Modern-day Slavery

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered modern-day slavery.

It is an honour to be opening this debate on modern slavery. In the four and a half months since I was elected to co-chair the all-party group on human trafficking and modern-day slavery, real progress has been made, and I hope that in this debate we can persuade the Government to make further progress. It was a great honour to be elected co-chair in July with a record turnout of Members of both Houses. I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors as chair, especially Anthony Steen, the group’s founder, who went on to found the Human Trafficking Foundation, which has done so much to raise public awareness about this appalling crime. I genuinely regret that since the change of leadership my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who could always be depended upon to bring this shocking abuse of human rights to public and parliamentary attention, has spoken less on this issue than previously, although I was glad that in October he raised the issue of what should be in the modern slavery Bill, because that is the main subject of my remarks today.

May I start by thanking the Government for agreeing to introduce a Bill? It is tempting, but it would be churlish, to make a party political speech where I document the Government’s initial resistance to ideas ranging from signing up to the EU directive to appointing a commissioner, only eventually to change their mind. Ministers deserve praise for realising that more needs to be done and that legislation is necessary, and for consenting to a process of pre-legislative scrutiny that gives us a prospect of a better Bill. But the big question is whether it will be good enough.

In dealing with this issue it is traditional to focus on three P’s: protection, prevention, prosecution. In the announcements so far, it is clear that the Government plan to put emphasis on a fourth P—punishment. I hope that the Minister can confirm today that he intends to make trafficking an aggravating factor in sentencing. Rape sentences, for example, should always be increased when that rape is a feature of a trafficking offence—where someone has been trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

If the Bill emphasises prosecute and punish, it needs also to do more to prevent and protect. I join those two together because there is no doubt that for most successful prosecutions the courts need victims to give evidence. They will do that only if they feel safe and are helped to deal with the traumas they face.

Although I pay tribute to the organisations that care for victims, there are deep flaws in the relationship between them and the Government. I was sent a message by a spokesman from one such body, which is under subcontract to the Salvation Army. He said:

“MoJ officials have directly, robustly and unequivocally told us that we are not to talk about current victim support arrangements in any way whatsoever with anyone. In addition we have been told that we are not to criticise, or talk about in any form, any part of the Government’s current anti-trafficking work or policies. The threat was implicit that to do so would lead to the loss of our contract. In view of this, there is no meaningful way in which I can engage in the proposed evidence giving or consultation exercise. I am”

unbelievably

“forbidden by the Government to speak to you on that matter. If Mr Field”—

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who joined me in asking for this debate, has been able to rearrange his diary to be in the Chamber today—

“can find a way to offer some form of immunity or indemnity against punitive action by the MoJ should we say something they don’t like then we would be delighted to participate. Otherwise I must decline the offer as I have no doubt that were I to present truthfully the evidence I wish to present the MoJ would remove the contract.”

In response to parliamentary questions, Ministers have reassured me that that would not happen, yet those reassurances have not been sufficient. The independently witnessed threat from officials has silenced not just this organisation but others too. I hope the Minister will agree today to write to all organisations that provide victim services under contract and ask them to share their learning with Government and Parliament without fear of retribution so that we can ensure that the real needs of victims are addressed in our Bill. lf those organisations were able to give evidence, they would tell us that six weeks of accommodation and support is just not long enough for most victims to be ready to disclose what has happened to them, to overcome trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by years of exploitation and to be witnesses in criminal cases. Will the Bill empower organisations to give help for longer?

Better information is a prerequisite for more effective action. The Centre for Social Justice report “It happens here” states:

“There is no consistent grip on the numbers. Agencies are groping in the dark for a sense of scale. The figures used...reflect the small number of cases known about but are a pale reflection of the size of the problem.”

That is evidence. The National Referral Mechanism identified 1,186 victims last year and the UK Human Trafficking Centre 2,265. Four years ago, the Home Affairs Committee identified 4,000 victims. We just do not know the scale of the problem, which is why the all-party group is conducting an inquiry into data on trafficking.

For the past 12 months, MPs have regularly asked Justice Ministers for information about the location of victims. They have not been given any details, on the pretext that they might compromise the victim. There is no evidence to support that claim. Is the information available about where trafficking victims are found and how and if that information is available, why is it all staying so hidden?

In our inquiry into data on trafficking, it is evident that there are widespread concerns about the quality of information and the way in which it is shared to protect victims. As evidence from Bedfordshire police pointed out

“a dedicated role performed by an identifiable individual”—

such as a commissioner—

“will remove the stasis that has developed with the issue falling between many stools: responsibility currently sitting with the Immigration Minister sends out a confusing message to victims and the public alike.”

I congratulate the Government on planning to appoint a commissioner.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend who is making a most important speech. I draw her attention to a case with which I am dealing of a woman who was trafficked here at the age of 13. She was put into prostitution at the age of 15, and taken to an abortion clinic when she was pregnant with twins. She then went underground because of her great fear. Now that she has come to the attention of the immigration authorities, they simply want to deport her, with no mercy and no consideration of her terrible plight and suffering.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Were we to have a commissioner, I hope that they would bring forward such cases and ensure that we show the kind of generosity that our country is capable of to people who have been treated in that vile way.

Other actions could be taken to prevent the growth of modern slavery. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and I have pressed private Members’ Bills to prevent slavery in supply chains. Will action on that be in the Bill?

The work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been significant in agriculture industries. Will the Minister expand its remit to other areas such as care, catering and construction where we know slavery occurs? Will he give it powers to impose civil penalties on companies that might have unwittingly allowed such practice in their supply chain, without having to go through the expensive and burdensome process of criminal prosecution?

In 2008, the Home Affairs Committee reached a unanimous conclusion on the matter. It said:

“To retain the migrant domestic worker visa and the protection it offers to workers is the single most important issue in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers.”

Since it has been abolished, Kalyaan, the voluntary organisation which works with enslaved domestic workers, reports that more than four times as many such workers are now paid nothing at all.

Promises that changes in the visa would be accompanied by better prevention of exploitation overseas have not been fulfilled. Home Office responses to freedom of information requests show carelessness. They recorded negligible numbers of visas issued to nationals of India, and eight to nationals of the Philippines last year compared with 2,879 and 6,010 respectively in the previous year. In case anyone thinks that that is because the new system has brought to an end the visits of overseas domestic workers, let me point out that the equivalent number of visas issued to Qatari nationals is apparently 6,704 compared with two in the previous year. It is clear that even the most basic records are not being kept. If officers do not even know that the nationality of visa applicants is not the same as that of their employers, they are unlikely to have carefully considered the risk of their exploitation.

The Minister knows that there are significant problems in relation to children. At least one child a day is trafficked into Britain; most then go missing. Under the terms of the directive, they should have access, where appropriate, to a guardian. They need love and care. If they do not have access to a guardian, they need a best friend, and that is something the Scottish system appears to offer. Child victims cannot be expected to help the police if they are bewildered, unloved and confused. Others in this debate will outline how the Bill could better protect children, but I find it so sad that children are at risk of re-trafficking because the person who knows most about them and their families is their exploiter. Can we not make progress on giving dedicated support to those victims?

I was the instigator of the provision that became the offence in section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. I am disappointed by the reluctance of many police forces to prosecute men who pay for sex with a woman who is subject to force and exploitation. If men thought that they faced a criminal conviction in those circumstances, there is compelling evidence that they would be less likely to use trafficked prostitutes. They might even inform the police about women who are exploited in that way.

In that case and in the case of trafficking generally, we need to do more to investigate and prosecute. In their evidence to the all-party group inquiry, Kent police said that they thought a Bill could

“ensure that police forces are mandated to tackle human trafficking.”

Dealing with trafficking is not stated as a priority in the Home Office’s strategic policing requirement. Will the Minister make it a priority? As a hidden crime, it is less likely to cause local pressure and although we should celebrate those local groups that are building up the campaign, such as Croydon Community Against Trafficking and the groups in Bedfordshire and elsewhere, there is not the same public concern as there is about street crime or burglary, so we need national leadership. Only 11 convictions were recorded last year and that is why we need more than tougher punishment—we need better protection, detection and investigation.

I am glad, too, that the Government propose to take action to confiscate the proceeds of trafficking. I hope that today the Minister can confirm that funds obtained from those criminals will be used to compensate victims and perhaps to compensate police forces that have undertaken expensive investigations, too. After William Wilberforce succeeded in ending the transatlantic slave trade more than two centuries ago, the slave owners were compensated. Let us make this a truly modern Bill and compensate instead the victims of trafficking, sexual exploitation and modern-day slavery.

Family Migration Rules

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his appropriate intervention. I am sure that other Members will have heard their constituents expressing the same concerns.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

This seems a pertinent moment to say that it is not just the low-wage areas of the country that are affected. There are so many people in my constituency in Lewisham, Deptford, in London who are getting only the minimum wage. I have a case of a woman whose husband cannot be reunited with her. She is a support worker, which is a valuable job in the community, on £12,800 a year. She is on the minimum wage and fully legal, but she cannot bring in her husband. Surely that cannot be fair.

[Mr Sharma]

I quite agree. The amount highlighted in the report and stipulated in the rules has clearly impacted on many families, irrespective of where they live—London or the regions. Some of the British people seeking to sponsor a spouse stated that they were working in key occupations as auxiliary and health support nurses, security guards, clerical assistants and even ordained ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

I have actually got the hon. Lady’s constituency correct.

Many of us on that inquiry were really horrified by what we found, despite my own experience as a constituency MP and having encountered the frustrations of an awful lot of my constituents as they tried to deal with the new rules. Of course, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said, the new rules have been in place for a year now and there is no doubt that they are proving a significant source of frustration and tension for family life without providing any obvious and immediate benefit to the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I will be very interested to see if he can tell us what benefits he considers the new rules have brought to the UK, because they are not immediately obvious to me; I can see many of the harms but I cannot see many obvious benefits.

The first thing that is very apparent about the new rules is that they represent a distinct philosophical shift in approach from the old rules. The system used to be tilted in favour of family life, subject to certain basic conditions being met, such as the ability to support a spouse coming into the UK and the ability to meet a basic income threshold, which was pretty much tantamount to a basic income threshold that we would expect around income support levels. Now, the system is tilted entirely in the opposite direction, and against family life, unless someone can meet certain requirements to demonstrate that their spouse who is coming into the UK is desirable in some way and meets some extra criteria. So rather than having a system that was very much about keeping families together, the system now is about serving an overall objective on immigration policy, with family life being significantly relegated in importance. Of course, it is not only family life that is being relegated in importance, but relationships, children’s best interests, basic human compassion and a certain level of common sense.

The consequence is that we have created a system that is highly inflexible and incredibly rigid, and that fails by its own narrow criteria in terms of preventing a burden falling on the taxpayer. What do I mean by that? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall raised many of these issues, as did a number of the Members who intervened on him. One of my own reflections from having been on the all-party group’s inquiry was, “If you’re self-employed, woe betide you. You might be earning a fortune, but it’s incredibly difficult for you to demonstrate that you meet the Government’s criteria.” Money must be in certain very specific bank accounts; it must be accessible in a very specific way. Parents’ wealth is disregarded, so someone may have a very wealthy family who are more than willing to support them but that is not taken into account.

As the hon. Gentleman said, someone may have wealth tied up in other ways; for example, it might be tied up in capital. Once again, however, that is not adequate under the new rules. It is only someone’s earned income in the UK that is taken into account, so even if someone has been earning a small fortune abroad that is not taken into account. Equally, even if someone’s spouse earns a small fortune, if they come to the UK that is not taken into account either, and nor are their projected future earnings. Even by the incredibly narrow criteria of wanting income to be the most important factor and wanting people to demonstrate a level of wealth that the Government have decided is desirable, the system at the moment fails to deliver.

That is not to mention the hidden costs, which were highlighted by hon. Members in a number of interventions—the costs that are incurred by refusing someone permission to come to the UK. The obvious ones that we heard about during our inquiry were around caring burdens, particularly if the person who is here in the UK has some health problems, or if they have very young children and they have been separated from their partner. They might be able to go back to work if their partner was here in the UK to share child care. Without the partner, however, it is much more difficult.

Then there are the obvious things that the rest of government knows about. For example, if people are separated from their partner and families are divided up, the effects on mental health and on children failing to bond with one parent or another have a wide-ranging impact on behaviour and educational attainment. Of course, none of those more subtle things is taken into account either.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

Among African and Caribbean parents, it is common for a child to be left at home with grandparents, but when the grandparents die, the child is left vulnerable. I have heard about one young girl being abused by the uncle, and the mother is in despair because the rules prevent her from getting the child into this country. Has the hon. Lady also heard about such examples?

[Sarah Teather]

I have not seen that specific situation with regard to the rules we are discussing, but I have seen such a situation elsewhere. We heard all sorts of examples in the inquiry, such as one parent being separated from children and children being left in other places. The impact in terms of the splitting up of families and the effect on children is potentially devastating and, of course, none of that is being taken into account at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Thousands of people who wish to bring their spouse into this country now cannot do so. For a Government who came to power saying that they wanted to engage with the ethnic minority communities—I have seen the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and every senior member of the Government at big functions for the ethnic minority communities so many times, and they really want to reach out like no other Conservative Government have ever done before—introducing a rule that will cause huge damage to the Government at the next election is electorally disastrous for the Conservative party, not that the Government need advice from me on electoral disasters ahead of the next election. That goes against everything the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said at Diwali and Eid functions, which is that they want a community in which people feel at peace with each other and get on well together. Introducing an arbitrary figure disfranchises thousands and thousands of people.

As the hon. Member for Brent Central said, why do it? Is it because the Government want to stop abuse? I do not think so because, as I discovered this morning—even I did not know about this, which just goes to show how quickly such things happen—the Government have increased the probation period from two years to five years. People cannot get indefinite leave to remain if they are on benefits, so it is not a question of people arriving and going on benefits, because doing so means they cannot get to the next stage on the way to citizenship. Abuse is better dealt with through face-to-face interviews, such as those the Minister saw when he went to Sheffield—he saw people who are coming here as students being interviewed. If we do that for spouses, we can address abuse much better than putting in an arbitrary financial limit. The purpose, of course, is to limit the number of people coming here.

We are an island, and we all understand that we cannot have unlimited migration to Britain. We understand that, and I hope the Labour party understands that when it was in government it made mistakes in its operation of the UK Border Agency. From what the Select Committee has heard from the Minister, we know he understands that he needs to address the problem. I think he is genuine in his desire to try to address the organisational issues. The fact remains that there is no coherent and cogent reason for the limit. I would like an explanation from the Minister. I would understand it if entry clearance directors were given discretion to tell applicants who had an offer of a job in this country, “You haven’t reached the limit, but you have a job offer in Leicester. You’ll go over the limit as soon as you arrive in the United Kingdom, so we’ll grant you a visa.” However, there seems to be no explanation for the current arrangements.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

Let me tell my right hon. Friend of a case I have. A man who has been made redundant cannot get his Canadian wife into the country in the normal way. She was a teacher in this country for three years before she returned with him to Canada and they married. She could get a job immediately she sets foot in this country, but she is not allowed to move here.

[Keith Vaz]

I can well understand that case. We all have similar cases, which are heart-rending, but there is nothing we can do, because the rules are so rigid.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the shadow Immigration Minister, stands up, I hope that he will say that the Labour party will look again at the threshold at the next election. I am sorry to tell him that I think the Labour party has been very quiet on this issue. Now that we have the report on migration, which points to the problems experienced at a practical level, we would like to know what the official Opposition will do about the rule. My hon. Friend came to Leicester and listened carefully to what my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South said, but we need to have some thinking on these issues, rather than blanket, rigid rules that seek to stop people coming into this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and the hon. Member for Brent Central said that getting dependants into this country is no longer on the agenda and that people simply cannot do it. Frankly, the dependants I know who have come to this country have come only from east Africa, because of the nature of Leicester. They stay only a short time, and then they want to go back; they are just grateful to be able to come here whenever they can.

My last point is about rights of appeal for people who are visiting, which the coalition Government are about to take away. If they do that, they will put even more pressure on our immigration service—this will, I am sure, be the subject of the next report by the all-party group on migration. If they remove the right of appeal, which is extremely important because it means that a judge, rather than the Home Office, can make a determination, they will take away the one guarantee of absolute fairness in the system. I put it to the Minister that there needs to be an independent review when cases are turned down. An entry clearance manager and director should not be reviewing a decision by an entry clearance officer, when they see them every day, in the evening and in their post.

I am not casting aspersions on anyone in any case, but the perception is that things are not fair. We have some fantastic entry clearance directors, such as Janice Moore in Mumbai and Mandy Iveny in Pakistan, but there are only a few we could name as being people to whom we could go to solve a problem. I ask the Minister to look again at the issues of discretion and review. In the time he has been doing his job—certainly in his dealings with the Home Affairs Committee, as the hon. Member for Cambridge will confirm—he has shown that he actually listens and considers what is put forward. I therefore hope he will listen to what the all-party group has said and to what we are saying today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, Mr Owen. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for arranging it, and for serving as vice-chair of the inquiry. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who added a great deal of value to our discussions. I also thank Migrants Rights Network, which was useful and supportive in briefing the inquiry committee and gathering evidence for us, and the many people who shared their experiences, either in person or in writing.

For me, as for other hon. Members taking part in the debate, this is a constituency issue. Many of the constituents who have talked to me about the rules’ effect on them and their families are particularly upset, because they have been preparing for family weddings, or have planned for a long time to bring a relative back to care for them. They feel strongly that the rules cut across their strong attachment to the importance of family ties and family life. We recognise, as other hon. Members have said, the need to manage migration and protect the public purse, but the rules must be fair to families, and effective. We have heard of many instances where they were neither.

I recognise that the income threshold, at £18,600, is at the lowest end of the range suggested by the Migration Advisory Committee to take households out of reliance on benefits. However, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—and other hon. Members have said, the threshold will have a differential impact on different sponsors, and it will create a significant disadvantage for those who, by definition, are likely to be on low earnings. That includes women sponsors, who typically will be on incomes lower than men’s. They often work part time; also, taking time out of the labour market to care for family members may have depressed their ability to progress at work. Young people will also be disadvantaged. Let us not forget that many who want to bring in a spouse will be young, because they will be starting out on their adult and family life.

The people who would want to make such an application are often precisely those whom the rules will most effectively work against. Others who will be disadvantaged are those who struggle to earn well—people with low levels of qualifications, people with disabilities and those outside high-pay areas such as London and the south-east. Last week in my constituency, I was told of a young woman who has been forced to take three jobs to try to meet the income requirement and bring in her spouse.

It is important to understand that we are not talking just about poorly paid, poor-quality, low or entry-level jobs. The inquiry committee heard evidence from the Royal College of Nursing that health care workers can typically earn between £14,153 and £17,253, so they would be below the income threshold of £18,600. Pay levels in many other sectors, such as retail, security, administration and customer service, and in the public sector, are likely to mean people will not meet the threshold. That is unfair to UK sponsors, many of whom have lived here all their lives—people who are British-born, of British families—who cannot fulfil the income requirement. Those people make a valuable contribution to the economy and provide services that we all depend on. They are being told, in effect, that they cannot carry on living in their own country with their spouse. They are shocked and surprised to find that out.

As to the impact of the rules on the public purse, the picture is more complicated than the Government’s analysis and impact assessment may suggest. The Government suggested in their assessment that there would be savings to the overall welfare state—health, benefits, education and so on—of £660 million over 10 years. However, we must remember that most migrant partners would work and pay taxes. They would therefore be contributing to the public purse. Evidence presented to the committee by researchers at Middlesex university suggests that by preventing up to 17,800 migrant partners from coming to the UK and working here, the income requirement could lead to a cost to the UK Exchequer and economy of as much as £850 million in lost economic activity.

The Government impact assessment took account of tax forgone by reducing the number of migrant partners entering the country, but failed to consider the loss of the wider economic benefits of partner earnings: lost output, lower consumption and spending in the economy, and the loss of their overall economic contribution. Nor is it clear that the benefits bill will reduce as the Government expect.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

If the resident person was on a very low income, so that they qualified for housing benefit, and they were joined by a partner who was in work, would not the benefit be set aside and no longer claimed? That is a different picture from the one that the Government always go on about, of people depending on housing benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I did not come planning to make a speech, but I saw a few minutes remaining and thought that I would jump up. I wanted to ask the Minister a specific question.

I referred earlier to a constituent of mine whose wife is Canadian. I want to fill in a few points about his case. His wife had the right to be in this country; she had taught here for three years. He was a high earner. The two of them established a relationship that led to marriage. They went on honeymoon to Canada completely unaware of the rules, and he, unfortunately, had been made redundant. They were shocked. He wrote an e-mail to me, which I have just received, saying, “Can you imagine a worse way to start your married life?”

He has tried everything. She has a job to go to and his parents have money, but that cannot be accepted. He is now raising the sum that must be lodged as capital—I think that the Minister will confirm that it is £62,500—because he cannot get a job at the moment. He is missing their first wedding anniversary, and he tells me—I have not checked this—that once the money is assembled, it must remain in his bank account for six months in order for the Government to find it acceptable.

That is not how we should behave. A civilised country should not be separating people who married in good faith and have their future ahead of them. All the cases that we have heard from hon. Members are unacceptable. The most tragic cases with which I am concerned are ones in which a split involves children, or children are left alone. It is just not acceptable. I urge the Minister to hear the important message from the committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate, which has been invaluable, and which demonstrates that this policy is against all human rights and must be changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

No, I will not give way because the hon. Lady has not been here for the whole debate and I want to deal with points raised by hon. Members who have been here, if she will forgive me.

The central point, which came into all the contributions, is that we welcome people who want to make their family life in the United Kingdom, but we expect them to pay for it and we do not expect taxpayers to pay for it. This may be one area where our welfare system interacts with the immigration system. The £18,600 figure is not arbitrary—I agree that the Migration Advisory Committee did some serious evidence-based work. It is broadly the figure at which a couple are no longer able to have income-related benefits. If the argument is that that figure is high and that many people in this country will not earn that much, we must remember that they may have a level of income at which they may receive income-related benefits. That is the challenge.

I would turn the question that some hon. Members have asked around. If someone is on a very low income and wants to bring a partner to the United Kingdom, they are really saying that they want the taxpayer to support them. Hard-working families around the country would ask why their hard-pressed taxes were being used to fund someone else’s family, because that is what they would be asked to do.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

The Minister said “a couple”. Our argument is that we should let the other person in on the basis that they will take work, and then be above the threshold and not claiming public benefits.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Lady makes a very good point.

Student Visas

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend mentions an important point. I shall deal with that in some depth in a moment.

Within the regulatory regime, the current problems are focused on the inflexibility of the tier 4 visa for undergraduate education. Over and above that and linked to it are the problems associated with the post-study work visa. There is no doubt that many international students who want an undergraduate education want to carry that on at postgraduate level in order to demonstrate the skills that they have acquired in local universities, the local public sector or sometimes local businesses. The majority deterrent to that within the existing visa structure is the high salary threshold, which precludes much postgraduate working in areas where salaries for graduates are lower or in professions where salaries for graduates are lower.

Credibility interviews are the process that the Home Office is using to interview would-be international students in their home countries to establish the credibility of their claims to want higher education in this country. The feedback that I am getting time and again from universities is that that approach appears to be incoherent and inconsistent. Taken together with the change in regulations, it reinforces the perception abroad that Britain is no longer open to business. The fact that the Prime Minister needs to go to these countries and make these statements is a tacit admission that there is a real problem and a gap between the regulatory regime as stated by the Government and the perception of it abroad.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. In London alone, tuition fees are paid by overseas students to the value of £870 million, so we have a tremendous gain from these students coming here. At my local colleges, Goldsmith’s and Trinity Laban, the student experience is vastly enhanced by the presence of foreign students.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. I will elaborate on that point in a moment, and I am sure that Members representing other universities would seek to do so.

We really need to sing about the fact that further and higher education in Britain is a success story. It is not just a way for people to fulfil their personal career ambitions or to develop themselves culturally and socially, important though that is; it is an industry that earns £8 billion in exports and contributes £14 billion, in all, to the British economy. In certain towns, particularly in more deprived regions, it is crucial in sustaining employment levels and economies. Four UK universities are in the world university top 10 rankings, and a very high percentage are in the top 200. It is not just about the contribution that international students make to the economies of the local areas in which universities are located. Increasingly, universities are working in collaboration with local businesses to ensure that the research and skills that they develop are harnessed for commercial purposes or with the public sector to assist in the local community. I have seen fantastic examples of that work up and down the country, and it is crucially underpinned by international students.

Last year, 12% of the total student body comprised international students, 49% of whom enrolled in courses in engineering, maths and computer sciences—the very areas where there are serious skills shortages and the maximum economic dividend for our businesses. Any policy that restricts access into those areas will have, in the long term, profound implications for the capacity of our local businesses to grow the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish this point before I give way to him. I think I know what he is going to say, because I took careful note of what he and others said earlier. Let me deal with what I think he is going to say, and if I am wrong I will give way to him later.

I believe that we have a very positive story to tell. I know that newspapers do not always report a positive story, but Ministers try to convey a positive message and, indeed, Members on both sides of the House have tried to do that today.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Let me make some progress first.

The Government have been clear about the need to bring control to the immigration system, but we have also been clear about our wish to welcome those whom we want in the country. A common view, which many Members will share, was expressed particularly well by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who said that his constituents had voiced no concern either about those who come here to study at our excellent universities, or about those who come here to do highly skilled jobs in business. I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have deliberately designed our system to attract people like that, and to deter those who are not coming to work in skilled occupations, or who are coming for other reasons.

The statistics show that we have achieved that selective balance. The number of university students and the number of people working in skilled jobs have risen. However, as my hon. Friend said, it should also be borne in mind that our constituents are anxious for us to have some control over the system. We must design a system that attracts the best and the brightest—to use the buzz words—from around the world to study, and appeals to global companies based in Britain that want to import some of their engineers and senior managers for a certain period to run their businesses, while also deterring those who will bring no benefit to the United Kingdom.

As Lord Mandelson has said, the previous Government did not have a controlled system. Indeed, they had a completely uncontrolled system: they just went out grabbing people from around the world. We have been determined not to overreact to that, but also to ensure that we have a system that focuses on the right people coming to Britain.

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree, for the following reason. The point was best made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). There are two aspects to this. First, over a period, international students who come here to study and then go back to their home country make no contribution to net migration at all, because they come to Britain and then leave. In a steady state, therefore, they make no contribution to net migration at all. My hon. Friend is right, however, that in a growing market, as a consequence of the difference between those coming in a year and those leaving in that year, there will be a gap, but it is only the gap that contributes to net migration, not the total number.

One of the complexities here is that the data on those leaving are not brilliant. The Office for National Statistics, which is independent and which measures the numbers of people coming to and leaving Britain, measures those coming to study, but does not currently measure those who were studying and left. One of the improvements it has made to its system is that it is now starting to do that, and we will get the first of those statistics in August, I think. Coming back to a point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made, that will give us a much clearer picture of how many students do leave each year, and we will then get a much clearer idea of the impact of student numbers on net migration. It is worth remembering that a lot of genuine students are still in the UK quite a considerable time after their arrival. According to one study quoted by Opposition Members, about 20% of former international students are still in the UK although they might not have decided to settle here permanently.

The other important point shows why we need a robust system. The NAO study has been quoted several times. In the past there were significant numbers of purported students who were not here to study, but who were working in low-skilled jobs, and significant numbers of students were renewing their visas over a period of time without any academic progression at all. It does no credit to our immigration system or our genuine academic institutions that such abuse is possible. We must deal with that, as well as welcome those we want to welcome to Britain.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I want to relay to the Minister my experiences and those of my constituents in respect of those moving from one course to a higher course who need to renew a visa. It is taking at least three months, and during that time the student has no access to their passport and cannot travel for academic or personal reasons. Is the Minister really satisfied that that is good enough? Will he put more resources into this whole area of endeavour in the Home Office?

[Mr Harper]

The point the right hon. Lady makes about in-country performance is absolutely right; it is true that the performance in the last financial year of what was the UK Border Agency was not good enough, as I know very well from conversations and correspondence with Members. Out-of-country performance has remained very good, however. Part of the reason why the Home Secretary made the changes she has made to the border agency was to fix the problems in the UK visas and immigration part of the business. The good news is that we have put a lot of resource and effort into turning that around, and the performance of the Home Office for in-country operations—which used to be a UKBA responsibility—has got immeasurably better. The latest figures are much better. It has taken some time to do that, but I ask the right hon. Lady to let me know of any specific outstanding cases, and I will look at them and see if there is anything we can do.

Violence against Women and Girls

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is a real pity that that did not proceed. It is also a pity that the Government-initiated inquiry into sex and relationships education, which was launched in 2011, has yet to report. The Government have a lack of urgency and a lack of adequate commitment on this matter.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will say that this education is the responsibility of parents and families and that it should not be done in schools? Many of its opponents—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We can hear some such opponents on the Government Benches. I would say to them—I hope that my hon. Friend agrees—that many families do not have the capacity to educate their children, and many families, unfortunately, have violent relationships within them, and that is not appropriate to the education of children.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The responsibility of families does not get rid of the responsibility of the education service.

Police

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

That is their decision. That is what they were elected in Northumbria to decide. There seems to be a lot of good news in Northumbria. Let me see, the hon. Gentleman is one of the best parts of the whole country—no wonder he did not intervene earlier. In the two years since his party was chucked out of office with one of its lowest shares of the vote ever and our coalition came in, crime has fallen by 18% in Northumbria. People in Northumbria are safer now than they were before. They are less likely to be victims of crime, and I very much welcome that.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to have had a memory lapse. Every year that Labour was in government, crime fell. We are all overjoyed that it continues to fall, but he must realise that it is the foundation that we laid, and that he now jeopardises, that is the point. In London, his Government are imposing 20% cuts on the Met. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said that anything more than 12% would impact on front-line services. Can he tell me that he is confident that progress will continue to be made?

[Mr Browne]

If the right hon. Lady is accusing me of being too party political, it is worth saying that crime started to fall when John Major was Prime Minister. What is notable is that Labour MPs, when they were in government, used to say that crime was falling because they were spending more money on the police. Now, however, because of their complete fiscal incontinence, we are having to spend marginally less money on the police. We have lower crime than when Labour was in office, and the lowest level of independently recorded crime in the survey since it began more than 30 years ago. Surely that is good news. Let us try to establish that point, and let us see whether the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That is absolutely right. The Minister asked how we would reduce crime, and I remind him that crime fell in every year of the Labour Government, as it did in the last two years of the Major Government, and as it has fallen now. Let me put on the record that I welcome that fall in crime and think it is a good thing. I do not want people in our constituencies to face criminal actions—a victim is 100% a victim. The key issue for the Minister to reflect on is that there are crimes that are starting to rise, including acquisitive crime, street crime, burglary, robbery and car theft. Areas of violent crime are starting to rise, and the Minister must recognise that policing is not just about discovering crime but about community reassurance, being visible and accessible, and carrying out many tasks such as football ground management that involve not solving crime but providing a presence and a community resource.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

My right hon. Friend will know that we believe one great success of the Labour Government in reducing crime was through the Safer Neighbourhood partnerships and the neighbourhood teams that under Labour were at the strength of one sergeant, two PCs and three police community support officers. Is he aware that the London Mayor is now proposing that such teams will include one PC, one PCSO and no dedicated sergeant? Surely that is a way to reduce community confidence and possibly allow for a rise in crime.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed, and statistics show that 31,163 officers are serving in the Met, which is fewer than the total number that Boris Johnson inherited from Ken Livingstone only some years ago.

Family Migration

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to this issue, such that he is in the Chamber now. [Interruption.] I have noticed that there have been one or two leavers since the statement started, which may have something to do with what is happening in Ukraine. He is absolutely right to say that the issue of confidence is important, and I think that members of the public will be pleased to see that the Government have taken yet another step to bring some control into our immigration system.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Among the two categories of people who come to me most frequently in my constituency are parents seeking to bring often teenage children to this country because the grandparents who are looking after them in Africa have either died or become unwell. Will the right hon. Lady say what the impact of these new measures will be on that kind of family reunion? Am I right in thinking that she has said that very elderly people who may not have had the opportunity to learn English but are dependants of people in this country will have to pass the new intermediate English test?

[Mrs May]

In relation to the right hon. Lady’s first point, we have made it clear that there is an income threshold for people who want to bring a spouse, a partner or a child to the UK. On her second point, which was on dependent relatives, we are tightening up the system, but making it clear that it may be possible to bring in an elderly dependant who requires a degree of care that is not available to them in the country in which they live. In such circumstances, it must be shown that they will not be a burden on the state and that the personal care can be provided by the family.

Parliamentary Representation

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne Begg]

I would accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument if every seat had an all-women shortlist, but only 50% of Labour seats has an all-women shortlist, so the man to whom he refers has access to 50% of the seats. This issue is not just about women or people from ethnic minorities; it is also about people with different backgrounds and life experiences. The political parties should therefore be encouraging that man and helping him, and perhaps providing some funding to allow him to get selected in the seats that are available. That is not happening at present, but it should happen.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend might also say to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that historically it was the practice of the Conservative party to have all-male shortlists. What was the disadvantage to the men with manual skills in those all-male shortlists?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, and work has been done on the all-male shortlists of all political parties in the last general election.

It will take a culture change and a lot of hard work before the people out there can look at us in here and say, “They represent me.” I hope Members will agree that that work needs to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this debate. May I say to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), for whom I have great respect, that the Fawcett Society estimates that at the current rate of progress it would take 14 Parliaments—nearly 70 years—to get equality, so he may need to reconsider his view?

I understand that there have been 4,897 MPs since 1918, of whom just 366 have been women, including the 142 serving today. When I was elected in 1987, this place was not a comfortable place for women. Sexist behaviour and intimidation were rife, as was documented by the redoubtable Tory MP Teresa Gorman, who had to put her age back by 10 years to get selected. There were no shrinking violets in the 1987 intake, but there was no women’s agenda either. The House was clearly deeply unrepresentative of society as a whole, and I often said that it was a cross between a boys public school and a working men’s club.

So some of us were very much committed to making great changes, and we encouraged others to stand. During the 1980s and 1990s the number of women candidates did rise significantly, but of course they did not get elected because they were in the unwinnable seats. We Labour women knew that we had to get our hands on the seats where sitting Members were retiring or the seats that were targets for our party and likely to be won. For that sole reason, we adopted the all-women shortlists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, when they were challenged, the number of women MPs of course fell back in 2001 after the tremendous progress of 1997.

Following the 2001 election a report was produced by Laura Shepherd-Robinson and Joni Lovenduski, and I want to refer to their findings as they are so relevant. They stated:

“Although fewer women than men come forward for selection, women are not selected in proportion to the numbers…Instances of overt discrimination…occurred to a greater or lesser extent in all the political parties…There exists a self-perpetuating male candidate syndrome whereby selectorates choose candidates that match their pre-conceived idea of what an MP ‘should be like’—i.e. like the last one…‘Favourite sons’ who are virtually guaranteed selection before the process even starts were reported as a problem in all the political parties…Ethnic minority women faced additional problems…Justification for this was…that voters would discriminate against the candidate and selecting them was therefore ‘too much of a risk’.”

Those findings are highly relevant today, because we still have female representation of only 22% from a population of 51%, and ethnic minority representation of less than 5% from a population of more than 10%. People with disabilities are hardly represented at all, even though they are provided with the incredible role models of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett).

As the motion says,

“increased competition for seats…may leave under-represented groups more poorly represented”

in future. It is more than likely that under the pressure for places, parties will revert to the type described in the study I cited, and there will be an expectation that progress on equality should be delayed.

What can be done to increase the representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities? First, this House must continue to reform itself so that it becomes a place in which ordinary people feel that they can be productive, effective and able to sustain a private life alongside a parliamentary and constituency life. Further reform of the hours, the calendar and procedures must be undertaken, and I am glad that we will have an opportunity to do that this year.

We must also ensure that our parties remain resolute in the aims they have all espoused of greater equality of representation. That means constant vigilance and analysis of how selections are progressing, financial help for those who need it, and the creation of level playing fields so that people from diverse backgrounds can come forward, attend all the selection conferences and stand a fair chance.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a new Member, I sat in the Members centre and beside me was another new Member, from the Opposition. I watched and was alarmed that she spent two and a half hours on the telephone from the Members centre trying to find accommodation and failing. In the end I said, “What’s the problem?” and she said, “I’ve just got no money left and I can’t live.” That is wrong and we must put it right as soon as possible.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I support the hon. Gentleman absolutely. Of course, we had the MPs’ expenses scandal and of course there were abuses, but we have gone in a direction that means that it is very difficult for people of ordinary means to support a second home and everything that goes with being an effective MP. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is yet another reason why it will be increasingly difficult to get the equal representation in this House that we all seek.

Recent experience from all parties demonstrates that only determined positive action can produce the results that we need. When sitting MPs are displaced as a result of the boundary changes and the reduction in numbers, that will be much more difficult. All-women shortlists will have to continue in the Labour party and, frankly, I think it must be obvious to the other parties that that is the only mechanism to have delivered really big numbers.

There are two possible ways in which a group’s interests can be represented—by the presence of its members in the decision-making process or simply by having its interests taken into account in that process. History shows that the interests of women, ethnic minorities, other minorities and those with disabilities have not been fully taken into account at any time, and if we do not continue to assert our rights to direct representation, our numbers will fall and our democracy will be much the poorer.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We are taking a different approach. It is important to recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all model that can be imposed on every local area. Local areas will need to come to an understanding of what is going to work in their particular communities. That is why it is important that responsibility is devolved and that funding is available at the local level. It is also why the ending gang and youth violence team that we will be setting up will be available at a local level to work with the agencies to ensure that they are getting the answers that are going to work.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I can assure the Home Secretary that money spent by Lewisham council and the police has been very effective, but since the right hon. Lady has been in power cuts to the community safety and youth offending team budgets have been of the order of 20% and the number of victims of knife crime has risen by almost 40%. Does she honestly believe that those two things are not connected?

[Mrs May]

Many issues affect the level of knife crime in a particular area. I am announcing today a cross-government strategy that is going to make a real difference to gang membership and youth violence, which, sadly, blights too many communities.

Student Visas

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will be giving regular reports to Parliament on what we are doing on the immigration system. People will also be able to see what is happening with other aspects of the system, as I have said; I shall be coming back to Parliament to discuss those as well. I am absolutely clear that what the coalition Government have announced today will ensure that our universities can continue to attract students from across the world and to provide world-class education.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Some of the brightest and best international students attend Trinity Laban, the dance and music conservatoire in my constituency. Will students who wish to progress from undergraduate to postgraduate studies have to return home to obtain visas, and will students be able to work in this country if they are offered a job paying less than £20,000 a year, which is possible? Many have international careers ahead of them.

[Mrs May]

Let me deal with the right hon. Lady’s second question first. A code of conduct will be agreed between the UKBA and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—obviously the Home Office will look at it as well—and will set out the requirements for the post-study work route. I outlined those requirements briefly in my statement, but it will be necessary to consider particular sorts of occupation and the appropriate rates applying to them. As for the right hon. Lady’s first point, no, those students will not be required to return home.