That is why it is so important that this Government get a grip on the failures of the previous Government.

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T8. At this difficult economic time, what steps is the Minister taking to make it as straightforward as possible for British businesses to take on highly skilled foreign workers, albeit under the auspices of the immigration cap?

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are introducing a new system for tier 1 and tier 2 for work-based visas, and at the same time we are speeding up the visa both for businesses and for more general visitors. The biggest single complaint has been about the delays in the issuing of visas. I am happy to assure him that we are concerned about that. We are already beginning to see improvements, so that in many of the key markets where we need to operate our visa system is working better than ever before, and we are meeting our service standards.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T5. When responding to an earlier question on the trafficking strategy, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), said that it would include elements of prevention, action on the border and policing. Does she recognise that a very important element of any anti-trafficking strategy is victim care, and that victim care is usually provided by voluntary organisations? The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the chair of the all-party group on human trafficking, spoke of a big society solution. Can we have a big society participation in the anti-trafficking strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

In the past six weeks, the Minister for Immigration has answered about 50 statistical questions from Members, including me. I say “answered”, but in two thirds of these cases, it was not possible for him to provide sound information, either because the data were not recorded or because they were not quality assured and may not have withstood typical audit scrutiny. What assessment has he made of the quality of management information in the UK Border Agency?

[Damian Green]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is exactly right. Where an answer makes it clear that the information is management information, it simply means that the data are not Office for National Statistics-quality statistics. However, those answers will include statistical information, even though it might be slightly rough and ready, precisely because I am determined, when we have the information available, to make it available to hon. Members as part of the Government’s commitment to transparency.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T7. Northumbria police force is losing more than 1,000 jobs, including 300 front-line police. As a result, young recruits promised a job last year have now been told that those jobs are no longer available. What guarantee, therefore, can the Secretary of State offer to the people of the north-east that crime will not rise as a result of the cuts? Furthermore, how can she reassure those who have worked so hard to win a job that they will be prioritised—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We would be even more grateful for a reply so that we can move on.

[Damian Green]

I would, of course, be happy to be enlightened about the immigration system as it affects rugby league.

British Citizenship (War Crimes Screening)

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I have made the Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011 to enable the Secretary of State to subject applications from certain nationalities for British citizenship to more rigorous scrutiny than others for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011 are made under paragraph (l)(l)(d) of schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010, and replace the Race Relations (Nationality) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2007, made under section 41 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The corresponding Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011 are made under article 40 paragraph 2(c) Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by the Minister for the purpose of the arrangements.

I have now reviewed and approved this list. I am satisfied that the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.

The arrangements will remain in force until revoked. I will review the arrangements and the list on an annual basis.

I am placing copies of the arrangements in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Charging for Immigration and Nationality Services 2011-12

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am announcing proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the UK Border Agency. The Government review these fees on a regular basis and make appropriate changes as necessary. I will shortly lay regulations for fees that are set at levels above the normal administrative costs of the service. We have continued with our strategic approach to charging setting certain fees above cost on the basis of the value of the service.

These fees must be set out in regulations before both Houses of Parliament and are subject to the affirmative procedure. The fees allow us to generate revenue which is used to fund the UK immigration system and to set certain fees below cost recovery to support wider Government objectives. The revenue generated will contribute towards securing our borders and controlling migration for the benefit of the UK. I will lay another set of regulations in Parliament for the fees for immigration and nationality services that are set at/below the cost of the service.

A table with details of all the proposed increases is set out at annex A. The table includes indicative unit costs for each application for FY 11/12. The unit cost is the estimated average cost to UK Border Agency of processing each application. Although our unit costs are not fixed over the course of the financial year, we publish unit costs so it is clear which fees we set over cost and by how much. Further details of all fees changes will be outlined in the explanatory memoranda accompanying both the regulations.

Given the need to reduce public spending, we have had to carefully consider our fee levels, to ensure we can maintain good service levels to our customers and secure the border for the general public. In principle it is the right time to ask migrants to make a greater contribution to funding the UK Border Agency than was previously the case. Therefore we should continue to seek a shift in the funding provided by migrants to deliver the border and immigration system with a consequent reduction in the burden on UK taxpayers.

In developing these proposals, we have sought to limit increases so as to avoid any broader economic impact (particularly on the most economically sensitive route of all, short-term visit visas).

I believe these proposals continue to strike the right balance between maintaining secure and effective border controls, and ensuring that our fees structure does not inhibit the UK’s ability to attract those migrants and visitors who make a valued contribution. It is right that those who benefit directly from the immigration system should pay to meet the costs of securing the UK’s borders. This will help to support the immigration system, maintain public confidence, and ensure that migration is managed for the benefit of the UK.

Full details on how to apply for all of these services will be provided on our website, www.ukba.homeoffice. gov.uk.

Equality Act 2010

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I have made an authorisation under paragraph 17(4)(a) of schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010, to enable the UK Border Agency to give greater scrutiny or priority to particular nationalities in carrying out entry clearance, border control and removals functions.

This authorisation came into force on 10 February 2011. It replaces the Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) Authorisation 2004, which came into force on 12 February 2004 and has been revoked.

The authorisation allows the UK Border Agency to target its resources effectively in managing UK immigration controls. In particular, it lets entry clearance and border control staff give greater scrutiny, and staff removing immigration offenders greater priority, to particular nationalities on the basis of statistical and intelligence-based evidence of the risk they pose to those controls.

The authorisation is made under the nationality exception for immigration functions contained in the Equality Act 2010. It replaces an equivalent authorisation for border control functions and removals made in 2004 under the Race Relations Act 1976, and allows a similar evidence-based approach to risk assessment and targeting to be applied overseas by entry clearance staff. The nationalities covered by the authorisation will be reviewed each quarter by the UK Border Agency and submitted for ministerial approval.

I have made an equivalent authorisation for Northern Ireland under article 20C of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. This authorisation came into force on 10 February 2011.

I am placing a copy of the authorisations in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Higher Education (Student Visas)

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate. I appreciate that the unusually large attendance for an Adjournment debate means that many Members have come to intervene, but unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has taken up two thirds of the time available, I am afraid I will not be able to take any interventions. He has raised many important points that I want to address in the brief time remaining.

First, let me put the consultation into perspective. Reforming the immigration system and reducing the level of immigration to a sustainable number is one of the Government’s big tasks. The uncontrolled immigration levels of the previous decade led to a loss of public confidence, strain on public services and an increase in the visibility of extremist politicians holding unpleasant views seeking to exploit the problem. We as a country need to reverse this, and we as a Government are doing just that.

We have made it clear that we will take a different approach. We will tighten up our system, stop abuse and support only the most beneficial immigrants. We set out our approach last year to economic migration, we have just finished a consultation on student migration, the specific subject of the debate, and we will consult on families and settlement. We have indicated that, through a more rigorous and controlled approach, we will see fewer non-EU migrants than in the past. Our goal is an improved system that commands the confidence of the public and serves our economic interests. We expect this to come through a system that shows a significant fall in net migration to the UK, from the hundreds of thousands annually that we have seen in recent years to tens of thousands over the course of this Parliament. To set that in perspective, in 2009 net migration was at nearly 200,000 and continued rising in the early part of 2010. For non-EEA migrants—that is, excluding British and EU citizens—it was around 184,000. My principal task is to reduce the numbers coming, increase the numbers leaving when their visas are up, and eliminate abuse in the system, one of the important points raised by my hon. Friend.

I am taking action to tighten our migration system across all entry routes for non-EEA-migrants—work, study and family—and to break the link between temporary routes and permanent settlement. Some of the measures will take effect in the short term. Others will set us on a long-term road to sustainable immigration, where Britain benefits economically and culturally from new skills and backgrounds, but in a context where people are at ease with the changes that they see around them.

On the student immigration system, the majority of non-EU immigrants are students. Our public consultation on the student visa system closed on 31 January and we are carefully considering the more than 30,000 responses that we received, before finalising our proposals.

Let me deal directly with some of the points made by my hon. Friend. The UK’s education system is world renowned. We remain the second most popular global destination of choice for the many thousands of higher education students who choose to study abroad each year. We want to encourage all those genuine students coming here to study at our world-class academic institutions. Genuine international students make an important financial contribution to the institutions that they attend, including our universities, where their continued contribution will be all the more important in the light of changes to the way in which those institutions are funded.

The brightest and the best students who have the greatest contribution to make to the UK will continue to be welcomed under the student route, but we remain concerned that not all those using the student route at present are genuine students whose main intention is to come to the UK to study. There are significant numbers of students whose contribution is less easily defined.

One of the interesting points that my hon. Friend makes, which has also been made to me by Professor Acton, on whose behalf he was speaking, is that we should stop counting students as immigrants—that they come, they study and they go, so they should not count. I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend that the definition of an immigrant is a UN definition. It is not under my control or under the control of the British Government. According to that definition, an immigrant is somebody who comes to stay in a country with the intention of staying for more than a year. That is the international definition.

Those who invite me to change the definition make a tempting case. I could at a stroke define away 60% of the immigration into the UK. I could, with the statistical stroke of a pen, define away the immigration problem, but I am programmed to resist temptation. In all seriousness, the idea that any Government could say, “We’ve solved the serious problem of immigration simply by redefining what immigrants are” would have no credibility. It would clearly be an absurd thing to do. We have to keep using the internationally agreed figures that are always used.

It is important to put the arguments in a proper statistical perspective. Students now represent the largest proportion of non-EU net migration. In 2009 the student route, including dependants, accounted for approximately 139,000 out of the total net migration figure of 184,000, which is 76% of total net migration. Recent Home Office research shows that 13% of those granted settlement in 2009 were originally admitted as students—23,000 grants of settlement. Further Home Office research shows that more than one fifth of those who came here as students in 2004 were still here five years later in 2009.

Another point that is absolutely essential to understanding the debate is that all too often there is an assumption that the vast majority of those students who come here do so as university students. Actually, 41% of the students who come here from abroad do so to study a course below degree level, and abuse is particularly common at those lower levels. As my hon. Friend admitted, 58 education providers have had their sponsor licences revoked since 31 March 2009, and the vast majority of them were privately funded further education colleges.

Last year, the post-study route, which my hon. Friend mentioned, allowed 38,000 foreign graduates to enter the UK labour market at a time when one in 10 UK graduates were unemployed in their first six months after graduating. Another common misconception is that because those highly skilled students are coming to read degrees and then take up skilled jobs in the work force, surely they are upskilling our general industrial output. In a survey of users of that system in which respondents were asked about their current employment status, of those in the tier 1 post-study work category—precisely those who are meant to be the brightest and the best doing skilled jobs—almost one fifth were unemployed and only half of those who were employed were in a skilled or highly skilled job.

It is too sweeping a statement to say that the system as it has worked up to now is not delivering highly skilled people into highly skilled jobs, because it is doing some of that, but it is also doing an awful lot of something else that I suspect Members on both sides of the House would not regard as desirable. As was mentioned in the interesting Home Affairs Committee hearing this morning, when the new system was introduced by the previous Government, there was such widespread abuse in three parts of the world that after a few months the whole system had to be suspended there: no student could be let in from parts of China, India and Nepal because of the absolutely widespread abuse that we saw.

I have already identified the private sector FE colleges that provide education below degree level as the area where we have the most worries. In the last year for which we have figures, those institutions admitted 91,000 students, so we are not talking about a small number of students on the periphery of a system that basically involves universities. We are talking about tens of thousands of students coming to institutions, the vast majority of which are not highly trusted sponsors under our system. That is why one of the key proposals in our consultation document is that only providers who are highly trusted sponsors will be able to offer courses below degree level.

Another absolutely key item on which we have consulted is a stricter accreditation system, which we need to create. The accreditation system that has grown up for those private sector colleges in recent years is clearly not adequate, and we are talking to those who regulate education, as well as looking at the way in which we regulate immigration routes, so that a new accreditation system for those institutions can be introduced which ensures our confidence in them. In the past few days, we have finished the consultation, and we will finalise our proposals over the coming weeks and, of course, announce our response to the House as soon as possible.

We want to create for student migration a strong framework that requires education providers to tighten and improve their selection and recruitment procedures. There will be a greater emphasis on quality, and we shall drive abuse out of the system. That will generate public confidence in the immigration system and ultimately be good for all the legitimate international students who are welcome to study here. Those changes to the student route are a vital building block in our overall immigration policy.

Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am pleased to announce Dr Ian Leigh’s appointment as Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner for the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). The appointment has been made in accordance with schedule 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and therefore this is a five-year appointment. Dr Leigh will take up the post on 7 February 2011.

Dr Leigh is a chartered physicist and a fellow of the Institute of Physics. He has extensive experience of working in the public sector having spent several years employed as a senior civil servant and several years in a senior role in an NDPB. Dr Leigh was a deputy director in the Department of Trade and Industry with responsibility for managing the National Physical Laboratory’s operating contract. In 2001 he was appointed as managing director and director of policy for Postwatch, an executive NDPB dealing with all consumer issues in the postal sector. Since 2008, Dr Leigh has been working as a consultant to the Irish Commission for Communications Regulation.

The appointment of a Deputy Commissioner to replace the previous post holder has been made with due consideration of the uncertain future of the OISC. The Cabinet Office announcement of reform to public bodies listed the OISC as one where future options, including a possible merger, are under consideration. A Deputy Commissioner remains a requirement for the current operation of the OISC and as any changes will take time to be considered and thereafter implemented, it is the case that substantial work at a managerial level will be required within the OISC.