Al-Muhajiroun

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

We have today laid an order under section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which, with effect from tomorrow, will specify “Need4Khilafah”, “the Shariah Project” and “the Islamic Dawah Association” as aliases of the proscribed organisation known as al-Ghurabaa, the Saved Sect, al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. This organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply operating under alternative names.

The effect of this order is that being a member of or supporting any group operating under these names will be a criminal offence as to do so will amount to being a member of or supporting al-Ghurabaa, contrary to sections 11 and 12 of the Terrorism Act.

Detention of Persons with Statutorily Extended Leave

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

A removal decision under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) may be made in relation to any person whose leave is statutorily extended leave by virtue of either:

section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (the 1971 Act)—where the migrant has made an in-time application and a decision on the application is pending or an appeal against refusal has not yet been exhausted; or

section 3D of the 1971 Act—where leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect and any appeal against that decision has not yet been exhausted.

The previous Government stated that migrants who had received a removal decision under section 47 of the 2006 Act could not be subject to reporting conditions or detention while they had continuing leave pending the outcome of an appeal, 29 March 2006, Official Report, column 908. In fact, schedule 2 of the 1971 Act allows their detention, and in circumstances where leave has been abused this may be appropriate.

Curtailment with immediate effect is used where the migrant has failed to comply with the conditions of their leave, or their character, conduct or associations make it undesirable to allow them to remain in the UK—for example, there is reliable evidence that they have facilitated or entered into a sham marriage or civil partnership to gain an immigration advantage. Sham marriage is known to be a significant and increasing threat to UK immigration control.

To allow robust and proportionate enforcement action against individuals who abuse the immigration system, we are changing policy in regard of persons who have statutorily extended leave under section 3D of the 1971 Act. Migrants whose leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect will be liable to be detained or to report to the Home Office (depending on the individual circumstances of the case) pending their removal from the UK.

The Home Office will continue not to detain persons whose leave is extended by virtue of section 3C of the 1971 Act. In these cases, migrants have sought to regularise their stay before their leave expired and should not be subject to enforcement action before their application is finally determined. Similarly, a person whose leave is curtailed for reasons outside their control (for example, the college at which they were studying has closed down) would normally be left with some leave remaining, in order to let them find alternative provision. A removal decision would not be made with the curtailment decision and they would be unaffected by this policy change.

Immigration Removals (New Restraint System)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing that I have formally approved a new restraint system for safely managing people being escorted during immigration removals.

This fulfils a commitment by this Government to provide training for escort staff that reflects the environment they work in, both in-country and overseas. The bespoke training is tailored to the experience and behaviour of detainees and staff in immigration removals and provides practical tools to de-escalate situations and minimise the use of restraint.

The new system has been assessed by the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management, chaired by Stephen Shaw. The panel was established to provide support to the National Offender Management Service in the design of the new training package to provide independent advice on the quality and safety of the new package, in particular on the use of restraint techniques.

The report by the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management is welcomed by the Government. The report recognises the balance to be struck between treating detainees with respect and minimising the need for restraint, with our responsibility to enforce immigration law, which sometimes requires the use of physical intervention.

After careful consideration of the panel’s comprehensive assessment of the quality and safety of the new system, the Government have accepted all of its recommendations.

The new training for overseas and in-country escort staff will begin implementation on 28 July 2014.

I am placing a copy of the full report of the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management and the Government’s response to the report in the Library of the House. A redacted version of the manual for escorting safely and supporting guidance will be published in due course.

Student Visas

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on student visas.

Since the last election, the Government have taken action across the board to reduce and control immigration. We have introduced a cap on economic migration from outside the European Union, we have reformed the family visa system, and we have eliminated much of the abuse of the student visa system we saw under the last Government. The result is that net migration from outside the EU is close to its lowest levels since the late 1990s, while net migration is down by a third since its peak under Labour.

The Government have always said that, even in the light of the reforms we have introduced, we need to keep each of the main immigration routes to Britain under review, we need to remain vigilant against abuse of the student visa system, and education providers need to meet their responsibilities. That is why I can tell the House that since the start of February immigration enforcement officers, with the support of the National Crime Agency together with officials from UK Visas and Immigration, have been conducting a detailed and wide-ranging investigation into actions by organised criminals to falsify English language tests for student visa applicants. They have also investigated a number of colleges and universities for their failure to make sure that the foreign students they have sponsored meet the standards set out in the immigration rules.

Since the reforms we introduced in 2011, it has been a requirement for all student visa applicants to prove they can speak English at an appropriate level. All students in further education or at a university that relies on English language testing who want to extend their stay by applying for a new student visa have to be tested by one of five companies licensed by the Government. One of those companies, the European subsidiary of an American firm called Educational Testing Service, was exposed by the BBC’s “Panorama” programme earlier this year following systematic cheating at a number of its UK test centres. Facilitated by organised criminals, this typically involved invigilators supplying, even reading out, answers to whole exam rooms, or gangs of impostors being allowed to step into the exam candidates’ places to sit the test. Evidently, this could happen only with considerable collusion by the test centres concerned. Having been provided with analysis from the American arm of ETS for a number of ETS test centres in the UK operating in 2012 and 2013, it has identified more than 29,000 invalid results and more than 19,000 questionable results. As it still has to receive test analyses from ETS for other testing centres it operated in the UK, it is likely that the true totals will be higher.

Officials from immigration enforcement and UK Visas and Immigration have not found evidence to suggest there is systematic cheating taking place in the tests carried out by the other providers.

As soon as the allegations of systematic cheating were first made, we suspended ETS testing in the UK, put a hold on all immigration applications from those in the UK using an ETS test certificate, and made all applications from overseas subject to interview by UK Visas and Immigration staff. In April ETS’s licence to conduct tests for immigration purposes ended, and two weeks ago we formally removed the company as a test provider in the immigration rules.

Because of the organised criminality that lies behind the falsified tests, the National Crime Agency has been brought in to work alongside immigration enforcement officers to pursue criminal action against the perpetrators. Immigration enforcement has begun work to identify anybody who is in the country illegally as a result of the falsified tests so that they can be removed. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also helping the investigation by scrutinising pay and tax records. A criminal investigation has been launched into the role of ETS Global Ltd. More generally, immigration enforcement is working to identify, pursue, and prosecute those involved in facilitating this activity, and to investigate links to wider organised crime. Arrests have been made, and I expect more will follow.

I should make it clear that proof that a visa applicant can speak English is only one test for somebody seeking to study in Britain. Other requirements include proof of academic qualifications, attendance at college or university, and compliance with the immigration rules, and if these student visa applicants had to cheat to pass an English language test, it is highly doubtful that many of the colleges, and some universities, that sponsored them in numbers were fulfilling their duties as “highly trusted sponsors”.

As I said earlier in my statement, UKVI and immigration enforcement officers have been investigating many of these colleges and universities because of wider concerns about their conduct. The evidence they have provided of what is going on in these institutions is cause for serious concern. The work undertaken by HMRC has identified a number of overseas university students earning more than £20,000 a year, despite the rule that they must not work more than 20 hours per week during term time. Overseas students at privately funded further education colleges are not allowed to work at all, yet one college—the London School of Business and Finance—has 290 foreign students who worked and paid tax last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] One university student identified by HMRC had been working a 60-hour week for six months.

UKVI identified people allegedly studying in London, while their home addresses were registered as restaurants as far away as Ipswich and Chichester. Students sponsored by Glyndwr university so far identified with invalid test results provided by ETS number more than 230, rising to more than 350 if the scores counted as questionable are added. The comparable figures for the university of West London are over 210 sponsored students with invalid scores, rising to over 290 when questionable scores are included.

At certain private further education colleges, as many as three quarters of the file checks completed by UKVI officers were a cause for concern. At one college, a staff member told UKVI officers that they were not encouraged to report students’ absence or failure because doing so would reduce the college’s income and jeopardise its right to sponsor foreign students. The Government are not prepared to tolerate this abuse, so I can tell the House that this morning the Home Office suspended the highly trusted sponsor status—that is, the right to sponsor foreign students—of Glyndwr university. In addition, we have suspended the licences of 57 private further education colleges, a list of which I will place in the Library of the House. We have told a further two universities—the universities of Bedfordshire and of West London—that they are no longer allowed to sponsor new students pending further investigations, which will decide whether they too should be suspended.

Other universities are involved in the continuing investigation, and further action may follow, although because of the steps they have already taken to improve their processes, including voluntarily ceasing overseas recruitment to London sub-campuses, we will not at this stage remove their right to sponsor foreign students. Because much of the worst abuse we have uncovered seems to be taking place at London sub-campuses of universities based in other parts of the country, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education will examine these London campuses to see whether further action should be taken against their parent universities.

The Government do not take such action lightly, but we are clear that this kind of irresponsibility cannot go without serious sanction. We have already removed some 750 bogus colleges from the list of those entitled to bring foreign students to Britain, and of these, almost 400, we now know, were linked to those who obtained invalid ETS certificates. We have tightened up the rules for individual students. We have reduced the level of immigration to Britain in part by cutting out abuse in the student visa system. But we have always said we must remain vigilant against abuse. The steps I have outlined today show that we will not hesitate to take firm action against those—students, colleges and universities—who do not abide by their legal responsibilities, and we will resolutely pursue organised criminality to bring those responsible to justice. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving me advance notice of the statement, which is an astounding statement of systematic abuse on this Government’s watch. They said, no more bogus colleges; instead, we now have the major abuse of bogus certificates again being issued. As the Minister said, in February 2014 the Home Office announced that it had acted by suspending language tests run by ETS following an investigation by “Panorama”. The scale of the abuse—involving a minimum of some 48,000 students —is truly shocking and leaves open the question why it took the BBC, rather than the Minister’s own Department, to find the problem. Did the Minister or the Home Office know of this problem prior to the BBC reporting it, if not why not, and what checks did the Minister or his Department undertake?

It is clearly an abuse for language tests set by ETS to be taken by fake sitters, one that damages the integrity of the whole system. It is clearly right that the Minister has, finally, taken action today, and that criminal investigations are being pursued. Controlled migration and tackling bogus colleges are vital in protecting UK borders and stopping this exploitation. Indeed, that is why the previous Labour Government closed 140 colleges between April 2009 and January 2010.

However, my constituents and those of other Members will be outraged, and rightly so, by the news today that 48,000 people have fraudulently obtained language certificates, despite being unable to speak English, on this Government’s watch. There are a number of unanswered questions the Minister has not touched on that need further explanation. How many of these students are still in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister know where these 48,000 students are? Does he have addresses for them, and will he co-operate with the university sector and other sectors to ensure that we know where these individuals are, and take action? What steps is he taking to meet universities and colleges such as Glyndwr university, close to my own patch, to ensure that we rectify this problem as a matter of urgency?

Let us be clear: this Government’s failings are of their own making. They have been in office for four years. This is a scheme they established themselves, and this is a border crisis on the Home Secretary and the Minister’s watch. This is a Conservative-led coalition failure on immigration. The Government were warned about student visitor visas, which have increased from 38,000 under the last Government to 77,000 in the last 12 months. There are fewer checks and there is more scope for abuse.

This issue has been flagged up by John Vine, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. In November 2012, he said that the Government were clearly failing to follow up on notifications of potential bogus students and that at the time of his inspection there was a backlog—or should we now, following the passport crisis, call it “work in progress”?—of some 153,000 such notifications without action being taken. What action is the Minister taking today to meet the obligations set out by Mr Vine in his November 2012 report regarding the backlog of notifications of bogus students? What steps is he taking to rescind the certificates, and on the fake students and their surrogates?

The UK remains a key destination for international students. The UK market in international students is worth £8 billion, and has the potential to rise to £25 billion by 2025. However, the Government are failing to follow up with sufficient energy the notifications of bogus students, they did not take action on this issue when they knew about it, and they are now putting in place measures to slow down visa applications. At a time when the Minister is missing the net migration target that he himself set, he is now failing on the integrity of the system. He needs to restore that integrity today as a matter of urgency.

[James Brokenshire]

Listening to the shadow Immigration Minister, one might be forgiven for thinking that Labour believed in controlled immigration, but let us remember some of the facts about Labour’s record: record net migration of 2.5 million; hundreds of bogus colleges selling immigration, not education; students turning up at Heathrow unable to answer questions in English or even to explain what their course was about; and supposedly highly skilled immigrants working as security guards.

I hear what the shadow Immigration Minister has said, but Labour did nothing to tighten up the system, and it has fallen to this Government to introduce further stringent measures. It appears that, despite all that—despite the serious issues highlighted in my statement today— Labour now want to introduce blunt targets to increase international student numbers. Indeed, I think the shadow Immigration Minister wants to take students out of the net migration numbers altogether. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about immigration and controlling the issuing of student visas.

The shadow Immigration Minister managed to ask some serious questions, and I will address them now. On the investigations that have taken place, I can say that we have taken significant steps to follow through on identifying, locating and removing those responsible. Hundreds of visits have already been conducted and removals have begun. The criminal investigation is ongoing, and he will understand that I cannot comment further on those cases.

We are taking steps in relation to Glyndwr, and have suspended its highly trusted sponsor status. We are keen to provide support for genuine students whose institutions are affected by this. From today, there is a designated student helpline available specifically for all students at the affected institutions. Dedicated staff will take calls on the helpline to ensure that students have an avenue for their questions to be answered and their concerns alleviated.

We are also setting up a working group with relevant education establishments, including Universities UK—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the Opposition do not seem to care about what is happening to the students who are involved in this. They might want to listen. We are setting up a working group with Universities UK, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the National Union of Students to enable the sector to support those genuine students who may eventually need to find a sponsor.

The right hon. Gentleman tried to make his general point about university applications, but the truth is that, while we have cut out much of the abuse in the student visa system, the number of overseas applications to study at British universities is up by 17% since the election, and that figure is based on genuine students. We are attracting the brightest and the best while, at the same time, resolutely focusing on ensuring that those who should not be here are stopped.

I was struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the immigration system not working, but I have to tell him—as we have done many times before—that it will take years to fix fully the system that we inherited from his party. We are making the difference. As the former UK Border Agency chief executive, Rob Whiteman, said last week, the agency that Labour set up was never going to work and it was right of this Government to break it into smaller pieces, because staff and managers can now get on with trying to put it right. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to Rob Whiteman, he could listen to the shadow Business Secretary who said that when he used to work in his predecessor’s surgeries, he could see how chaotic the UKBA was. “Hands up,” he said, “That was under my Government.”

All the facts I have outlined today are a direct legacy of the Labour party. A significant proportion of the students who have been caught cheating came to this country through a student visa system created by Labour. Under the previous Government, bogus colleges flourished, student visas were used for economic immigration and students did not even need to prove that they could speak English. The Government are focused on controlling immigration. Sadly, the Opposition still do not get it; it is as simple as that.

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

I normally have great respect for the shadow Immigration Minister, but his tone today was not right. When this Government came to power, they had to deal with a legacy of hundreds of thousands of bogus students coming to this country. I commend my hon. Friend for the firm steps he has taken to root out abuse and to work with the sector to protect the genuine universities, higher education institutions and the genuine students and this valuable industry. He should carry on that work and not listen to the Opposition party.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He is right that we are focused on a system that attracts the brightest and the best to this country while rooting out abuse. The step that this Government have already taken in closing down 750 bogus colleges is striking, and there is more work to do. That is what we are focused on delivering.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

This is a shocking report. I welcome all the steps taken by the Minister to try to get to the root of what has happened. We are of course grateful to the BBC for the investigation it conducted. However, the Home Affairs Committee has been saying for years to successive Governments that there should be 100% unannounced inspections of these colleges, some of which have been fostering a climate of deceit. At the moment, the last report suggests that only 37% were unannounced. Secondly, we must have face-to-face interviews with people abroad before they come to the United Kingdom. If that was done, the bogus students would never get here in the first place.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for his comments. He is right about the issue of interviewing those who are intending to come to this country to take up student positions through the student visa system. In the past year, we have conducted 100,000 interviews to root out abuse, identify those who do not necessarily have the language skills and provide that extra check. In respect of the continuing providers, we have stepped up announced and unannounced visits to check what services they are providing, and we are considering further what steps may need to be taken in relation to any re-procurement of the services to place safety and security right at the heart of the system.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Abuse is clearly unacceptable, and the Minister is right to be firm on those who cheat their way in, and on those organisations that actively help people to defraud the system. But we must not forget that around the world people are listening to the tenor of the debate here and the rhetoric that is used. Will the Minister make it clear, both now and in the future, that we still welcome bona fide students and that we are still open for business and will not take action against universities unless there is evidence that they are complicit in some of this fraud?

[James Brokenshire]

As I said in my statement, we have not taken this action lightly, and it has been based on visits to the various institutions and a detailed examination of the evidence before us. We seek to attract the brightest and the best, but my hon. Friend should be aware that applications from students sponsored by universities rose by 7% in the year to March 2014 and applications from students going to Russell Group universities by 11%. It is right that we focus on preventing abuse and that we have a rigorous system that seeks to attract genuine students to this country while ensuring that those who should not be here are rooted out.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and ask him to share his thoughts on abuse that is occurring by those graduates who break their visa conditions by staying here after they should have left. Is he aware that a number of universities have difficulties over some students—presumably they can speak English—who do not pay their bills at the end of their courses? Those universities do not now award their degrees until the bills are paid. Might he not enter negotiations with the universities to consider that they should also have the responsibility of seeing that students go back home, according to their visa conditions, that degrees will not be awarded until those students are back home, and that the number of visas they can have, which could then be unlimited, will be linked to the numbers who actually return home?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the responsibilities of the academic institutions as part of the immigration system. They should ensure that students are attending and that they hold the right information in respect of them. We are seeking to work with the university of Portsmouth and others on the process that we need to put in place to ensure that students leave at the end of their course. It is right to underscore the role that the institutions have and the responsibilities that they hold in accommodating foreign students.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I share the view of colleagues that the Opposition’s failure either to understand their role in what has happened or even to acknowledge it is one of the things likely to weigh heavily in the minds of the public as we run towards next May. In particular, on attracting the brightest and the best, will my hon. Friend look carefully at some of the problems raised by Gulf states that are looking for more sponsorship for specialist applications in science, engineering and medicine and at the fact that the visa restriction is quite heavy in relation to them? Will he also look carefully at any evidence presented, because those students represent an advantage to this country and to the states that they come from?

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend underlines again the need for the Government to continue to focus on the problems that we were left by the previous Government. Their lack of appreciation of the scale of what they handed on is striking. He makes some important points about the some of the detailed applications and courses. I will, of course, look at any representations that he may wish to make on the nature of the points that he has raised, particularly in medicine.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

UK universities contribute 2.8% to our GDP. The last time we had concerns about student visas, just one university in London was involved. This involves many colleges and universities. How long will this continue? As it continues, students from countries around the world who are contemplating coming to England will decide to go elsewhere. The Minister mentions hundreds of visits: 48,000 people are out there who should not be. Can he give us some time scales, please?

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the university sector. This will take time to work through on the evidence and information available. It is right that meticulous work is conducted by our immigration enforcement officers to pursue their leads and lines of inquiry, where students who have relied on bogus certificates have sought to go on to university or college studies. I should like to reassure him of the Government’s commitment to supporting the whole universities sector. Indeed, I have had conversations with Universities UK and the Russell Group more generally on the excellent work that many of our universities do. They are world leading, and we should be proud of what they achieve and their ability to attract genuine students from overseas. We support that, but clearly we will rigorously focus on the abuse. I will certainly provide regular updates to the House on progress with the work to remove students and on further information that we may receive from ETS, as it continues to analyse its results from other centres.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I totally support this statement. Of course, all colleges and universities must fulfil all their legal responsibilities when they sponsor students from abroad. The university of West London plays an important role in the local community in Ealing, as well as in the wider world of higher education, so can my hon. Friend provide some reassurance that, where investigations have to continue, they will be conducted speedily, so that we can get a speedy resolution and, we hope, get that university back on track?

[James Brokenshire]

I assure my hon. Friend that discussions are ongoing with each institution that has been affected by my announcement. I recognise the desire to gain certainty and, indeed, for the measures and steps that those institutions are taking to put right abuses and to put their systems in place. This is something for those institutions, for the community and for genuine students who may be affected. That is why I made the points about the support that is being provided to them. I am conscious of the impact on them, too.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I share the concern expressed across the House about the abuse and about the fact that the Home Office seems to be relying on the BBC to undercover it. May I raise a case with the hon. Gentleman that I have raised with his boss? I have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply. St Mary Magdalene academy is a very ambitious school, with a big sixth-form centre. It teaches Mandarin. It wants to run an exchange programme with Chinese students from Peking. It has applied to have 10 students come over. It will not charge them. It hopes to have a reciprocal arrangement. It expects these kids to bring language skills and an attitude that will really help inner-city children. The opportunity that those inner-city children will have to go to Peking will be extraordinary. The fly in the ointment is the Home Office, which has not allowed them to have the visa. Will the hon. Gentleman please deal with this matter now?

[James Brokenshire]

There is the student visitor route, which is separate from the normal student visa route that applies for universities and further education colleges. I am, of course, happy to look into the specific case that the hon. Lady highlights. I am not familiar with the detail, as I hope she appreciates, but I am happy to look into the matter, if she can give me some more information, and to consider what might be appropriate.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Is not ETS the same company that grossly mismanaged the standard assessment tests in primary schools in 2008? If so, why was it originally given the contract in 2008 to test English language competencies? Will the Minister initiate a check across Whitehall to review any other ETS contracts with Departments?

[James Brokenshire]

ETS was a supplier and provider of services to the last Government and checks were undertaken in respect of the award of the contract, but I can give my hon. Friend a further assurance about work that we have commissioned to review all the suppliers of English language testing services. A review is being undertaken by the independent auditor Moore Stephens LLP, which is due to report next month. Additionally, it has been asked to undertake a wider review of other contractual or licence arrangements, including those relating to language testing services on which immigration, citizenship or other entitlements rely. We are focused on ensuring that there is such testing and audit across the board to give assurance internally and externally about the processes in operation and, indeed, to enable us to reflect further about contracts that might be awarded.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

This is a very grave statement for Glyndwr university and for Wrexham. Will the Minister please clarify whether the withdrawal of status that he refers to applies to the whole university or only to its London campus? What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government, who are, of course, responsible for that devolved institution?

[James Brokenshire]

The suspension applies to Glyndwr as a whole. It is a suspension, not a revocation, but its ability to take on new foreign students is stopped. There is the potential to move to revocation if it is unable to demonstrate that it has put in place systems and processes to guard the immigration system as a whole. We have had discussions with Glyndwr for some time about the investigations and the audit of its records. We will continue to do so, and we will engage with other relevant partners, including the Welsh Government, as necessary.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

I of course welcome all that the Government are doing to clamp down on bogus colleges and bogus students. Certainly, we do not need to take any lecture from the Labour party on controlling our borders. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK is open to genuine students and that there are no limits. Will he ensure that that message is delivered in some of the key markets from which students travel to the UK, because this is an important industry for us and one that is clearly growing?

[James Brokenshire]

Absolutely. I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. He makes a number of important points about presentation and how others seek to present a false picture of our immigration system and the important requirements that we have. We can puncture some of the myths that are perpetrated overseas. Ministers visiting those key countries seek to underline that, but we have firm processes and procedures in the visa system for a purpose—to prevent abuse—and that is why steps such as interviews are important safeguards against those who are not legitimate, who are not genuine and who seek to abuse our hospitality.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

We clearly all welcome the action against bogus colleges taken by this Government and their predecessor, but is the Minister concerned that, contrary to the Prime Minister’s declared objective to increase international student numbers, for the first time in 29 years bona fide international student numbers are falling and our competitors are benefiting? When will the Minister listen to the recommendations of seven Select Committees of this House and the other place on the action needed to restore our competitive advantage?

[James Brokenshire]

The latest report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, published on 10 April, shows a 3% increase in the number of undergraduate entrants between 2012-13 and 2013-14, a 1% increase in postgraduate course entrants and a 5% increase in postgraduate research entrants. We are focusing on ensuring that genuine students are attracted to the UK for study and that we continue to attract the brightest and the best, but it is important also to focus on the substance of what I have said—on ensuring that we are rigorous in our approach to those who seek to exploit our system. I know of the hon. Gentleman’s personal interest in the matter, and I respect his point, but his party appears to want to set an arbitrary growth target, which only risks further abuse.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on an excellent and robust statement that will not spoil the export market for higher education but will ensure its integrity. What additional sanctions, other than suspension or revocation of the special sponsor status, can be deployed against the minority of higher education institutions that have behaved wrongfully?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated to the House, we have taken firm and decisive action in relation to a number of the institutions involved. I want to underline the point about responsibility. Many, many universities and academic institutions take their responsibility incredibly seriously. They do the work; they perform the checks, and they keep their records appropriately. The issue is those that do not, and it is right for the Government to take appropriate action in those cases, including referral to regulators, which will also help to ensure that academic standards at those institutions are raised.

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

I know that for this Government it is all about numbers, and about tracking down all these bogus students, but will they not listen to bodies such as Universities Scotland which are telling them, month after month, about the damage being done to universities in Scotland and the perception that it creates for overseas students, who have options and are using them? What is the point of educating overseas students to such a high standard in our Scottish universities, only to kick them out when they could make such a valuable contribution to our economy and they are welcome in our nation?

[James Brokenshire]

I say very clearly to the hon. Gentleman that the point of having a student visa is to study, not automatically to work. The problem is that, too often, people were abusing the student visa system simply to work, not to study, gain an education and make the contribution that he desires. There are postgraduate routes to remain here and study. We need a robust measure to ensure that our systems are not abused. It is the conflation of university education with an automatic right to work that lies behind the mistakes of the Labour Government and the abuses that we are dealing with.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I welcome the balance that my hon. Friend showed in his statement. The number of colleges whose licence is being suspended appears to me to be a small proportion of the overall total. Will the QAA examine all London sub-campuses of universities, such as that of UEA London, to see whether further action should be taken, or does my hon. Friend have specific ones in his sights?

[James Brokenshire]

We are speaking to the QAA, as I said in my statement. London campuses have been highlighted, so we have asked the QAA to look at the matter in broad terms to give reassurance. It is important that we do so.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

With 48,000 students and scores of institutions affected, this is criminality on a truly industrial scale. I was not clear about the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), so although we welcome the package of stringent measures that he has announced today, can I ask him at what point he and his Department were aware of the issue, bearing in mind the earlier warning signs, and whether the measures have been taken as a response to what we saw in the programme or whether they were already under consideration by his Department? I saw the programme, and I was appalled by the blatant and widespread criminality that was going on.

[James Brokenshire]

Action has been taken against colleges that were not meeting their standards. I referred to a number of 400. It has become clear that there was a link to the ETS tests, and we are now able to see the issue from a different perspective. The abuse that was uncovered by the “Panorama” programme provided a different angle, on another route of abuse, which is why we have carefully and rigorously been pursuing all lines of inquiry arising from that—with ETS on validating its data and by looking at the colleges themselves, where further issues had been highlighted. It is right and proper that we have done so, and we will continue to do so in the weeks and months ahead, as further information comes to light and we pursue outstanding lines of inquiry, including the criminal investigation.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s clampdown on the scandal of student visa abuse. Will he name the six countries from which most of the students have come, and will he call the ambassadors from those countries into his office to make it clear to those countries how seriously Her Majesty’s Government takes this issue and ask them what they will do to help the Government combat the problem?

[James Brokenshire]

The primary issue is to ensure that there are rigorous measures in place for new applicants coming to this country, with interviews supporting the testing regime, so that we have an additional step to give a sense of reassurance. The point at issue is the student visa system created by the previous Labour Government, and the fact that a number of people who have been identified as being caught up in that sit on the Labour Benches means that a great deal of the responsibility lies there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Education visas are worth £10 billion to the economy, and we need to retain that contribution. However, Migration Watch UK says that up to 60% of students do not return to their own country when their visa expires. In 2012 the number was 50,000. What action is the Department taking to deal with those students who seem, at least on paper, to go missing? What contact does he have with the devolved Assemblies, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, to address the issue?

[James Brokenshire]

One step that we have taken is to create Immigration Enforcement as a separate command within the Home Office, to have that rigorous focus on pursuing those who should not be here. We are also working with the university sector to see how it can continue to play its part in ensuring that students leave at the end of their studies. We will, as part of that, have discussions with the devolved Administrations and others to ensure that we continue the work and have the rigorous system that we all want.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I am proud to represent the university of Kent, Christchurch university and the university for the Creative Arts, with more than 30,000 students in my constituency. I strongly welcome the firm action that my hon. Friend is taking, and I commend to him the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). It would be helpful if, in our longer term deliberations, we could have detailed figures as to the proportion of students coming to this country to study who return to their own country at the end of that study.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the responsibilities that universities and other academic institutions have within the immigration system. Many of them take those responsibilities very seriously indeed and I commend them for their work. My hon. Friend highlights the need for rigour within the system and the need to ensure that people rightly play their part, and that is what the Government are committed to achieving.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Foreign students are important to the economy of Brighton and Hove. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those universities and colleges that have done the right thing, put their house in order and are working with the Government, not against them?

[James Brokenshire]

Absolutely; I commend those bodies that take these issues seriously, and there are many that do so. We want a thriving, flourishing sector, and the Government are committed to that. The Home Office is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in telegraphing that clear message so that educational institutions are doing their best in representing this country and showing it at its best.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I commend the decisive action that my hon. Friend and his Department are taking in closing down the abuse of the student visa route, which is already significantly reducing overall immigration. Is it not right that we also extend the closing down of abuse to some foreign nationals who are wrongly using the NHS?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the steps that have been put in place through the Immigration Act 2014, and welcome the financial contribution that students and others who will be in this country for a period of time will need to make as part of the visa process. We are focused now on ensuring that that is effectively implemented to deliver what I think my hon. Friends and others across the House will want to see, recognising the contribution that should be made to our NHS from those who are coming to stay here for a period of time.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I am sure that everyone will welcome the identification of the abuse and the plans to eliminate it. The Minister has already said that some genuine students following genuine courses will be caught up in the process. Does he agree that the reputation of this country and our universities and their ability to recruit in the future depend on how genuine students are supported at this very difficult time for them?

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, which is why in my statement and in some of the answers to questions I have underlined the support that is being provided to students who, through no fault of their own, may have concerns or be affected. We will certainly keep information on gov.uk up to date. The new hotline has opened this afternoon, so students will be able to contact that. As I have said, we will be working with the sector more generally to ensure that support is provided appropriately.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The Minister has suspended the right of the university of Bedfordshire, which has a campus in my constituency, to sponsor foreign students. Will he clarify whether that is because of its involvement with ETS, or because of broader aspects of abuse of student visas? Has he had an opportunity to speak to the vice-chancellor so that he may reassure students throughout the university on valid foreign visas that their studies will not be affected?

[James Brokenshire]

We are in regular contact with the university of Bedfordshire. There has been a conversation with the vice-chancellor this morning and a meeting has been arranged either for later today or within the next few days for the precise purpose of assessing the next steps and to see what may be required in relation to reassurance for students. The action taken by the Government has been linked to ETS in terms of the certificates provided that were questionable or incorrectly issued. It is as a result of looking at the records and the way in which that academic institution has been fulfilling its responsibilities as a highly trusted sponsor that we have taken the action today in respect of its inability to take on new students. We will clearly be working with each of the institutions that I have identified in my statement.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement today and the action that he has taken, but I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and for Reading East (Mr Wilson) in that there is a vibrant community of language colleges in this country that provide great opportunities for many people. I have several in my constituency that I have visited, which have been sidelined and disadvantaged by some of the so-called bogus colleges. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing a hotline to resolve some of the minor administrative errors that occur during genuine applications, so that the main focus can be on bogus colleges and applications?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the many institutions that are working hard, meeting their responsibilities and ensuring that they rigorously apply the set standards. It is on those that are not meeting such requirements that additional focus is required. We are considering broader work around the tier 4 student visa system, but I will reflect further on my hon. Friend’s point.

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

I welcome what the Minister had to say and the work that he is doing. Under the previous Government’s shocking administration of the student visa system, individuals were able to come to this country as a student, register as a student, but never attend an institution while being marked present by that institution. What steps are being taken to address the issue of absence and the failure of records, so that they correctly reflect what has been going on?

[James Brokenshire]

Again, my hon. Friend highlights the need for those academic institutions to fulfil their responsibilities and to know that students are attending their courses. It is precisely such measures that our inspectors investigate when they check whether those institutions are meeting their responsibilities. Ultimately, as a highly trusted sponsor, they should know where students are residing and whether they are attending their courses. That is precisely the purpose of the system and why we monitor it in the way that we do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

To what extent are London campuses opened by universities based many miles from London simply devices to harbour bogus students, and how can we be sure that we will not see many more bogus students siphoned through those campuses in future?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know from my statement, we have, with the specific universities that I have identified, highlighted the use of campuses. It is why we have brought it to the attention of the QAA, and it is important that it does its work to analyse the situation further and assess the position of those host academic institutions to ensure that appropriate standards are being met.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.

Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. The five groups named in the order all have links to the conflict in Syria. They are: the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham; Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi; Kateeba al-Kawthar, known as KAK; Abdallah Azzam Brigades, known as AAB, including the Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. We propose adding them to the list of international terrorist organisations by amending schedule 2 to the Terrorist Act 2000. This is the 15th proscription order under that Act.

By way of background, the House will be aware that Syria is the No. 1 destination for jihadists from anywhere in the world. Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. The reality is that the conflict in Syria has seen a proliferation of terrorist groups, with multiple aims and ideologies and little regard for international borders. For example, in the past week we have seen significantly increased violent activity in Iraq by ISIL. Today the UK is proscribing terrorist organisations that support the Assad regime, that are fighting against it, and that have ambitions beyond Syria and have taken advantage of the collapse of security and the rule of law.

Terrorism from, or connected to, Syria will pose a threat to the UK for the foreseeable future. Involvement in the conflict in Syria and its environs can provide individuals with combat experience, access to training, a network of foreign extremist contacts and a reputation that can increase substantially the threat that those individuals pose on return to the UK. The threat from returning foreign fighters was clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Mehdi Nemmouche. He is believed to have spent at least a year in Syria, during which he developed connections with ISIL before returning to Europe. He is the prime suspect in a shooting on 24 May at the Jewish museum in Brussels in which four people died.

Although the Government recognise that most travel to Syria is well intentioned and for humanitarian reasons, and while we are not trying to criminalise genuine humanitarian efforts, we advise against all travel to Syria. Anyone who travels, for whatever reason, is putting themselves and others in considerable danger. Both the regime and extremist groups have attacked humanitarian aid workers. The best way to help Syrians is not to travel, but to donate or volunteer with UK-registered charities that have ongoing relief operations.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am glad to see the Minister back on familiar territory, after dealing with passports yesterday. This morning, information has come out of Iraq indicating that up to 400 British citizens might be fighting there. He gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee as part of its inquiry into counter-terrorism. Iraq was not mentioned, either in his evidence or in that of others. Can he confirm that figure? Are those people who originally started in Syria and have moved into Iraq, or are they a new batch of people?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the evidence that I gave his Select Committee about foreign fighters. It is often difficult to give estimates about the numbers of individuals; our current estimate is that more than 400 subjects of interest have travelled to Syria to become involved in the conflict there in some way. Clearly, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, is using the areas of land it controls in Syria and now Iraq as one theatre of conflict. I cannot state the numbers or give the other information that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, but clearly there is a concern that those who travel to Syria may then travel across the Levant into Iraq. We are keeping a close eye on that.

We are committed to finding a political settlement to the conflict in Syria that will deliver a sustainable and inclusive transition process and allow the country to rebuild, communities to heal and extremism to be rejected. We will also continue to back the moderate Syrian opposition, who are a bulwark against the terrorism of the extremists and the tyranny of the Assad regime. The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism from Syria, and elsewhere, to the UK and our interests abroad.

Those who travel to engage in terrorism face prosecution on their return. We are investing resources into understanding individuals’ motivation for travel and how they are being recruited and we are using that to inform public messaging and community events, to deter individuals from travelling to Syria in the first place. Our operational partners are disrupting individuals who are intent on fighting in Syria, using the range of tools available.

For example, following his return from Syria, Mashudur Choudhury was successfully prosecuted for engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts. We are working intensively with international partners to improve border security in the region. It is right that we should proscribe terrorist groups linked to the conflict in Syria that pose a bar to a political settlement there as well as an increasing threat to the UK. We have already proscribed four groups that are operating in Syria: the al-Musra front, which is part of al-Qaeda; Hezbollah’s military wing; the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK; and Ansar al-Islam, also known as Ansar al-Sunna.

Proscribing the groups that we are discussing today will send a strong signal to terrorists operating on both sides of the conflict in Syria and those who may be thinking of joining them. Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. Under the 2000 Act, an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism—including the unlawful glorification of terrorism—or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise that discretion. The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed terrorist organisation.

Proscription can support other disruptive activity, including the use of immigration powers such as exclusion, prosecution for other offences, messaging and EU asset freezes. Given its wide impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. That includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Whitehall proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process and her decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case. It must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ISIL; Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi, or THKP-C; Kateeba al-Kawthar, or KAK; Abdallah Azzam Brigades, or AAB; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, or PFLP-GC, are all currently concerned in terrorism. Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I will go on to provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn.

[Keith Vaz]

The Minister always puts the case very eloquently in respect of these proscription orders, which involve very serious matters. In all the time I have been in this House, the Opposition have never opposed the Government in this regard. Will he tell the House how many people have been successfully prosecuted once those organisations have been proscribed? We have a tendency, rightly, to accept everything the Government say on these orders, but it would be nice to know that at the end of the process somebody has actually gone to jail as a result of them.

[James Brokenshire]

Much proscription has the effect of seeking to prevent people from becoming involved in terrorism and the disruptive effects of that. A range of potential sanctions are available under the Terrorism Act, as well as under proscription. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that 55 international and 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations are currently proscribed and that, between 2001 and the end of March 2013, 32 people in Great Britain were charged with proscription offences as a primary offence and 16 were convicted. This is an important power that supports our broader activities in preventing terrorist activity and ensuring that prosecutions are maintained.

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

Obviously, every step that can be taken to protect our people from terrorism should be taken; there is no dispute about that. However, there is a good deal of apprehension among some Government Members, as well as some Labour Members, about secret proceedings. I am speaking in general terms about proceedings in serious criminal cases that are heard largely in secret with all kinds of restrictions placed on reporters, and so on. Is not one of the great values of British justice that it should not only be done but be seen to be done?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman will remember the debates that we had in this House about the Bill that became the Justice and Security Act 2013 regarding the use of closed material proceedings in civil cases. The point that we made very clearly then was that this is about justice being done, and that many cases could not advance because of the sensitive nature of the material. There is a careful balance, with the oversight of the court, to ensure that evidence can be adduced so that justice occurs. The court will be very conscious, particularly in criminal cases, of the balance to be struck. Matters are heard in camera or not in open court only in very restricted circumstances. I would certainly not wish to give the impression of any move towards some sort of desire for closed justice. Of course, justice needs to happen, and wherever possible and practical it happens in open court. However, in cases where evidence is sensitive and relies on intelligence material, there will need to be different processes, and in the interests of justice that should be maintained.

[Mr Winnick]

I recognise that during proceedings where defendants are being tried some very sensitive evidence should not be disclosed—there is no dispute about that—but when the proceedings are virtually heard entirely in secret, there is bound to be controversy.

[James Brokenshire]

I am not aware of significant numbers of cases that are being heard in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be inappropriate to seek to interfere with the judgment of the court. The court will assess the evidence before it and determine what is appropriate in the handling of criminal cases.

However, this is a broader issue that we have debated on previous occasions, and it is appropriate for me now to return to proscription and the different organisations that are under careful scrutiny by this House today.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The explanatory memorandum states that one of the organisations on the proscribed list, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, has been involved in various forms of terrorist-related activities since 1968. Will the Minister explain why that organisation has not been on a proscribed list—this is a point against all Governments—since then? Why is it only now, when it seems to be fighting on behalf of the Assad regime, that we are listing it? It has been carrying out terrorist actions against Israel and elsewhere for a number of years, but it is only now, suddenly, that it appears on a list.

[James Brokenshire]

I was just about to come on to the specific aspects of each of the organisations, including the PFLP-GC. Home Secretaries of whichever Government will consider proscription based on a number of different factors, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activity; the specific threat it poses to the UK; the specific threat it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Organisations will be considered against those factors, and timing issues may determine whether an organisation should be proscribed at any given moment. I hope it will help the hon. Gentleman if I address each of the organisations in turn. Perhaps that will give him some assurance of the consideration that is being given and why action is appropriate at this time.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a brutal Sunni Islamist terrorist group active in Iraq in Syria. The group adheres to a global jihadist ideology, following an extreme interpretation of Islam that is anti-western and promotes sectarian violence. ISIL aims to establish an Islamic state governed by sharia law in the region and uses violence and intimidation to impose its extremist ideology on civilians. ISIL has previously been proscribed as part of al-Qaeda. However, steps taken by al-Qaeda’s senior leadership to sever ties with ISIL have prompted consideration of the case to proscribe ISIL in its own right.

The House will also be aware not only that ISIL poses a threat from within Syria, but that in the past two weeks it has made significant advances in Iraq. The threat from ISIL in Iraq and Syria is very serious and shows clearly the importance of taking a strong stand against the extremists.

As I have indicated to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, we are aware that approximately 400 British nationals have travelled to Syria and some of them will inevitably be fighting with ISIL. It appears that ISIL is treating Iraq and Syria as one theatre of conflict and its potential ability to operate across the border is a cause for concern for the whole international community.

In April 2014, ISIL claimed responsibility for a series of blasts targeting a Shi’a election rally in Baghdad. The attacks are reported to have killed at least 31 people. Thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives to sectarian violence in 2013, and attacks carried out by ISIL will have accounted for a large proportion of those deaths.

ISIL has reportedly detained dozens of foreign journalists and aid workers. In September 2013, members of the group kidnapped and killed the commander of Ahrar ash-Sham after he intervened to protect members of a Malaysian Islamic charity.

In January 2014, ISIL captured the Al-Anbar cities of Ramadi and Falluja, and it is engaged in ongoing fighting with the Iraqi security forces. The group also claims responsibility for a car bomb attack that killed four people and wounded dozens in the southern Beirut suburb of Haret Hreik.

ISIL has a strong presence in northern and eastern Syria, where it has instituted strict sharia law in the towns under its control. The group is responsible for numerous brutal attacks and a vast number of deaths. The group is believed to attract foreign fighters, including westerners, to the region, and has maintained control of various towns on the Syrian-Turkish border, allowing the group to control who crosses, and its presence there has interfered with the free flow of humanitarian aid.

ISIL is designated as a terrorist group by both Canada and Australia, and as an alias of al-Qaeda by the US, New Zealand and the United Nations.

Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi, also known as the People’s Liberation Party/Front of Turkey, is a left-wing organisation. It was formed in 1994. The group grew out of the Turkish extreme-left revolutionary youth movements that formed in the 1960s and 1970s. THKP-C now operates as a pro-Assad militia group fighting in Syria, and it has developed increased capabilities since the Syrian insurgency. It is assessed as having been involved in an attack in Reyhanli in Turkey last May, which killed more than 50 people and injured more than 100 people. Its leader, Mihrac Ural, holds Syrian citizenship and was born in the southern province of Hatay, where the organisation has always been most prominent. Ural has formed several other groups under the THKP-C umbrella, including Mukavamet Suriye, which is reported to have been responsible for the recent Banias massacre, which killed at least 145 people.

Kateeba al-Kawthar describes itself as a group of mujaheddin from more than 20 countries that seeks a just—as it perversely says—Islamic nation. It is an armed terrorist group fighting to establish an Islamic state in Syria. It is aligned to the most extreme groups operating in Syria, and it has links to al-Qaeda. Abu Musab, who is also known as Rabah Tahari, a western mujahed commander, is its leader. The group is believed to have attracted a number of western foreign fighters, and it has released YouTube footage that encourages travel to Syria and asks Muslims to support the fighters.

The Abdallah Azzam Brigades is an Islamist militant group, aligned with al-Qaeda and the global jihad movement, that is currently fighting in Syria and Lebanon. It began operating in Pakistan in 2009. The Lebanese branch uses the name Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions. It is named after the Lebanese 9/11 hijacker Ziyad al-Jarrah, who participated in the hijacking and crash of United flight 93.

The AAB has increased its operational pace since the onset of the Syrian insurgency, claiming responsibility for a rocket attack launched from Lebanon into northern Israel in August 2013. In November 2013, it claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, which killed at least 22 people and wounded more than 140 people. On 19 February 2014, the group’s recently established media wing, the al-Awzaey Media Foundation, announced on Twitter and YouTube that the group claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings near the Iranian cultural centre in Beirut, killing 11 people and wounding 130 people, in revenge for actions by Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. The group has threatened to launch further terrorist attacks, and it has demanded that the Lebanese Government free imprisoned jihadists. It has also threatened attacks on western targets in the middle east. It was listed as a terrorist group by the US in May 2012.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command is a left-wing nationalist Palestinian militant organisation. It was formed in 1968. It is based in Syria, and it was involved in the Palestine insurgency during the 1970s and 1980s. It is separate from the similarly named Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. From its outset, the group has been a Syrian proxy. The PFLP-GC has been fighting in the Syrian war in support of Assad, including in the Yarmouk refugee camp in July 2013. The group has also issued statements in support of the Syrian Government, Hezbollah and Iran. It has been designated as a terrorist group by the US, Canada, Israel and European Union.

[Mike Gapes]

I understand from the explanatory memorandum that the organisation was involved in training Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are already listed as proscribed organisations by our Government. Why has it taken so long for it to be listed as a terrorist organisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman the factors that are taken into account. Indeed, a range of other measures under the Terrorism Acts can be taken against those involved in terrorist activities. The Government have to strike a careful balance in considering whether different organisations should be proscribed, taking into account the relevant factors that I have already explained to him.

Our determination is that it is now right to add the PFLP-GC, along with the others listed in the order, to the organisations proscribed in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Our judgment is that all five groups are concerned in terrorism and are active in or linked to the Syrian conflict, where their activities undermine the prospect of a peaceful settlement and fuel a conflict that is significantly increasing the terrorism threat to the UK. That is why we judge that proscription should take place. I hope that the House will support that in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, I hope to respond briefly to a number of points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon. I welcome the broad support that the order before the House has received on all sides, reflecting the cross-party focus on the security of this country and the desire to see that our citizens are protected appropriately. I recognise that and I recognise a number of the comments that have been made.

I wish to underline my commitment to observe the courtesies of the House in respect of the release of information to the Speaker and the Opposition, and to assure the House that it is my clear focus and intent that information is supplied appropriately to Members, and that details are provided to the Opposition at the same time as orders are laid. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recognised that I responded promptly when I was made aware of her point of order on the Floor of the House earlier this week. I give that assurance to Mr Speaker and to right hon. and hon. Members because I take the processes and proceedings of the House extremely seriously, and it is important that we adhere to them. I assure the hon. Lady that no prior authorisation was given by Ministers or special advisers in relation to any of the matters to which she referred. We are still examining the facts and circumstances of the case that she drew to the attention of the House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he did not mean to say that a special adviser would give authority to anyone?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the point that the hon. Lady made earlier. I was responding specifically to her point, which I have sought to address in correspondence as well.

On the substance of the orders, I welcome the support and the recognition that they fit into the broader approach and our strategy in confronting and combating those who seek to become involved in terrorism by virtue of their travel to Syria, the ongoing conflict in that arena, and the risk posed by foreign fighters. I have already spoken about the numbers that we believe have been involved, and there are foreign fighters across the EU as well who have travelled. A number of foreign fighters are involved in Syria and, as the crisis in Iraq extends further, they may transfer there.

On the point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) highlighted in respect of the situation in Iraq, he will have heard the comments of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days on this extremely serious situation. The UK supports the Iraqi Government in their fight against terrorism. We are taking action in three areas—promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state and stability in the region, offering assistance where appropriate and possible, and alleviating humanitarian suffering. The Prime Minister made clear yesterday the additional funding that was being made available in respect of that last point.

We have made it clear that this action does not involve planning a military intervention by the UK. We are urging the Iraqi Government to take effective measures to organise their security forces and push ISIL back from the areas that it has occupied, while protecting civilian life, infrastructure and vital services. Any action by the Iraqi Government must include an inclusive approach to bring Iraqi leaders together.

Both the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee referred to Prevent, and to steps that we can take to prevent people from travelling and becoming involved in potential terrorist activity. I will make a number of brief points about that. The Government are giving key messages on not travelling to Syria. People who want to travel for humanitarian reasons risk coming into contact with terrorist organisations, given the parts of Syria that are controlled by extremist organisations. Although today’s debate has focused on the listed organisations, with much of the focus, understandably, on the operations of ISIL, it is important to underline that there are groups such as the al-Nusra Front and other extremist organisations that share the al-Qaeda narrative and the desire to create a global caliphate. People may come into contact with such groups, which have aspirations to attack the west. It is important to understand and recognise the diverse and dynamic threat from Syria, and to acknowledge the humanitarian support provided by this Government—£600 million—in the aid effort. It is important to reiterate, for those who wish to help for genuine humanitarian reasons, that the best way to do that is through the UK’s humanitarian aid agencies that are supporting that effort, recognising the importance that the UK Government place on providing significant financial aid to those in severe need as a consequence of displacement and the ongoing conflict in Syria.

It is important to stress, too, that we are providing targeted messages through Prevent officers and the Prevent programme, highlighting the reasons why travel to Syria is not appropriate and the risks that it poses. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt have noted the comments from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball of the Metropolitan police about the role of mothers and family members in extolling the right messages. There are a number of different strands to ensuring that we prevent travel, in addition to measures such as the use of port stops under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, the use of the royal prerogative to take passports away when the intent to become involved in terrorist activities is clear, and indeed the use of deprivation of citizenship—a topic recently debated in the House.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I have chosen my moment to intervene carefully. I have heard a lot of discussion about confiscating passports and preventing people from travelling. On certain occasions, people will travel and we will not be able to identify them beforehand. Such people are most likely to go through Turkey. As British subjects, we are required to have a visa for travel to Turkey, so will the Minister outline what actions he is taking, together with the Turkish Government, to identify people going into the country in order to travel on to the Levant, Syria or Iran or indeed coming back again?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to go into detailed operational discussions or intelligence issues. I can assure him, however, that we are in ongoing discussions with Turkey and other Governments, including at the European level. A number of EU countries have similarly seen their citizens travel to Syria, so there is some good co-ordination of activities, although there is still more work to be done.

On the issue of people returning, it is important to underline the arrests and prosecutions that have taken place. In the last 18 months, about 65 have been arrested. To put that in greater context, since 1 January this year, we have been notified of 50 Syria-related arrests, and 21 people suspected of being involved in travelling to or from Syria. Nine charges have been brought thus far. That shows that continuing operational activity, including broader disruptive and preventive activity, is taking place.

It is also important to underline the need for vigilance, which was highlighted by the Chair of the Select Committee in his comments about Yemen. There is an enduring threat from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates within Yemen. Al-Shabaab has come to the fore for some appalling atrocities that it has committed, and I could mention various other groups linked to al-Qaeda. The vigilance of our security services, police and Government is crucial. Terrorist risks are linked to the ongoing Syrian conflict, and I have spoken on a number of occasions about the enduring risk as a consequence. We need to remain vigilant against threats from wherever else they come. In that context, the hon. Member for Ilford South rightly highlighted the global connections of terrorism.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly mentioned the need for us to underline the contribution that British Muslims make to our country. I endorse that very clear message. Last summer, we saw some attacks on mosques and the appalling murder of Mohammed Saleem in the west midlands. During my visits then and since, I have been struck by the strength of communities across our country in coming together to stand against and oppose violence or threats to any part of our wider community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) highlighted the need to keep matters under review and to be vigilant. I wholly endorse that. We monitor these issues closely, and where new names need to be used, aliases may be added to the proscription list. If something looks like a front for an existing proscribed organisation, prosecutions and other activities will not be prevented from happening.

Finally, the Chair of the Select Committee made a point about my responsibilities. If I recall correctly, Tony McNulty and other previous security Ministers have had other responsibilities as well—for policing, for example—so it is not a simple role that can be taken in isolation. I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but some uses of immigration powers have helped to underline the connections between the different strands—how we use our Border Force and the warnings index, for example. Use of advanced passenger information is important, too, to prevent those suspected of terrorism from getting on to flights in the first place.

I welcome the support for the order today. I think it will send out a very strong message and underline the Government’s commitment to dealing with terrorism and the serious issues we face in respect of Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I inform Members that I intend to allow approximately equal time to each of the two debates proposed by the Backbench Business Committee. If all Back Benchers who have indicated that they wish to speak are to be given the opportunity to do so, it would be helpful if Back-Bench Members took approximately 10 minutes—and no more. I shall not impose a time-limit now, trusting to Members’ decency in considering others as well as themselves. We will see how that works.

Passport Applications

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

May I say at the outset that I understand entirely why so many right hon. and hon. Members across the House have sought to bring to Ministers’ attention a number of individual cases? That is precisely what Members of Parliament are for—to represent their constituents. I understand why they have sought to use this debate to do that. This debate has underlined the work of the Passport Office in seeking to respond to and address the concerns that have been flagged. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pay tribute to the hard work, dedication and professionalism of HMPO staff who are working to process applications and respond to individual customer and MP inquiries. We recognise the need to service MPs’ individual requests. That is why, from the start of this week, the MP team was strengthened to ensure that a service is provided to deal with those individual cases.

I note the number of individual cases and circumstances that have been flagged. Sadly, in the time available, I will not be able to respond to each of them, but a careful note is being taken of a number of them. A note is also being taken of some of the points that have been made, for example on the courier services. I have heard that DX is working late evenings, but we will look at each case. We will also look at each point that has been flagged on individual countries.

I underline our commitment to focus on those individual circumstances that have been flagged, but I also underline the Home Secretary’s message. We apologise to anyone who has been affected by their passport not being delivered when expected through no fault of their own. I understand the concerns that have been flagged and the individual cases that have been raised. I understand the concerns of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and his desire to raise individual cases, but I say to him in careful terms that the tone and nature of his contribution did not fit the debate.

I should like to underline some of the individual actions we have taken to address the current high volume of passport applications. Her Majesty’s Passport Office issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of the year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] We have had an additional 350,000 applications compared with last year, and the highest demand for passports in 12 years.

I stress to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that our actions have not just happened in recent weeks. Since January, HMPO has put in place measures to deal with the increase, and the vast majority of customers have received their passports on time and straightforward renewals of passports within the three-week period. I stress to him that the website advises:

“It should take 3 weeks to get the passport - use a different service if you need the passport urgently…It can take longer if more information is needed or your application hasn’t been filled out correctly.”

[Mr Robinson]

The Minister is correct that applications are roughly 10% up on last year—this is in my letter to him, as he will see when he gets round to replying—and that manpower was increased from January to May by 10%. Is not the point that, if we had all that planning, why has the crisis arisen? Is it not because of the decision to incorporate into that planning system the different volume of requirements for overseas applications?

[James Brokenshire]

We have had sustained demand and the demand has come earlier in the year than would normally be the case. Therefore, that increase and the period in which demand was sustained is an important factor. That is why HMPO has been operating seven days a week since March and why passports are delivered within 24 hours by couriers.

Some 250 staff were moved from back-office roles to the front line, and an additional 200 people will soon be supporting front-line operation. The focus has been given to getting passport applications turned round. I also stress that 650 extra staff are working on the customer helpline—an increase to 1,000. We understand people’s anxieties and action has been taken.

As the Home Secretary has said, we are ensuring that those who need to travel in the next seven days whose applications have been outstanding for more than three weeks through no—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but Members who have come into the Chamber who have not been here for the debate should not be talking through his speech.

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To confirm, we have taken action on those needing to travel within the next seven days whose applications have been outstanding for more than three weeks through no fault of their own. They will have their applications fast-tracked without charge.

We have introduced processes overseas for those wishing to renew their passports to travel to the UK. Customers can apply for an extension to their existing passports at consular offices overseas. Overseas posts have been provided with stamps and customers are booking appointments for this service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now issuing emergency travel documents for children who need to travel to the UK.

Staff at HMPO are working hard to process passport applications. Again, I underline the Home Secretary’s thanks to them for their dedication at this time. To give a sense of the scale and nature of the work being undertaken, let me give some numbers to put the issue into context. Almost 160,000 passports were issued in the past week

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

rose—

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I appreciate that he was not the Immigration Minister when the decision to close the overseas posts were made, nor was he the Minister earlier this year. However, when was he told personally by Mr Pugh that there would be a problem with the number of applications and does he still have confidence in the chief executive of the agency?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The Chair of the Select Committee took evidence yesterday from Paul Pugh, who was right to say that his focus is on dealing with the issues at hand—the increases in demand and some of the points that have been flagged up to the House this afternoon. Obviously Ministers receive regular updates from HMPO, which indicated that additional measures were being put in place to deal with demand.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, HMPO’s performance figures up to May show that 97% of straightforward applications were dealt with within three weeks and 99% within four weeks. When it comes to claims of a backlog, it is important to note that there are approximately 480,000 active applications currently being processed. It is not unusual during peak periods for HMPO to operate with high numbers of applications in the system at any one time, with this year seeing the highest level for 12 years—as I have indicated, some of the inflow and outflow gives a sense of that. HMPO is a fast-moving, demand-led business. It receives up to 150,000 domestic applications and around 9,000 overseas applications in any given week. Those applications are necessarily at different stages of the examination process, on what we might describe as a production line, and they have to be scrutinised carefully, for the reasons that have been underlined—security and to ensure that the gold standard of the British passport is maintained.

Hon. Members raised the issue of the Newport passport office, which continues to operate as a customer service centre, offering face-to-face passport applications for premium and fast-track customers, with 150 full-time equivalent posts.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I am conscious of time.

In Scotland, extra resources have been put in place to focus on ensuring that people receive their passports in good time, recognising the earlier school holidays. To address the point made earlier, we are also in close contact with the Glasgow office on the availability of individual appointments. On the staffing point, I again underline what the Home Secretary said—and, indeed, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) made—about the increase in numbers since 2012. We now have 3,444 full-time equivalent staff.

However, we recognise how important passports are, as well as securing people’s renewals in as short a time as possible. Passports are not just dry official documents; they are the key to eagerly anticipated holidays and facilitating international business travel. We recognise the need to review what has happened, which is why it is right that the Home Secretary has commissioned the reviews that she has. On the overseas transfer, that change was made to ensure greater scrutiny and security, ensuring that the gold standard of the British passport is maintained and securing greater continuity of service between all the different parts of the service.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I know that Members have flagged up individual cases involving passports from overseas. These applications take longer and require additional scrutiny. That is why we have to be careful to ensure that those principles are maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I believe I have only a few seconds left.

I would like to underline that we are committed to resolving this issue. We are monitoring it extremely carefully, with a focus on ensuring that performance at HMPO improves, that passport applications are processed efficiently and effectively and that urgent and compassionate cases are prioritised. I recognise the importance—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know what understandings there might be—I feel sure that they would have to be respected by the parties as a matter of integrity—but procedurally, there is no question of the Minister having only a few seconds left. He has relatively unlimited time if he wishes to avail himself of it. I call the Minister.

[Pamela Nash]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I give way briefly.

[Pamela Nash]

I sensed that the Minister was about to conclude his remarks, but two specific points from my speech have not been addressed. First, I asked about the circumstances when the date by which a passport is needed is not necessarily the date of travel—where there is a visa or electronic system for travel authorisation, for example—so will he advise the Passport Office to make it a priority to deal with that? Secondly, he mentioned interviews at Glasgow, but can he guarantee that Scottish people will be able to get such an interview at Glasgow where it is more suitable for them rather than having to travel elsewhere?

[James Brokenshire]

On the latter point, the Home Secretary has spoken to the head of operations at the Glasgow office. We are carefully monitoring the availability of appointments at the counter in all our offices, and we are specifically focused on Glasgow, given the understandable desire for people to get passports for their holidays. As for individual foreign cases, we have set out the guidance on the seven-day period for providing information on airline bookings and other details. I recognise the importance to each individual and each family of receiving their passports. That is why our focus remains on delivering a high-quality passport service for the benefit of the public. That is what this Government are committed to do and that is what we are focused on delivering.

Question put,

Passport Office (Delays)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

It is bad for business all round. We hear complaint after complaint, but the Minister sits there as if he is happy for the chaos to carry on all around him. It is amazing how late Ministers have reacted to this issue. The chaos has been mounting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) so perceptively pointed out, but Ministers did not intervene with panic measures—which should not have been necessary—until the backlog had reached 350,000. Will the Minister confirm that he would normally seek to intervene when it reached 150,000?

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Robinson]

That is what I was told. Ministers intervened when the backlog reached 350,000, which was clearly too late to do anything about it in the narrow window before the holiday period.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on securing the debate. At the outset, may I say to him that there is no indifference on the part of Ministers? I recognise how important passports are, as is securing people’s renewals. As he highlights, behind the statistics lie a multitude of personal stories. Passports are not just dry official documents. They are the key to once-in-a-lifetime trips, eagerly anticipated holidays and visits to loved ones. That is why it is important that applications and renewals are processed in an efficient manner, particularly at this time of the year when hard-working families are making plans for their summer holidays. Therefore, I recognise the importance and significance of the points that he makes.

It is important to understand the context of passport renewals and the work of the Passport Office. I will go on to address each of the specific points he has raised with me in terms of overall numbers and the steps that have been taken, and will be taken, to ensure that the Passport Office functions efficiently and delivers for his constituents and those of other Members in the Chamber this evening.

Each year around 5.7 million of us apply to have our passports renewed or replaced, or make an application for the very first time. The demand for passports is spread out across the year, but the highest volumes of demand by far come in the summer months. Since January this year, Her Majesty's Passport Office has seen a significant surge in demand for passports. Between 1 January and 31 May 2014, HMPO received 3.3 million applications—350,000 more than the same period last year, and the highest volume of applications received for this period over the last 12 years. Indeed, in both March and May this year, HMPO recorded the highest level of applications received in any month over the last 12 years.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 1MC.]

Of course, it is recognised that there is always a surge in demand for new or renewed passports as people look forward to their summer holidays. But this year the surge began—

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will not give way for now. I would like to make some progress and put some points on the record. I will then be happy to give way to hon. Members.

This year the surge began much earlier and was sustained more than normal; an indication that, as the economy is improving, more people are understandably planning to travel abroad. I can assure the House that this high demand was identified by HMPO early this year. As a result, it has put in place a system of measures to deal with it and to see that people receive their passports in good time. A number of steps have been taken, including existing passport examination and customer service staff working seven days a week to process the higher number of applications. Non-operational staff have been re-deployed to support examination and customer service functions, whilst ensuring that the necessary security checks are still properly undertaken. I recognise the issues raised about fraud and counter-fraud and I can assure the House that those security checks are still being undertaken.

Additional staff have been deployed to work on HMPO’s parliamentary and diplomatic helpline for Members who wish to raise cases on behalf of their constituents. I heard the point raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) about the response he received. I shall take that away and investigate further as it is important that Members receive timely responses for their constituents.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will, but I would like to deal with these points and then I will happily give way.

HMPO has introduced process changes to speed up the handling of applications made in the UK and overseas. As we enter the traditional peak season of demand, further steps are being taken to strengthen front-line resources further. By the end of June, HMPO will have deployed 250 additional passport examination staff and a further 65 staff to support customer contact. Teleperformance, which runs the passport helpline, has over 1,000 staff to deal with customer enquiries, a significant increase on its normal complement of 350. While the number of applications is up significantly, HMPO has increased the number of staff dealing with applications.

Before I give way, I would like to reassure the House on some points that have been inaccurately represented. First, on allegations of backlogs in passports applications, it is important to state to the hon. Member for Coventry North West, who raised the issue of what counts as a normal throughput, that at peak periods the Passport Office will issue over 150,000 passports a week. During peak season, it would be expected to see several hundred thousand applications within the system. Although demand is greater than in recent years, HMPO has deployed more staff to deal with it.

Secondly, the overwhelming number of straightforward applications are dealt with within the three-week service standard, and HMPO is working tirelessly to improve performance still further. As I have explained, even in the busy months of January to April this year, 97% of straightforward applications were processed within the three-week service standard, and 99% within four weeks.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned cuts in HMPO staff, but the numbers have gone up in recent years. On 31 March this year, HMPO had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff—up from 3,260 in 2013 and from 3,104 in 2012. Clearly, then, there have been increases in staff—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Member for Coventry North West is catching my eye, and I would like to give way to him first, as this is his debate.

[Mr Robinson]

If I heard the initial figures correctly, in comparison with last year—the recent increase in manpower relates to the same period—we are up about 10%. If there are broadly 10% more staff, as the Minister says there is, to deal with increasing numbers of applications, surely the problems come down to mismanagement and incompetence. He is condemning himself for the malfunctioning of his Department.

[James Brokenshire]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I do not accept that characterisation. We have seen 350,000 additional applications in the early season—a time when that level of increase would not normally be expected. That is why HMPO has deployed additional resources and is deploying further resources as we speak.

[Mr Donohoe]

rose—

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I give way first to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

[Mr Donohoe]

Will the Minister guarantee that when my staff phone up tomorrow, asking for some response to the problems of my constituents, they will get an answer? Will he give that commitment to giving them that kind of service?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to investigate the issue of the response he is receiving. I will speak to him afterwards about whether he is contacting HMPO directly or whether he is referring to the MP hotline. I want Members to receive timely responses to their constituents’ inquiries, particularly at this time of year when people are seeking to make bookings and need their passports.

[Sheila Gilmore]

One issue raised by my constituents is that nothing appeared to have been flagged up to suggest there was any problem. If the Department was aware that the increase was coming in the early part of the year, it would have been helpful to make MPs and relevant websites aware of that. Will the Minister explain why there has been such a problem with first passports for children—in a way there has never been before?

[James Brokenshire]

The Passport Office has obviously indicated its performance. It has clearly stated that 97% of straightforward applications—and child applications fit within that—were dealt with within the three-week period, and that 99% were dealt with within four weeks. I say to the hon. Lady that HMPO is prioritising those who have waited longest, and has policies in place to deal with urgent and compassionate cases. A passport can be issued at very short notice, but such discretion is reserved for emergencies such as ill health or death, and is not a stand-by provision for someone who has perhaps forgotten to renew until the last minute, or for similar circumstances. This sort of compassionate approach is reserved for certain cases.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I am conscious that I have only a minute left and I want to make a few more points.

Hon. Members will be aware that delays can occur for a whole range of different reasons, so it is important to underline the check and send facility. Hon. Members will also know that the responsibility for processing overseas applications was recently transferred to HMPO from the Foreign Office. This move was made to improve our response to security and fraud challenges and to provide a more consistent service for customers that can be reflected in the fees they are charged. Indeed, as Members will know, the cost of an adult overseas passport was cut by £45 in April this year. While the volume of overseas applications is smaller than that of domestic applications, specific issues are associated with them.

The Passport Office has faced an unusually high level of demand above forecast demand, but since January it has taken steps to deal with the situation by raising its level of output to meet that demand, while maintaining its focus on public protection. We have not compromised on our checks, and will not do so. I hope Members will agree that maintaining the security of our passports is paramount, along with ensuring that we process applications as swiftly and as safely as possible. The British passport has a gold standard reputation, both domestically and internationally, and I am determined that that will continue. My focus on the performance of the Passport Office will certainly be my main priority.

Question put and agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Ministerial Corrections

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

Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum states:

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

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

The correct response should have been:

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

Immigration Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Sarah Teather]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Sarah Teather]

rose—

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Sarah Teather]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Dr Huppert]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

rose—

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Alok Sharma]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Keith Vaz]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Glenda Jackson]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

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

I will start with a quote:

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

No.

[Mr Hanson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Hanson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

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

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

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

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

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

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

Before Clause 60

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 5.

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

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

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

Lords amendments 9 to 15 and 17.

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

Lords amendments 20 to 23 and 25 to 36.

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Frank Field]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Field]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Hanson]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Lisa Nandy]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Mr Frank Field]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Huppert]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Fiona Mactaggart]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[Mr Hanson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Hanson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 45 of the enforcement instructions and guidance states:

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Sarah Teather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Jason McCartney]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Paul Maynard]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

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