Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harper Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to control immigration and ensure that net migration continues to fall.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Net migration is down by more than a third since the election, and immigration has fallen by 100,000, bringing it to its lowest level since 2003. The Government will continue to take steps to ensure we hit our target of getting net migration down to tens of thousands by the general election.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome the consultation into tackling illegal immigration in privately rented accommodation, but does my hon. Friend join me in encouraging hotel and guest house owners to engage in that consultation process so that their views can be fully represented?

[Mr Harper]

I welcome that, and anyone with an interest in our proposal should respond to the consultation so that we can take their views into account. I reassure those whom my hon. Friend represents that our proposals are aimed at those renting their only or main home, so they should not be a great concern to those running guest houses or hotel accommodation.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Immigration control must be firm but also fair. Last Tuesday, the courts ruled that Jimmy Mubenga was unlawfully killed while being escorted to the airport by G4S, and two days later the Justice Secretary said that G4S and Serco had been overcharging his Department over a number of years. Given that those two companies hold contracts worth £180 million with the Home Office, will my hon. Friend initiate an audit into the quality of their immigration work as well as their charging policies, to ensure that his Department has not been overcharged?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman who chairs the Home Affairs Committee will know following the Lord Chancellor’s statement last week, that across Government the work he has called for is already under way to review all contracts that those companies hold with the Government, to check on how they are being conducted, and specifically on how they are charging the Government. That work is under way and colleagues will report to the House in due course.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister will be aware that education is one of our greatest exports and we benefit hugely from genuine students who come to this country to study. Will he confirm that the Government will not introduce a cap on students who come here to study, and say that he would not support one?

[Mr Harper]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government have been clear: we have rooted out abuse and removed the ability of hundreds of colleges to bring in international students. However, we welcome genuine students to Britain and to our excellent universities. We made it clear in the mid-term review that there is no cap, and we welcome the brightest and best, wherever they come from in the world, to come and study in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister accept that the net migration figure can be manipulated by making Britain so unattractive that people wish to leave? Surely the figure that should be looked at is the one for gross immigration, and surely that cannot be controlled until we stop the free movement of people from the European Union.

[Mr Harper]

I make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), the immigration figure—the gross number—is down by 100,000 to its lowest level since 2003. My second point concerns people in the United Kingdom who have no right to be here. I actually want them to leave, which will contribute to reducing net migration. Thirdly, on the in-flow of people from the EU, as he will see from the numbers, the EU is not where the bulk of net migration comes from; the majority of people coming to Britain come from outside the EU.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

In the light of the recent upwards revision of the migration figures between 1997 and 2010—an additional 500,000 migrants were found, meaning that overall immigration in that period was 4 million and that net migration under the last Government was 3 million, which amounted to three cities the size of Manchester—can my hon. Friend assure me that in the future we will have robust statistics and no return to the open-door policies favoured by the last Government?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that Migration Watch has written to the Office for National Statistics about that historical period, and I understand that it is engaged in a dialogue about it. I also understand from the ONS that it has revised its methodology so that its current recording of statistics is accurate, but his general point is very sensible: we had a period of uncontrolled immigration under the last Government—a mistake that this Government are not going to make.

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

Does the Minister finally recognise that Scotland has its own immigration issues, and can he name just one thing that the Government have done to help us to address our distinct problems and issues?

[Mr Harper]

One thing is that the number of foreign students going to excellent universities in Scotland is up, as it is across the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman’s desire to have a border between England and Scotland and to turn England into a foreign country is not one welcomed by people either in England or in the rest of the United Kingdom, including in Scotland.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The coalition agreement said that exit checks would be in place by 2015. Will the Minister guarantee that this commitment will be met and explain how he will deliver on it?

[Mr Harper]

As my hon. Friend might be aware from conversations elsewhere and questions I have answered, that is a clear coalition commitment, and through the work we have done already, including through the data we collect on our e-Borders programme, we already have quite a bit of coverage of those coming into or out of the UK. It is a much better system, actually, than exists almost anywhere else in the world. Further work needs to be done, and that work is under way, as we progress towards 2015.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK laws on guns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

7. What estimate she has made of the number of student visitor visas that have been issued in the last year.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

In the 12 months to March 2013, 69,542 student visitor and extended student visitor visas were issued—6% more than in the year to March 2012. A recent study conducted by the Home Office showed that student visitors come mainly for short courses or university summer schools and make a valuable contribution to economic growth.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but he will know that last year the independent chief inspector raised concerns about the risk of abuse in the student visitor visa system. What action is he going to take to address these concerns, strengthen the check and close this loophole?

[Mr Harper]

There is not a loophole. If the hon. Lady had listened to my answer to her question she would know that I said—and I said the same thing at questions last month—that we have conducted a research study that clearly showed that the route is not abused and that there is no sign at all in respect of the nationalities on which we clamped down on tier 4 visas of any increase in student visitor visas. A significant portion of those coming to the country as student visitors are non-visa nationals, half of whom are from the United States of America.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister should not be discouraged in any way. In my experience, politicians may have to say things several thousand times before they are heeded. The Minister is getting some good practice.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

We must of course ensure that our visa system is fit for purpose, but will the Minister acknowledge the importance of non-EU students not only to the national economy but to local economies? There are 33,000 in Yorkshire and the Humber and 5,795 at Leeds university alone, and they make a huge contribution to the local area.

[Mr Harper]

I do acknowledge that, and, as I made clear in answer to an earlier question, we have no plans to cap the number of students who come to our excellent universities and make a valuable contribution to growth. The best of them will have an opportunity to remain here after their studies if they find graduate-level jobs that pay decent salaries, and they are very welcome to do so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Minister on slapping down the swivel-eyed loons in his own party who are calling for a ban on non-EU students, but does he not understand that his own policy is effectively introducing a cap? That is why the Prime Minister had to fly to India to beg people to start coming back to study in this country. When will the Government stop undermining British universities and colleges which are trying to compete around the world for this important market?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman has had his Weetabix this morning!

Our reforms have been successful. The number of students going to our excellent universities is up by 5%, and the universities are doing very well. We have seen strong growth, for example—

[Chris Bryant]

The total number is down.

[Mr Harper]

That is because a significant number of people who have come to this country in the past purporting to be students have not actually been students. We have rooted out a large number of bogus colleges that were abusing the immigration system, and I make no apology for our having done so.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of introducing a bond requirement for visiting nationals from countries deemed to be high-risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 3 July I launched a public consultation on proposals to strengthen arrangements for regulating migrant access to the NHS in the forthcoming immigration Bill. We are working across Government to build immigration policy into our benefits, health and housing systems and other services.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome the consultation that has been announced. Can he confirm that bringing immigration enforcement back into the Home Office will deter all forms of abuse of our immigration system, including health tourism?

[Mr Harper]

I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. Part of the reason for the Home Secretary’s decision is to have two very clear cultures within what was the UK Border Agency, so we have both high-quality, fast decisions for those applying for leave to enter the UK and stay here and a very good enforcement function with a clear law enforcement culture. That is what we are building and will continue to build.

[George Freeman]

First, may I congratulate the Home Secretary on the excellent news of Abu Qatada’s deportation? Does she agree that nothing symbolises the broken covenant of citizenship or fuels political disengagement more than the inability of Government to ensure that public services such as welfare are there for citizens who pay for them, rather than illegal immigrants who do not?

[Mr Harper]

I agree, and that is part of what we are trying to achieve in our proposals on the health consultation, on landlords and on the consultation we published last week on cracking down further on illegal working. We want Britain to be a welcome place for those who come here to contribute, but we want to deter those who do not, and make sure those who are here without any legal status are removed or leave the country.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In introducing measures to protect public services, will the Minister take care not to bring about unintended consequences? One of my constituents, a UK citizen, has been studying in the US and cannot bring his wife into the country from the US because while he was studying she was supporting him. He was therefore not earning the threshold income that is now required to come to the country, despite the fact that he has a contract here with money well above the threshold. Will the Minister look into that issue?

[Mr Harper]

I clearly do not know all the details of the specific case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he writes to me about it I will look into it. The general principle of our family migration reforms, however, was to make sure those who wanted to bring family members to Britain were earning above a certain level of income so they supported their family, rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so, and that general principle is a very well founded one.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Minister said that he was already cracking down on businesses that were employing illegal immigrants. Why then has the number of businesses that have been fined decreased in the past two years?

[Mr Harper]

That is a question I answered at the previous oral questions and I was frank with the Member who asked it—I said it is an area where we need to do better. I think the hon. Lady will find when we publish our performance statistics for this financial year—since the creation of our immigration enforcement organisation —that the numbers are going in a much more positive direction.

[Mr Speaker]

We are short of time but let us have a brief snippet from Christchurch.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why does my hon. Friend not make it a criminal offence to be an illegal immigrant?

[Mr Harper]

It is, of course, the case that people in the United Kingdom without leave are breaking our laws, but our primary objective for those here without leave is to remove them from the country. It would be self-defeating to prosecute all of them and lock them up in prison, as we would thus be keeping them here for longer and making sure the taxpayer paid a higher cost.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

12. What steps she is taking to make Britain more hostile to traffickers engaged in modern day slavery; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

14. How much has been received under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from those convicted of human trafficking in the last three years; how much has been paid out to victims of trafficking in compensation; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Government are committed to fighting human trafficking, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out in an earlier answer. Over £2 million has been recovered from traffickers in the past three years. Victims can apply for criminal injuries compensation and the Government pay £3 million a year for support services for victims through our contract with the Salvation Army. The figures on compensation paid to trafficking victims are not collected centrally.

[Richard Ottaway]

As victims are usually without support of any kind once they have left Government-funded shelters, and the avenues for claiming compensation are extremely limited, would it not make sense to take the funds confiscated from traffickers and put them into a fund for the benefit of victims of abuse?

[Mr Harper]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would say a couple of things. First, the Government think that the priority should be making it easier for victims to secure compensation from confiscated assets, and we are working with the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service to achieve that. Secondly, victims of trafficking who leave Government-funded support through our contract are helped appropriately, either to return to their home country to a safe environment where they will not be retrafficked or, if they claim asylum through the asylum system or if their immigration status allows, to remain in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is not the point what was put to the Minister by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway)? An amount is collected, and we have no indication or record as to how much of that is paid to victims. Until we know that we do not know how efficient the system is, and the Minister needs to know.

[Mr Harper]

The point I made is that information on awards made by judges in compensation orders and so on is not collected by the Government. However, we spend £3 million on our Salvation Army contract, which supports victims of trafficking to give them a period of reflection after they have been saved from traffickers. That is a valuable process that we continue to support.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T6. What changes will the Home Office make to the family migration rules in the light of the recent High Court finding that the income threshold is onerous and unjustified?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

That is not quite what the judgment said. We are considering the judgment very carefully. The judge made it quite clear that the Home Office was perfectly entitled to have an income threshold that applied nationally. The judge said that in certain circumstances he had some concerns. Applications where that is the only issue on which the case would have been rejected are being held and we will make an announcement in due course.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that, unless safeguards are put in place for landlords taking reasonable steps to verify immigration status, there is a real danger of discrimination against foreign nationals from landlords choosing to avoid the risk by simply not renting properties to them?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good question, which we thought about carefully. To reassure him, first, landlords will have to check the documents of everyone to whom they want to rent property—there are similar checks with employers—so they will have to confirm that someone is a British citizen or has leave to be in the country. Secondly, they are bound by the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against somebody on the grounds of their race or nationality.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Lord Harper Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith]

There has been argument about that from two Members who devote a great deal of time to the issue and I am reluctant to become the arbiter of this argument. All we sought to secure in our capacity as Committee Chairs was that the Committees’ ability to do the job was not inhibited and could not be restricted by someone pointing to the wording and saying, “You can’t discuss that possibility. It’s outwith your reach.” What the Government had made clear all along and made clear again to me in a telephone call last week while I was away with the Justice Committee was that there is to be a second-stage process as originally envisaged, and at that stage there will be confirmation of what is at present clear Government policy as to what the list is, following consideration of the representations and views that may be put forward by any of the relevant Committees.

I do not believe that in seeking to meet the Committees’ wishes and excluding those words, the Government are seeking to change their policy. They are simply making it clear that the procedure is an open one in which Committees can put forward their representations, whether they support the list or seek variations in it.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I confirm that that is the case, but let me be clear that what the Home Secretary said about the need for this House to take a view was that it is not a legal but a political issue. The European Commission has made it clear that it will not engage in a discussion or a negotiation until we make clear the view of the Government and this Parliament. That is what the Home Secretary said in her speech and that remains the Government’s position.

Civil Penalty Scheme

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Last week we published proposals to regulate migrant access to health services and prevent access by illegal migrants to privately rented accommodation, with measures to be taken forward in the Immigration Bill. Today we are launching a consultation on proposals to strengthen and simplify the civil penalty scheme to prevent illegal working. The consultation will run for six weeks. A copy will be available in the House Library and on the Home Office website at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice. gov.uk/policyandlaw/consultations/.

Illegal working encourages illegal immigration. It also undercuts legitimate businesses through illegal cost-cutting activity by rogue employers, and is often associated with other forms of exploitative behaviour—including harmful working conditions for employees and tax evasion. The Government are committed to taking action to effectively tackle illegal working. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have recently proposed that the civil penalty against employers who exploit illegal labour should be doubled.

Employers already have a responsibility to check that their employees have the right to work in the UK and, since 2008, this has been underpinned by a civil penalty scheme. This has been successful in requiring employers to make right to work checks and imposing a sanction on those who do not. We are proposing to further refine these requirements to get tougher on employers who continue to exploit illegal labour and increase the sanction to reflect the harm they cause. We are also conscious of the burdens on legitimate business, so we are also proposing a number of measures to significantly reduce the administrative costs of complying with the requirement to make right to work checks. Legitimate businesses will benefit in two ways: from tougher sanctions against rogue employers and from our intention to make it easier for compliant businesses to fulfil their duties.

The Immigration Bill will make it more difficult for illegal migrants to live and work in the UK. We want to ensure that people come to the UK for the right reasons. As we extend a warm welcome to the many migrants who make such an important contribution to life in the UK, we want to see tough action against those who have no right to be here, and also against the unscrupulous employers who exploit them.

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Raab]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any of the 60 individuals named on the list published by the Commission on Security and Co-operation in Europe, individuals involved in the tax fraud against Hermitage and the torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky, published in June 2012 have visited the UK in the last year; and if she will disclose the details of any such visits.

[Official Report, 18 April 2013, Vol. 561, c. 499W.]

Letter of correction from Mark Harper:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on 18 April 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Harper]

It is long-standing policy not to disclose details of records which may be held in relation to arrivals in the United Kingdom. The Home Office Special Cases Directorate is already aware of the individuals on the list and has taken the necessary measures to prevent them being issued visas for travel to the UK.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Harper]

It is long-standing policy not to disclose details of records which may be held in relation to arrivals in the United Kingdom. We do not make decisions on entry into the UK speculatively. We are aware that some individuals have been linked to the arrest, detention and death of Sergei Magnitsky. Any application for a visa to come to the UK will be considered on the individual merits of the case in line with our usual practice.

Armed Forces Family Migration

Lord Harper Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

This statement informs the House of changes to the immigration rules affecting members of Her Majesty’s forces and their families, which will be laid before Parliament in September to come into force on 1 December 2013. Full details are included in a statement of intent which I have published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House and on the Home Office website.

Changes to the immigration rules affecting non-European economic area (non-EEA) nationality family members of British citizens and persons settled here were implemented on 9 July 2012 as part of the Government’s overall programme of reform of immigration routes. Those changes aimed to ensure that non-EEA family members seeking to live in the UK will not become a burden on the taxpayer and will be able to integrate effectively in British society.

Under temporary transitional arrangements, non-EEA family members of British citizens serving in Her Majesty’s forces were exempted from the family immigration rules changes pending a review of the rules affecting all non-EEA dependants of Her Majesty’s forces personnel, including family members of Foreign and Commonwealth citizens serving in Her Majesty’s forces. That review has now taken place and has produced a single set of rules covering the non-EEA family members of British service personnel and also the families of Foreign and Commonwealth citizens serving in Her Majesty’s forces, including Gurkhas discharged since 1 July 1997. The new rules will cover the dependants of service personnel currently dealt with under parts 7 and 8 of the immigration rules. They are intended to align the treatment of non-EEA family members of service personnel with the general approach to family immigration. At the same time they aim, so far as possible and appropriate, to treat all non-EEA dependants of service personnel in the same way, irrespective of the immigration status of the sponsor. And finally, they make special arrangements, in certain respects, to cater for the situations brought about by overseas postings which are a feature of service life.

With effect from 1 December 2013, the following rules will apply to armed forces families:

Service personnel who wish to sponsor their non-EEA dependants to enter or stay in the UK must meet a minimum income threshold of £18,600 for a partner, £22,400 for a partner and child and £2,400 for each additional child.

A basic English language requirement will also apply to all non-EEA partners seeking to enter or stay in the UK. This will be in line with the current such language requirement which applies to the partners of civilians and of serving British personnel.

Non-EEA partners of British and of Foreign and Commonwealth citizens serving in Her Majesty’s forces will serve a five-year probationary period before being eligible to apply for settlement.

To qualify for settlement, non-EEA partners and children between the ages of 18 and 65 will have to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the UK. This will involve passing the “Life in the UK” test and holding an intermediate level English language speaking and listening qualification. This is a new, more robust, requirement which is being introduced across the immigration system from 28 October 2013—as set out in the Home Office statement of intent on “Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK for Settlement and Naturalisation” published on 8 April 2013 and available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/182545/statement-of-intent-koll.pdf.

Dependants of serving British citizens, most of whom are already subject to a knowledge of language and life in the UK requirement, will switch to the new requirement from 28 October. Dependants of Foreign and Commonwealth citizens serving in Her Majesty’s forces, who are not currently subject to the requirement, will be required to meet it from 1 December.

The new armed forces family rules take full account of the principles set out in the armed forces covenant, which states that service personnel and their families should face no disadvantage as a result of service. Accordingly, the new rules will incorporate the following provisions specifically designed to accommodate overseas postings:

Applications may be made from overseas for all categories of leave under the armed forces rules.

The duration of a settlement visa under the armed forces rules will be extended to five years to enable a dependant to apply for settlement without having to renew their initial visa. This will remove the financial disadvantage currently faced by those who are overseas where application fees are more expensive than in the UK.

Time spent overseas on an accompanied posting will be regarded as time spent in the UK for the purpose of calculating the residence required for settlement.

The new rules will also remove some further anomalies and practical obstacles inherent in the current rules. Where a serving Foreign and Commonwealth member of Her Majesty’s forces naturalises as a British citizen, their family will be able to continue to progress to settlement; they will no longer need to switch immigration route because their sponsor’s immigration status has changed. Bereaved non-EEA partners of Foreign and Commonwealth citizens serving in Her Majesty’s forces will be treated in the same way as bereaved partners of British personnel and will be able to apply for settlement immediately if the sponsor dies in service, even if the death is not directly attributable to service. And alongside the new rules, we will deliver faster grants of settlement for service personnel on discharge, count reservist time on deployment towards residency requirements in the applicant’s substantive immigration status, and introduce an armed forces specific application form to facilitate identification and processing of applications from the armed forces community.

Transitional arrangements will apply to family members who already hold valid leave as a dependant of a service person, and to those who submit an application before 1 December 2013. These are set out in full in the statement of intent.

Taken together, these measures form a balanced set of provisions which reflect our overall approach to delivering a robust and sustainable immigration system, while taking account of the particular circumstances of the armed forces community.

Identity and Passport Service

Lord Harper Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Identity and Passport Service—now renamed Her Majesty’s Passport Office—annual report and accounts 2012-13 has been laid before the House today and copies are available in the Vote Office.

UK Border Agency

Lord Harper Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The UK Border Agency annual report and accounts 2012-13 has been laid before the House today. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

Immigration Bill Consultation

Lord Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The forthcoming Immigration Bill will make it more difficult for illegal migrants to live in the UK unlawfully and ensure that legal migrants make a fair contribution to our key public services. I am launching two consultations to set out some proposals on how we will achieve this. Copies are available in the Library of the House and on the Home Office website at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice. gov.uk/policyandlaw/consultations/. Further proposals will be set out over the summer.

The first consultation is on proposals to better regulate migrant access to health services in the UK and will run for eight weeks. We are responding to public concern that the current rules regulating non-EEA migrant access to publicly funded health care services are both overly generous, particularly when compared with wider international practice, and poorly applied. These current weaknesses result in the UK taxpayer unfairly bearing the health care costs of temporary non-EEA migrants, who will not make the same financial contribution to our health care systems as permanent residents over their working lives in the UK, and short-term visitors and illegal migrants who access free health services when they should be subject to treatment charges.

This consultation will run in parallel to a separate Department of Health consultation which analyses the vulnerabilities of the current charging regime for overseas visitors in England, and sets out a range of proposals for reforming the system, including through improved registering and tracking of chargeable patients.

The second consultation launched today concerns proposals to prohibit illegal migrants from renting accommodation in the UK and will run for seven weeks. This forms part of the Government’s wider drive to prevent illegal migration, including by removing the means by which migrants can live in the UK unlawfully. Our intention to take action in this area was signalled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech on immigration on 25 March, and the inclusion of related measures in the forthcoming Immigration Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech on 8 May.

The consultation seeks views on the creation of a duty to require landlords to conduct immigration status checks on tenants before providing residential accommodation, with financial penalties for those landlords who let property to illegal migrants having failed to conduct the necessary checks. The landlord checking proposal is modelled on the existing civil penalty scheme for employers of illegal migrant workers.

Family Migration Rules

Lord Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate. Before responding to him, I want to respond to points made by other hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) took well over half the remaining time, so I will probably not be able to take many interventions, and I will struggle to cover some points. In response to the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) ably made, apart from the commitment by the Opposition to repeal our changes to the family visa appeal route, I struggled to hear any commitments from the Opposition on what they would do about our policies. That may be a disappointment to Opposition Members, but the Labour party does not seem to think that it will change any of the rules that we have laid out. That is the impression I got from the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, so I suspect that he will be popular with people wanting to bend his ear. Despite saying nothing about the Opposition’s policies, he took a long time in doing so.

I will say a few words about the intentions of our policy, and then try to pick up some of the points ably made by the wide range of hon. Members who spoke. A general point about the immigration system is that we are determined to take control of it and to restore public confidence. We have made considerable progress with the changes on numbers, reducing net migration by more than one third since the election. The issue is not just about numbers—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) touched on this—but about preventing abuse and setting out sensible rules that people can follow. That was the context in which we implemented the reforms to change the rules for family migration for non-European economic area nationals seeking to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family life.

The rules have three aims. The first is to tackle abuse. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall referred to the extension of the probationary period from two years to five years before partners can apply for settlement. That is to test whether the relationship is genuine and should help to deter applications based on sham marriages. That not only deals with abuse, but protects people who are often forced into sham marriages to provide a mechanism for someone to come to the United Kingdom. That is a welcome change.

Secondly, we want to ensure that family migrants are better integrated into British society, which is why, for example, from October 2013 they will have to pass the new “Life in the UK test” and demonstrate that they can speak English at intermediate level. Our view is that no one can properly integrate into British society without at least intermediate English language skills.

The third aim, which hon. Members largely focused on today, is to prevent a burden on taxpayers, which is why we have introduced the minimum income threshold of £18,600 for those wishing to sponsor the settlement of a partner.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will not give way because the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the whole debate—[Hon. Members: “Yes he has.”] I will give way briefly as he did not get to make a speech.

[Mr Godsiff]

That is kind of the Minister. I was waiting for his speech so that I could ask my question. Will he tell us how many applications have been made by spouses who come here for the two-year probationary period to try to access benefits? He must have some figures, so can he tell us?

[Mr Harper]

The point I was making was about people who come here when they are not entering into a genuine marriage. I will not have a chance now to find the data. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me earlier, or made a speech, I would have been able to find them before the end of the debate. I want to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have already asked.

I turn to some matters that will address the point made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). There are some areas where we have been flexible already. I had a meeting with the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who were here earlier. We looked at some flexibilities, which I agreed to take away and consider. They were about the length of time for which savings must be held if they arise from the realisation of an asset that can be clearly traced to that family. The example that was given to me was someone selling a property that was clearly their property. I also said I would consider the situation where people hold savings in an investment-based account, such as a stocks and shares ISA, and whether that counts as cash.

I am prepared to consider whether we can put in place some rules that are not vulnerable to abuse. The best argument was the example of a couple, one of whom would be working here but was insufficiently skilled to meet the criteria to apply under the tier 2 scheme. I thought one of the examples in the report was a bit odd. I struggled to see how someone who earned £400,000 a year and had £3.5 million of assets could not come here on a tier 2 visa, or would be unable to organise their finances sufficiently to meet the rules. If people can get here under a tier 2 visa, that is fine. However, clearly there are people who could make a contribution but could not meet those criteria.

The situation is not quite as straightforward as people say, because we must guard against abuse. If all people have to do is to show a piece of paper saying that they have a job offer, I know from the number of cases I have seen that it will not be long before people are setting up vague companies and offering jobs that do not exist. There must be a way of putting in place processes that do not lead to abuse. I think that is worth doing and I am prepared to go away and do so. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said that I listen, and I do. I see details of cases that colleagues write to me about, and I am keen to ensure that the rules are fair. They have been in force for less than a year, and we have already made some changes to make them more flexible.

Another suggestion was to have a different income level across the country, and the Migration Advisory Committee looked at that. We do not have a regionalised benefit system, with the exception of housing benefit. Most benefits are consistent throughout the UK. The logic for having a different income limit would mean a different benefit system throughout the United Kingdom. I do not know, but I am guessing that most Members who argue for a regional income level to be taken into account for this process would probably not be in favour of a regionalised benefit system.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I have only 50 seconds left and I have not covered all the points. Let me pick up two specific points. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) asked whether there had been any discussion with the Department for Education on children’s best interests. Yes, there has been. Our family consultation and the statement of intent that we published were discussed with all relevant Departments in the way that one secures agreement across Government. Our rules and policy on leave outside the rules take into account a child’s best interests. I will give an example. In exceptional cases, those circumstances can be taken into account. Since I have been doing this job, I have authorised the grant of leave outside the rules to an applicant who, with their British partner, was unable to meet the income threshold but had serious concerns about the health and welfare of a child.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harper Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of article 8 of the European convention on human rights in respect of the removal of foreign criminals.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Last July, we changed the immigration rules to ensure that, under article 8, the rights of society are properly balanced against the individual rights of foreign national offenders. The rules received the unanimous support of this House. Unfortunately, some judges are not applying the rules as Parliament intended, and our Immigration Bill will give the full force of primary legislation to them.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. What more can he do to try to ensure that judges strike the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, which are sometimes under threat from them? Can he persuade judges to listen to the will of Parliament?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Of course this House thought that that is exactly what it had done, as it sent a very clear message to judges about the balance that this House, on behalf of society, had struck to put the rights of the innocent first. Judges have not got the message, which is why we will legislate to make sure that it is reflected in the law.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Given what the Minister has just said, why on earth was the number of foreign criminals deported in 2011 just 4,522, whereas in the last year of the Labour Government it was 5,528? The Government are failing on this, and it is little to do with what he has said. Given that one of the best ways of making sure that suspected criminals are deported from this country is the European arrest warrant, which extradites them elsewhere, why on earth are the Government thinking of withdrawing from it?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman should know that this is about exactly the reason I set out; he will know, if he has done his research, that between 2011 and 2012 there was a significant increase, of more than 1,000, in the number of appeals made by criminals to prevent their deportation. That is exactly why we need to take action, and it is another area we will deal with in the Immigration Bill.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary on the determination with which they have pursued this matter? I invite my hon. Friend to recall the remarks made by the Prime Minister last week in answer to me, when he expressed great concern about the European Court of Human Rights, which has been subverted from its original intention. Are the Government still prepared that the United Kingdom should secede, because the British people are absolutely fed up with this Court?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government have laid out our position clearly. I suspect that the issue he mentions—what happens to the Human Rights Act and with this country’s relationship with the European Court—will be dealt with in debate at the general election.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to reduce benefit tourism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

9. What assessment she has made of increases in waiting times for visa decisions.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Home Office’s performance in granting visa applications overseas has been excellent and remains so, with average waiting times decreasing rather than increasing. As I have acknowledged myself at the Dispatch Box, there have been problems with our in-country performance in the past financial year, but since the abolition of the UK Border Agency and the creation of UK Visa and Immigration we have got that on the right path, with waiting times decreasing too.

[Richard Burden]

We are probably all aware from our own casework of the real problems that visa delays cause for our constituents. Given that the average waiting time for a skilled worker—somebody whom the British economy needs—has gone up from 36 days in 2010 to 56 days in 2012, does the Minister really think that measures of the kind he mentions are going to crack the problem, and if so, when are we going to see the results?

[Mr Harper]

I acknowledged openly and honestly that there had been a problem in the past financial year, and that is what the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman reflect. However, as I said, in the past quarter the figures have improved, so when they are published in the instalment of that information that we give to the Home Affairs Committee, he will see that we are getting things back on track. There is an open session with Members of Parliament this Wednesday, and I hope he will attend to listen to the steps we are taking to improve performance.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister pay particular attention to the business community in China, where there is evidence that people are being disincentivised from coming to the UK because it is easier to get elsewhere in the EU and because of the time taken? Surely there is an argument for having a fast-track procedure for bona fide business visitors from China so that they can come to Britain to help our economy.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for that question because it gives me an opportunity to set out the excellent performance we deliver on visas applied for from China. We grant 96% of visa applications and deliver 95% of those within 15 days; for business visitors, we deliver the vast majority within five days. We are increasingly rolling out premium services, with an ongoing increasing performance level, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend sets out.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

The recent report on family migration by the all-party migration group—I am vice-chair of the inquiry committee—shows that the processing time for non-European economic area partner applications has significantly increased over the past 18 years. What is the Minister doing to keep families united rather than dividing them?

[Mr Harper]

My response to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a very close interest in these matters, is similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He is right: in the past financial year, those processing times increased. We have split family applications for spouses from, so to speak, straightforward applications, and we are making decisions on them much more quickly. They had been grouped with applications that were taking a great deal of time. The hon. Gentleman will see in the latest figures that we have made a great improvement, and I hope to see more of that in future.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister clearly has a personal commitment to getting waiting times down—I thank him for his recent visit to Cambridge to see some of problems there—but will he be able to change the culture within the new borders agency? After all, the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, said:

“Most of us will still be doing the same job in the same place with the same colleagues for the same boss.”

We want the Minister to succeed, but will he be able to?

[Mr Harper]

I very much hope so. I was encouraged by my visit to Cambridge with my hon. Friend, where I listened, yes, to some of the concerns that people had, but also to an acknowledgement by the university, for example, that it had seen recent improvement. The new interim director general of UK Visa and Immigration, Sarah Rapson, has a great commitment to creating such a culture. I think that the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to end the UK Border Agency and set up the new approach will be successful.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

11. What assessment she has made of the contribution of police measures to falling crime levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

12. What change there has been in the number of businesses fined for employing illegal labour since 2010.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Dealing with illegal working is a priority for the Government. As has been mentioned, I attended an illegal working operation in Cardiff about a week ago and saw a number of successful arrests of people who were working illegally. We want to do more of this. Recent figures have not been as encouraging as one would have hoped. This year, with the creation of the immigration enforcement command, I am determined to see an increased focus on the issue in order to deliver the results we expect.

[Ian Austin]

Despite all that, the Minister has not had much success, has he? In 2010, 2,092 companies were fined for employing illegal labour, but by 2012 that figure had almost halved to 1,215. Will he work with other Departments, not just to get a grip of illegal employment, but to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and of the minimum wage, so that British workers are no longer undercut by cheap, illegal labour from abroad?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer. I acknowledged that the statistics had not been as good as we had hoped. I will take no lectures from somebody in the party that let immigration spiral out of control and that had no grip on the system. It is this Government who are getting a grip and who have seen net migration fall by more than a third.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

13. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of incorporating legal highs in the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

16. What plans she has to speed up the deportation of those refused asylum in the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We want to continue to deport those who have no right to be in the United Kingdom, whether they are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders. Increased use of detained fast track and our national removals centre will reduce the risk of absconding, as well as being more successful in deporting people.

[Stephen Phillips]

One of the frustrations felt by all our constituents about the asylum and wider immigration system is the seemingly endless ways in which failed asylum seekers and immigrants are able to keep on appealing. I hope that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use the forthcoming immigration Bill to clamp down on the many rights of appeal.

[Mr Harper]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. and learned Friend that that is exactly what we are going to do. The immigration Bill plans to reduce the number of decisions it takes to remove someone who has no right to be in the country. Reducing the number of appeals will make the process easier and swifter.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

17. Whether Scots would be able to retain UK citizenship if Scotland became an independent country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

T5. Last year, the number of inspections to enforce the minimum wage fell to half what it was in the final year of the last Government. Why?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

That is really a matter for the Treasury, but I think I know where—[Interruption.] Let me just answer the question. I think I know where the hon. Gentleman is going with this. I have checked these matters carefully. If we compare the whole period of the last Labour Government, from when the national minimum wage was introduced, with the whole period of this Government, we can see that this Government have been prosecuting at a slightly faster rate. However, we are not doing it fast enough. We have set up a number of taskforces, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), which is taking significant action on these matters and will continue to do so.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

T4. Despite the 30% reduction in net migration since this Government came to power, people across North Wiltshire are extremely concerned about the whole issue of immigration, particularly with regard to Bulgaria and Romania later this year. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that people from Bulgaria and Romania in particular are not tempted here by the ability to avoid our tax system or, even worse, the ability to benefit from our benefits system?

[Mr Harper]

On Bulgaria and Romania, my hon. Friend will know that in the Immigration Bill and elsewhere we have set out a number of changes that we are making to ensure that only people who are here exercising treaty rights—who are here working—can access the benefits system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out some of those earlier. I hope my hon. Friend will see that tough and firm action continue.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T8. I would like to press the Secretary of State a little further on the question of a landlord register. Does she agree that it might assist her in some of her other duties, such as in relation to antisocial behaviour? If she wants to see how a landlord register can be introduced as a self-financing system—and one that has worked very well—she should look no further than north of the border, where one was introduced by the Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

[Mr Harper]

I thought I would have a go this time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered very well before, but I thought I would take a different tack, because it gives me an opportunity to say, as my right hon. Friend did, that we will bring forward proposals to ensure that landlords have to check the immigration status of tenants. I have had some good discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We will be bringing those steps forward, and I am confident they will be sensible, proportionate and effective.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

T6. Have Ministers checked whether the family migration rules are compliant with our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child?

[Mr Harper]

Yes, we are confident that they are. Last week I met the chair of the all-party group on migration, the noble Baroness Hamwee, to discuss the report. The Government will consider the recommendations in that report, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out clearly the objective of the family migration rules: to ensure that those who want to make their family life in the United Kingdom are able to support their families, rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T9. Reductions in overdose deaths; reductions in in-patient A and E admissions for drug addicts; reductions in house burglary; increases in employment of drug addicts in treatment—on all these indicators, Bassetlaw is outperforming the rest of the country. Why?