Immigration Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that for some time I have asked for the Home Office to look at the 11% of foreign prisoners in the Prison Service in England and Wales, see where there is dual citizenship and have that UK citizenship withdrawn from those who have committed the most serious offences, yet only a handful of people have had their citizenship withdrawn. How does that position reconcile with the new position today, which I support? It may stand the legal test here up to the Supreme Court if it went that far, but—a secondary question—would it stand the test of the European courts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The al-Jedda case went to the Supreme Court, which promulgated its verdict last October, which was when we started to look at how we could legislate and what vehicle we could use to remove people. That circumstance might apply to somebody in the United Kingdom or, as in that case, to someone outside it. The important point is that the process applies in cases where the individual could access the citizenship of another country, and it would be open to them to apply for such citizenship. That is the whole point.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for being very generous in giving way again. She may recall the case of Abu Hamza, who was an Egyptian citizen as well as a British one. Under the Government of Mubarak, the former President of Egypt, his Egyptian citizenship was withdrawn, leaving a very difficult case for this Government and, indeed, the previous one to deal with. The Home Secretary has surely come to the House with some figure in her mind of the number of those currently on the prison estate who might fall into the Abu Hamza category. I wondered what the number is.

[Mrs May]

My only comment on my hon. Friend’s request for figures is that he mentioned people on the prison estate. We are not necessarily talking about them, but the number of people involved is very limited. The number of cases of the particular type of deprivation of citizenship dealt with since the law was changed—I apologise for saying that that was in 2003, because the law was changed by the 2006 Act—is 27. Since 2006, 27 people have been deprived of citizenship under the conducive powers, which apply only when somebody would not be made stateless.

[Mark Pritchard]

For clarification, is it the Government’s position that someone considered under the new criterion would not need to have committed any criminal or terrorism-related offence, but could be walking around the streets of London right now?

[Mrs May]

Yes. People need not have been convicted of a particular offence to be deprived of their citizenship. On the numbers, it might be helpful for me to add that 13 people were deprived on grounds of fraud during the same period. Those are the sort of numbers that we are talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will look at my hon. Friend’s point. Obviously there is a process whereby somebody is informed of a decision once it has been taken. I will check the timetable for judicial review and come back to him on it.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Home Secretary will know that I, along with many other Members across the House, have championed refugees being allowed to come to the UK in some numbers. As she will know, in the case of Syria, there is a national security issue relating to British nationals with either single or dual citizenship returning to this country and possibly causing problems here. How quickly does she believe the new law will be in place, and does she believe it should apply to nationals and dual nationals coming back to the UK from Syria?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of people who may have trained and fought in Syria potentially coming back here radicalised and with the desire to do us harm. I am sure that is a matter of concern throughout the House. As I have indicated, I believe the power in question would be exercised in a limited number of cases, but it is important that the Government have it. As I have said, they had it until about 10 years ago, then the law was changed to reduce their ability to take action against those acting in a way that comes under the definition of “seriously prejudicial” to us. It is important that we have such a power, but I am not in a position to say to my hon. Friend that I will suddenly use it in a number of circumstances. The power will be used on a case-by-case basis, but, as I have indicated, I expect that it will be used in a very limited number of circumstances.

I will conclude my remarks on new clause 18 by stating again that it is consistent with our obligations under international law and, as I have said, it was a power we had for most of the past century. It is a carefully constructed measure designed to give effect to our declaration under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, but it goes no further. My officials, together with those from other relevant Departments and in consultation with our in-House legal advisers, conduct the research and provide a recommendation on each case, but these are decisions that I—or, on the rare occasions I am not available, another Secretary of State—will review and sign off personally. The persons subject to provisions in the new clause will continue to be afforded an independent right of appeal, retaining an avenue of judicial redress. This is not about arbitrarily depriving people of their citizenship; it is a targeted policy that will be used sparingly against very dangerous individuals who have brought such action upon themselves through terrorist-related acts. I urge the House to conclude that new clause 18 is a proportionate and necessary measure.

New clause 13 stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and I will wait to hear what he says and respond to the issues he raises. New clause 15 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I will make a few comments about it. I respect the fact that he will speak about his own new clause, so at this point I will not go into all the detail but will simply set out a few points.

I think we are all agreed across the House—this is one of the things the Bill tries to do—that we want to enhance the ability of our country to deport foreign criminals from the United Kingdom where it is appropriate to do so. The Government have taken a simple position on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which is that our judiciary have not been interpreting it in the way we believe it should be interpreted, because it is a qualified right in the European convention itself. Having changed the immigration rules, and that not having had the effect we desired, we are now putting it into primary legislation and ensuring that we clarify absolutely what the qualified interpretation of article 8 should be in relation to the Government’s ability to remove people from the United Kingdom. I believe that is an important change that the public, as well as Members of the House, would wish us to put through. It is right that the Government are taking this opportunity to include that measure in the Bill. We all have a shared desire to ensure that we enhance our ability to deport foreign criminals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has tabled a new clause that would amend the Bill, but I think that some aspects of it would not strengthen our ability to deport foreign criminals, but could actually weaken it. Other aspects of the language he uses might indeed strengthen our proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Lots of things are learned by experience, but this is an extremely serious issue. If the hon. Gentleman sees merit in our manuscript amendments (a) and (b), he should, between now and 4 o’clock, discuss that with those on his Front Bench, because I do not want to divide the House on such serious issues concerning the rights of individuals and the protection of people in the UK. I just think there is an issue here: this matter was brought to our attention late, and we want to ensure judicial oversight. I hope we can deal properly with the issue in another place, with full support and after full consultation. Let us discuss this matter genuinely.

[Mark Pritchard]

The shadow Minister is entitled to ask legitimate questions about the Bill, but does he agree with the principle of new clause 18, without necessarily knowing all the details at this stage?

[Mr Hanson]

The principle is the deprivation of the citizenship of individuals who are naturalised, and that might be a positive thing, but we would need to consider it in detail. We have only had 24 hours. I want to consider the legal implications, as well as the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We need to look at judicial oversight and when and how notice should be given. We also need to look at what rights individuals have to appeal and what happens if someone is in another state when the decision is taken. What should be the responsibility and response of that other state? What should happen to the family? These are important issues which we need to cogitate and reflect on, and to return to in another place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters, and I shall try to address his point very squarely. I urge him to intervene again if he feels that I have not done so satisfactorily, in which case I shall spell out my argument more clearly.

My new clause differs from the clauses in part 2 in that it is mandatory. Serious offenders cannot pull out and wield article 8 as a joker to trump deportation. Unless there is a tangible threat to life or limb, those convicted killers, rapists, drug dealers and other serious criminals should be sent home: they should not remain on the streets of Britain.

I spent a long time crafting and consulting on my new clause. It allows a very narrow exception to the wider automaticity of deportation when that is in the overwhelming humanitarian interests of the children involved, but the discretion is to be exercised by the Home Secretary rather than the courts. The new clause uses a Home Office mechanism, or model, to protect that discretion from human rights challenges by expressly stipulating that the only challenge can be by way of judicial review.

[Mark Pritchard]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am one of the co-signatories of the new clause. However, the Home Secretary legitimately raised the possibility of unintended consequences should the new clause remove the discretion and flexibility that currently exists in relation to the discretion to deport someone who has been in prison for less than 12 months.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point, but the new clause is tailored to serious criminals, which is all the more reason for it to be considered reasonable and proportionate. Of course, if the Government wish to insert a provision covering persistent petty offenders—which would be far more likely to attract challenges under article 8, because in the case of less serious offences deportation is more likely to be deemed disproportionate—they will be able to do so. However—it is odd to be attacked for not being tough enough—I think that the main focus should be on those who are jailed for a year or more. That is the model in the UK Borders Act 2007.

Syrian Refugees

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) to the quote I gave earlier from the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, who has welcomed our announcement. He said that it

“will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees”,

and that it reaffirms

“the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts”.

I think that what matters is whether we are providing help and support for vulnerable refugees in Syria. We are showing solidarity through the humanitarian aid effort that we are providing. As I have said, we are providing the second largest contribution in the humanitarian aid effort in the world, after the United States, which is a very big step in showing solidarity.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not think that the word “orphans” was mentioned by her in the statement or, indeed, by the shadow Home Secretary. Is it not right that, by definition, vulnerable children and children at risk must include orphans?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), we will look at this case by case. We have said that children at risk are obviously one of the categories that we will prioritise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has reminded me that our work on orphans is not just what will happen as a result of this scheme, because we are doing very specific work to support them in the region.

UN Syrian Refugees Programme

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed in a way that we are not. [Laughter.] I have made very clear what our policy is when it comes to assisting the largest possible number of people in the region, and I think that that is the right approach. It enables us to help hundreds of thousands of people by providing water, medical resources and food. We are supporting the neighbouring countries and helping them to do the right thing, and I think that we can be very proud of that support.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am proud of the fact that our Government is the largest donor to Syria. Of course we need a permanent and a political solution, and of course we cannot take every refugee. However, with the greatest respect, I disagree with the Minister. Surely there is room for more children in this country, particularly vulnerable children such as orphans and those who have been most severely disabled as a result of the conflict. We are not talking about taking everyone, but surely we can take some more, as well as helping on the ground.

[Mr Harper]

As I said in my statement, we granted refugee status to 1,100 Syrians in the year to last September, and we will continue to grant such status if we receive asylum applications. We should consider how we can help the largest possible number of people, including those who are vulnerable. As I said in answer to questions from Liberal Democrat Members, one of the programmes that we have been supporting is the UNICEF programme, which has been championed by my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary and which has helped 15,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian children, and I think that that is the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Of course, since 2007, Romanians and Bulgarians have been able to come to Britain to study, if they are self-sufficient, or to work in a skilled occupation, where they have asked for permission to do so. All that is happening at the end of the year is that the general restrictions are being lifted. Of course, if they want to come here to work and contribute, they are very welcome to do so; the changes set out last week by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary make it clear that we do not want them coming here just to claim benefits. I think that those reforms are welcome and are supported by Government Members.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government and the Minister on getting non-EU immigration figures down. I want to be helpful to him. He will know that the respected think-tank Migration Watch UK has predicted that between 30,000 and 70,000 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants will come to the UK every year for five years. What figures, within those parameters, does he favour?

[Mr Harper]

As I said, we consulted the Migration Advisory Committee. I have seen a range of forecasts. I have seen the Migration Watch UK one, forecasts from the two countries concerned, which are much lower, and other forecasts that are much higher. The fact that there is such a range of forecasts from independent commentators demonstrates how sensible the Government’s decision was not to join in.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady started by referring to people being released, but these were people who had come to the end of their sentence. That is what happens—it happens in the normal course of events—but for individuals who pose a terrorist risk, or who are suspected of posing a terrorist risk, the law enforcement agencies take appropriate measures to ensure the security and safety of the public. As I said, national security is the Government’s first concern.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I offer the Home Secretary my full support. As she will know, under existing legislation, she has the power to revoke the British citizenship of somebody who holds dual citizenship. May I encourage her to undertake a review of all those in custody and under TPIMs who hold dual citizenship and to consider revoking their British citizenship so that we can deport them more freely back to their home countries?

[Mrs May]

I note the point that my hon. Friend makes. I think I am right in saying that the majority of individuals who are under TPIMs are British nationals. He is right to say that it is possible to revoke the British citizenship of someone who is a dual national, but we would have to ensure that we did not render anyone stateless in so doing. There are a number of people who are subject to TPIMs who are British nationals.

“Go Home or Face Arrest” Campaign

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way already and shall try to make some progress. I may come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

The hate vans, or racist vans, were ranting at people through a billboard with a telephone number on it, instead of communicating with them reasonably, trying to get a measured response and trying to ensure that people can return voluntarily. We should be helping them—assisting them—not shouting at them and giving a telephone number on a billboard. That is not the way to deal with some of the keen and sensitive issues to do with immigration. However, there is no way that we will get through to this Government on such points.

The Minister knows how hard life is for illegal immigrants. Life is desperate for illegal immigrants in this country. They cannot work—certainly, not legally—and they do not have access to benefits. They live a life of destitution, in fear of being detected. That is the reality of life for illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom, not the Daily Mail version, in which they are living the life of Riley, at our expense, laughing behind our backs, which sometimes I think that the Minister believes. It is a life of desperate destitution and fear.

It is about fear and that is what is being communicated. We have to look underneath the stupid message—the silly “Go home or face arrest”—and find out what it is intended to do and to achieve. Stupid poster though it is, there is something fundamental underneath this. The campaign is trying to engender a sense of fear and exaggerate the problem, to politicise it and appeal to the basest political instincts. That is a dangerous game to play. That is where it leads to real issues, tensions and anxieties in our communities. This Government should stop that and ensure that it is never done again. These hate vans and racist vans are touring our country.

Let us gloss over the obvious point that those who are notionally targeted by the campaign probably cannot read English and probably have no idea what the vans are trying to say. If they do read English, the first thing they will do is go right underground and try to hide away, having been made aware, thanks to the Government, of a more aggressive campaign that is out to get them.

Let us be generous and say that this campaign gets through to its target audience. Mr Pritchard, imagine that you are an illegal immigrant, walking down your street in your multiracial, multi-diverse community. There is something in the back of your mind and you are thinking, “There’s something I’ve got to do. What is it? I can’t figure out what it is.” Then, all of a sudden, one of these vans comes along, telling you to go home and you say, “That’s it! That’s what I forgot to do! All this time I’ve been in this country, I’ve forgotten to go home whence I came.” What nonsense. [Interruption.] No wonder you are laughing, Mr Pritchard, as is every other hon. Member. That is how nonsensical a concept this is. Imagine that.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. For the record, unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that I show any emotion when chairing debates. I am completely impartial.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry to have misinterpreted your wry smile as any sign of jocularity, Mr Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I was smiling at the colour of your tie.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that that is resolved. Thank you, Mr Pritchard.

Come on, let us figure out what it is really all about. I think that all hon. Members in this Chamber can be candid. This has little, if anything, to do with illegal immigration, but everything to do with the rise of the UK Independence party in the opinion polls. It is about this Conservative Government’s fear of the electoral challenge from UKIP and the fact that it has made immigration a key plank of its appeal. The Government are now engaged in a desperate race to the bottom with Nigel Farage, to see who can be the hardest on immigration. I gently say to the Minister that he will never out-UKIP UKIP. UKIP is the master of nasty, pernicious, right-wing populism, and it is to the Conservative party’s credit that it will never beat UKIP in a race to the bottom on such issues, regardless of how hard the Conservative party might try.

What did Nigel Farage do when he saw the campaign? He laughed in the Home Secretary’s face and mumbled something about the Big Brother state—imagine the campaign’s target laughing in the Home Secretary’s face. I bet Nigel Farage went home that evening and, like a badge of honour, knew that he had managed to move the Government significantly on to his territory, where he will decisively beat them on such issues. This is UKIP UK. UKIP does not have even one Member of Parliament, but the whole political world down here is now spinning around the world of the fruitcakes and loonies, as the Prime Minister so cleverly, clearly and accurately described them. That is where we are now: the reality of UKIP UK. UKIP is pulling the strings and the Conservative party is dancing to it.

People might wonder why I, as a Scots Nat, am concerned about these vans in London. First, they appal me as a citizen of this country, and they should appal every decent, reasonable person. They are appalling and should not be here. But the Government brought the campaign to Scotland. When I first saw the vans, I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary asking whether there were any plans to bring them to Scotland. I said, “We do not want the vans in Scotland. We have fantastic relations throughout every single community, and we value those relations. The vans would be most unwelcome.” I did not get the courtesy of a reply. I therefore wrote again to the Home Secretary asking why I did not get a reply to my letter. Coincidentally, I got a reply from the Minister yesterday—it might be that there just happens to be a debate. I say this not to the Minister but to his officials: get your act together, for goodness’ sake.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Remarks should be made to the Chair, not directly to officials. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recalls that, as he has been here for many years.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Pritchard. It must have just slipped my mind.

I ask the Minister to ask his officials to ensure that they reply, for goodness’ sake, to Members of Parliament on sensitive issues such as this. Will the Minister pass on to his officials that it is not good enough that Members of Parliament are not responded to until they decide to hold a debate on an issue to ensure that they get that reply? That certainly seems to be consistent with what is happening in the Home Office.

In the meantime, between my writing to the Home Secretary and where we are today, the full suite of “Go home” materials arrived in Glasgow. The UK Border Agency office in Brand street, Glasgow now plays host to those appalling materials. We do not have UKIP in Scotland. In Scotland, we loathe UKIP to the bottom of our ballot boxes. UKIP does not even retain its deposits. Nigel Farage had to get a police escort the last time he visited Edinburgh. UKIP is alien to our cultural and political values. The campaign jars with our sense of community, and it is something that we just do not want in Scotland.

The Minister should take his battle with UKIP elsewhere and leave Scotland out of it, because I do not want people in Scotland who go to the Glasgow Brand street office to be met with those materials. What do those materials say? Before people are even sitting down, they are asked to think about going home, with the inquiry “Is life hard here?” They are then told “Going home is simple,” before being told by another poster with a photograph of a plane:

“This plane can take you home. We can book the tickets.”

On the way out there is a dangling plane, which suggests “This is the plane that can take you home.” That is absolutely disgusting and contrary to how we would like to address such issues sensitively, and it makes me more determined than ever that, with independence, Scotland will always get the Government whom we vote for. We will not have a Conservative Government with their one lone panda of a Member of Parliament ruling the roost over our country and imposing such nonsense on my nation, and thank goodness we will secure that next year and end such Tory rubbish in our Glasgow offices. Minister, please keep Scotland well out of this.

What happens now? We have had the ASA ruling today, and we are all very pleased. It looks like the end of these appalling hate vans—these racist vans. The son of hate vans might be coming, I do not know, but perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he is encouraged by what he has seen over the past few months. When the Government were first challenged, they seemed to be able to pull out some sort of statistic showing that the vans were actually working. I do not know what on earth that statistic was based on, but perhaps the Minister could tell us about how the vans were supposed to be working.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

Those who study these matters closely, such as the hon. Gentleman and me, will be familiar with the New Zealand model. It raises some interesting questions, which we are considering as part of our international case study. It is not without practical problems, however, and I do not think that it would provide an instant solution to our woes, but it is worthy of further consideration.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Returning to Operation Alice, restoring public trust in the police and maintaining public trust in senior police officers is vital. Does the Minister therefore agree that there should be full disclosure of all the meetings between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the press relating to the operation?

[Damian Green]

As my hon. Friend might know, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has just responded to a freedom of information request on this matter. I can only repeat that the course of justice is not served by my giving the House a running commentary on an ongoing criminal investigation.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in 2014.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me and other colleagues the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Much has been discussed, in recent weeks, about EU and non-EU migration. In many ways, Bulgarian and Romanian migration from inside the EU cannot be fully contextualised unless it is placed in the wider immigration debate about those who want to settle in Britain from outside the EU. In all such discussions and debates, I believe that tone, accuracy and objectivity, rather than subjectivity, must be our goal as policy makers—to articulate fact rather than fiction, to be pragmatic rather than ideological, and to seek out solutions rather than scapegoats. As legislators, our responsibility lies not only in what we enact, but in what we articulate. Words still have power in politics, especially in the sensitive area of immigration. I am sure that this afternoon, the tone and content of Members’ contributions will show that the House of Commons is in touch with all the communities it represents while ensuring that the debate attracts more light than heat.

However, it is true that there is little trust between the public and mainstream parties on immigration. Is that any surprise? So often, the public have been misinformed and misled about the true impact of immigration. That is something that the Labour party has recently recognised and admitted, which is welcome, but it cannot right the wrongs of the past decade. Labour’s open-door policy broke the trust between politicians and the public on an issue where public trust is vital.

Immigration is part of our ongoing national narrative and it needs trust from all communities, including immigrant and migrant communities. Whatever politicians say, no politician—however clever, however insistent, however tough their rhetoric—can spin their way out of people’s experience of the impact of immigration on their everyday lives. Individuals, families and communities in rural and urban areas have felt the rapid social change that mass migration and immigration can bring. It is undeniable that EU migration impacts on schools, hospitals, public transport and social housing queues. It is real-life experience, not exaggerated politics.

Let me put on the record that immigration has brought many benefits to this country. One only has to look at the national health service and the armed forces and immigration’s benefits are clear. There are many other examples, which colleagues will no doubt underscore this afternoon. In my constituency, immigration has brought many economic benefits in the rural industries, in local manufacturing and in other areas. It is also right that Britain should remain attractive to genuine foreign students and those who fill national skills gaps in so-called “shortage occupations”, such as paediatricians, maths teachers, chemical engineers and in other skills and professions. Again, international students can be found in Shropshire—as they are found all over the country—in for example, the Defence College of Aeronautical Engineering or Harper Adams university.

Britain is very much open for business, and may that always be the case. The to-ing and fro-ing of foreign nationals coming here to work and study is nothing new, but in recent years, the scale of those who have abused their visa status and British hospitality and generosity has been unprecedented. That is why mainstream political parties must be willing to talk about it and take action. By doing so, we, as a Parliament, isolate extremist and fringe parties. It is my view that the duty of all legislators is to hold an open and honest debate about the benefits of immigration and migration to Britain, while acknowledging that there are some disbenefits, and that there can be real societal changes as a result of uncontrolled immigration.

That is why I am pleased that a Conservative-led Government have taken action over the past three years to reduce such abuses. I am also glad that our coalition partners have finally caught up with us.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he acknowledge that there is a great deal of concern that migrant workers from the countries of the former eastern bloc have been exploited, and that wage levels of indigenous workers have been undermined? Does he accept, therefore, that it would be very positive not only if there were an emphatic endorsement of a minimum wage, but if prosecutions went to court—none have over the past two years—for breaches of the minimum wage?

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because he prematurely comes on to points that I will raise later, when I will be happy to address his specific question.

The Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out in a recent speech that

“in order to remain an open and tolerant Britain, we need an immigration system that is zero-tolerant towards abuse.”

He is right—the British are tolerant, but they are also intolerant of abuse of all kinds. That is one of the great hybrid virtues of Britishness. That said, I reject our junior partner’s idea for a security bond. It is neither practical nor—probably—administratively workable, and it may also discriminate against those who are genuinely seeking to stay a short time in Britain, but who do not have access to support funding. There should be no penalising of legitimate visa applicants.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman understands the Liberal Democrat policy better than I do, because it was not clear exactly what the bond was meant to relate to—to family visit visas or to spouse migration into this country, similar to the situation in Australia, where anybody, such as a church, an organisation, or somebody else, can put down a financial assurance that somebody who is coming as the spouse of an Australian citizen will not be claiming on the taxpayer. Does the hon. Gentleman see the two in the same or a different light?

[Mark Pritchard]

We will have to wait and see the detail. In general, I do not support the policy, but in terms of the specifics and details of particular categories, it may well apply. There may be a case for a bond relating to higher risk work visas, where either the employee or the employer puts up the bond, but that does not make the case for a general catch-all policy. I hope that that, in part, answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On that point, let us clarify that it is not Government policy to have any sort of bond at the moment. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mark Pritchard]

That is right, but I take the Deputy Prime Minister’s words on bonds seriously. Clearly, I would not want to break the bond in the coalition, and I welcome his abandonment of the Liberal Democrat policy of an amnesty for illegal overstayers who have been in Britain illegally for more than 10 years. That would have given the green light for even more abuse—perhaps it is a welcome case of the dog wagging the tail.

As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs will know—I understand that he is on his way to this debate—the sheer number of overstayers is a real challenge. According to his Committee, the backlog could take a quarter of a century to clear. It is a shame that he is not here yet, because I suspect that he will be Lord Speaker, the Speaker in the House of Lords, by then; he will have to check Hansard. That is why new and innovative thinking is needed.

My own view is that new immigration enforcement will never have the level of information, resource or manpower to clear that backlog sufficiently. That is why I think that the Government should consider new policies and perhaps even the following suggestion. Anyone who is an overstayer on any visa—work, tourist, student, family and so on—who does not declare themselves to authorities by 1 April 2014, or a date to be agreed, and regularise their visa status, and is subsequently caught, will be banned from re-entering the United Kingdom for 20 years or an agreed tenure. Those who do declare themselves will be asked to leave, but could reapply to return to the UK on a future visa after a period of 12 months, or a similar period to be agreed. Those who regularise their status will be rewarded; those who continue to abuse the system will receive a sanction.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman did not say, but I presume that he means non-EU nationals, because if he means, and includes, EU nationals, he has to make the same deal for British citizens.

[Mark Pritchard]

In my preamble, I said that I would be speaking about non-EU immigrants before coming on to the particular—[Interruption.] Giving contextualisation I called it—giving context. If the hon. Gentleman will just be a little more patient, the narrative of the debate will become a little clearer. I have answered the point: it is non-EU specifically.

The system that I have set out incentivises people to declare themselves to the authorities and, I believe, would reduce the number of overstayers and the challenge that the authorities face to apprehend them. This is not an amnesty. These are hard-headed sanctions for those who abuse the system and for whom the system is inadequately equipped, given the huge—mountainous—legacy left by the last Labour Administration.

Similarly, UK Visas and Immigration as it is now called should ensure that all new applicants applying for visas are aware of the penalties for overstaying. Those could be financial and, similarly, the visa sanctions that I have just outlined. The Government might also consider further financial penalties for sponsors of visas who knowingly mislead authorities. As the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly said:

“The challenge isn’t just stopping people coming into Britain illegally, it’s about dealing with individuals who come…legitimately but then become illegal once they’re already here.”

However, there is good news: things are, finally, being turned around. This Government have cut net migration by one third. In real terms, that means that over the last three years 250,000 fewer immigrants have come into the UK than would have been the case under the last Government. This Government deserve much credit for their record, not least for rooting out 600-plus bogus language schools and colleges and for doubling fines for unscrupulous employers—a subject that was touched on earlier—for hiring illegal workers. Often, they are hired for less than the minimum wage and exploited, with their rights suspended. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will welcome the doubling of those fines.

I would now like to narrow the debate, answering the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my view, then, on this matter? Would he like to see prosecutions brought in the courts against people who deliberately break the minimum wage law?

[Mark Pritchard]

Of course. I think that there would be consensus on that issue and I hope that there will be consensus on a lot of what is being shared by all of us today. Absolutely, but there is a huge legacy that this Government are having to tackle.

I would now like to narrow the debate to the particular, rather than the general, and deal with Bulgaria and Romania. On housing, I welcome the Government’s recent announcement, ahead of the transitional border controls on Bulgarian and Romanian migration being lifted on 31 December, that they will introduce sanctions for private sector landlords who house illegal immigrants, many of whom are kept in over-occupied, cramped and often squalid conditions. These are similar sanctions to those that we have just discussed vis-à-vis employers. Migration and immigration remain the biggest driver of housing growth—housing demand that puts pressure on many of the communities represented here today.

I also welcome the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the Department for Communities and Local Government will soon issue clearer guidance to local authorities and councils about ensuring that priority for housing is given to local people through an habitual residence test. However, my view is that that policy should be set out in binding legislation rather than as guidance, as should the policy of giving housing priority to our armed forces. There should be no opt-outs. According to the Government, only half of all councils currently set local residency tests. That needs to change. The reality is that some councils, especially in some urban areas, may be tempted, for political reasons, not to implement that policy.

The Prime Minister, in his recent speech in Ipswich, was also right to say that Britain should not be a “soft touch” for “benefit tourists”. I am glad that my right hon. Friends the Health Secretary and the Home Secretary have expressed a similar view. That needs to be the case, whatever people’s nationality. This is not isolated only to European migrants, but our focus today is on Bulgaria and Romania, and a BBC poll, issued at five past midnight today, suggests that no more than 4% of Bulgarians and 1% of Romanians might consider coming to the UK in 2014. Given that 150,000 Bulgarians and Romanians are already here, under the permitted work scheme and via other routes, I suspect that the “Newsnight” poll is somewhat timid in its estimate, but even if those percentages are accurate, that would mean 350,000 people from each working-age population, from each of the countries, arriving in the UK. I refer the hon. Member for Rhondda to one of the headlines in tomorrow morning’s papers if he does not believe that to be the case. [Interruption.] He does not know which one yet.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. I also praise him for his reference to the BBC “Newsnight” poll. The BBC is spinning that that suggests that very few people will be coming to our shores from Romania and Bulgaria, but in fact it probably means the opposite, because, of the 73 million people who live in the A8 accession countries, 1.1 million have come to our shores, which is a rate of 1.5%.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes a very helpful contribution to the debate, as he always does. I am grateful for his analysis, which he has obviously done over the last few hours since the poll came out. I come back to the point that it is a significant amount. Whether it is 1%, 1.5% or 4%, it is a significant amount of people for communities to absorb and public services to serve.

We hear that Germany is toughening up its rules, finding ways around EU strictures. Coupled with Spain’s high unemployment rate and comparatively low benefits, that makes the UK an increasingly attractive option for many where poverty is still widespread and the minimum wage is one third of what it is in the UK. I do not question the integrity of the BBC poll, but I do question its interpretation.

EU migration affects schools as well. I am sure that colleagues know examples of how demand for school places has meant that some parents cannot send their children to their school of choice because of the influx of EU migrants. Some families have had to place siblings in different schools as a result. Of course, that can also happen because of other, unrelated demographic changes, but it is certainly the case that a lot of this is happening because of demands from immigration.

There is also the impact from teachers and classroom assistants giving special attention to children who do not speak English. That can be disruptive to the rest of the classroom. It is disruptive to school life and a distraction for other pupils. There is also the cost to local education authorities and school budgets of translation and interpretation.

Similarly, EU migration has an impact on local GP services, acute hospital trusts and wider primary care demand, which is why the Government are right to try to recoup millions from other European economic area Governments when their citizens use the NHS. It should have been happening for years, but it has not been. Hospitals might be required, through statute, to do their bit, perhaps with financial incentives for trusts to co-operate with the Government on the legal status of the patients they look after. Surely NHS trust boards should have a duty to ensure that those they treat, save in emergencies, are those who have the first right to be treated. That is not lacking compassion, but recognising that the NHS, even with record funding under the Conservative-led Government, has finite and scarce resources—it is the national health service, not the international health service. Britain must remain an open and tolerant society, but we cannot be the hospital for the world. Health tourism must end, and health trusts, not only the Government, have a major role to play in delivering fairness in treatment.

[Chris Bryant]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point about people from other countries using the NHS, though we have always had bilateral agreements with many countries, so there is a process of recompense. A lot of British people, many of whom are older, are based in Spain and have a problem getting NHS treatment there, so many of them come back to the UK to use the service here. The real issue is that the NHS here, unlike everywhere else, is non-contributory, but he would not want to change that, would he?

[Mark Pritchard]

No, not at all, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is a bit of a red herring. He is right: 1.4 million UK citizens live in the other 27—26 plus one—EU states, several hundred thousand of whom live in Spain, as he points out. But I think he knows full well that my point is that the previous Labour Government, over 13 years, failed to recoup any funds, which, as he alluded to, they could have done and which this Government are doing. I hope he will support that policy.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Pritchard]

I shall move on to jobs after I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend has made a robust case. I represent this area, which has two big hospitals— St Mary’s Paddington and Barts—that have had a significant problem with NHS tourism going back many decades. Does he not recognise that many doctors feel strongly about the Hippocratic oath, so they would be very reluctant to have any sort of pecking order, whether of UK and non-UK citizens or EU citizens and others? Some of the problems he has identified therefore, real though they are, will be incredibly difficult to resolve. It is wrong to make too much of a party political point on the subject; yes, there have been problems, but I know St Mary’s Paddington has done a hell of a lot of work to get a lot of the money back, although significant NHS tourism is still unrecompensed.

[Mark Pritchard]

I was not making a party political point; I was merely making a statement of fact. The Government are rightly seeking to recoup funds from EEA states and the previous Government failed to do so. With regards to the particular points my hon. Friend raises, first, those same GPs know that the NHS has scarce resources and, secondly, whether GPs are prepared to deal with health tourism or not, let us at least discuss it with the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association, GPs and acute trusts and primary care trusts—now clinical commissioning groups. We need a grown-up discussion about whether we should do it. I believe we should and the Government appear to think the same—or I think the same as the Government—so it is a matter of how we do it. It is right and fair for the British taxpayer and the British people that we do so.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Pritchard]

I shall give way to my right hon. Friend after my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has intervened.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend makes a fair case about trying to change attitudes in the NHS—among GP commissioners and in hospital—but I hope that he recognises that some moneys will inevitably be incredibly difficult to get back, partly due to the ethos of the medical profession, and it would be wrong to second-guess that to any large extent.

[Mark Pritchard]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames).

[Nicholas Soames]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech on this important matter. I endorse his point. There is nothing political in this. People all over the country feel strongly about it. I reassure him that the cross-party group on balanced migration called on the Secretary of State for Health this morning to discuss that very matter. It is clear that the Secretary of State understands the need for movement on this and I am hopeful that plans will shortly be announced that will deliver clarity. Most of all, clear direction from the Department of Health is required.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to my hon. and right hon. Friends for their interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is absolutely right that we are all treading in a new area, but it is an area that we should enter; the public expect us to enter it and this is a timely moment for us to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done over many years with his cross-party group, taking on often complex, challenging and sensitive issues with a measured vocabulary and a balanced context. I congratulate him on that. I was not aware of the discussion he mentioned, but I am delighted to hear about it. It shows that the Government are serious about NHS tourism and follows earlier comments from the Health Secretary only two or three weeks ago following the Prime Minister’s immigration speech in Ipswich, which I shall touch on later.

In defence of EU migrants, in particular with regard to jobs and employment, there are jobs that migrants are prepared to do that some British people are not prepared to do. For example, it can be difficult for some British farmers to find people to do fruit picking, which is hard, back-breaking work—I know, because I have done it. I picked strawberries on a Herefordshire farm as a student. As hon. and right hon. Members know, Herefordshire and Shropshire strawberries are the best in the world, but somebody needs to pick them. Hopefully, the new welfare reforms will reduce the number of British people refusing to take jobs. The Prime Minister recently stated that

“we can’t allow immigration to be a substitute for training our own workforce and giving them incentives to work.”

Immigration policy cannot be prejudiced by the unpreparedness of British people who are unwilling to work. Those who can work, should work or lose their benefits. Those who genuinely cannot work should get more help. Laziness can no longer be the rationale for a lax immigration system.

The Government are right to toughen up the English language test. If people cannot speak English, how can they be expected to find a job? They are open to exploitation and destined for hidden sweatshops and the subterranean labour market. That is not good for them and not good for those who care for and love them. Britain must remain an open and tolerant society, but we can employ the world.

Can the Government extend the transitional border controls at the end of the year? In my view, that would be the best outcome of all and was part of the wording of the Downing street e-petition to which the debate today is addressed. There is somewhat of a paradox. Article 23 of the Schengen borders code states that member states can reintroduce border controls:

“Where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security”.

It is interesting to note that today the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have the honour to be a member, will commence taking evidence from experts on national security and the EU, and will look at the national security challenges should the eurozone contract or collapse, with the likely mass movements of peoples throughout Europe—what I call, “a currency famine.”

Interestingly, article 23 has been implemented 26 times so far, most notably in Norway. The UK is, of course, not part of Schengen, but there are other provisions, including paragraph 22 of the EU’s free movement directive, which allows

“restrictions to be placed on the right of free movement and residence on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health”—

restrictions that are referred to as “special measures”. I hope that the Government will explore those legal definitions in more detail, while noting their obligations under existing treaties.

[Chris Bryant]

All that would allow Britain to do would be to enforce the rules we currently have because we do not subscribe to the whole of Schengen. Furthermore, the situations in which it has been used in other countries, such as in the discussions about the borders with Greece, show that it is used in truly exceptional circumstances and expressly forbids merely migratory transition.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am not saying that there is a legal route, but as a politician I do not subscribe to the view that “We have always done it this way” is the best way to answer every question. I take the view: “This is the challenge; this is where we are. Let us explore every avenue to get over the challenge.” It is incumbent on me, albeit as a minor legislator and a Back Bencher, to represent my constituents and to try to find a way, and I believe that where there is political will, a way will always be found.

On the control of our borders, I would like to see Britain ultimately take back full control. As more countries from the Balkans accede to the European Union, EU migration will become more, not less, of a political, social and economic challenge. I hope that taking back sovereign control of our borders, while avoiding pulling up the drawbridge, will be integral to the Government’s review of EU competences, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has done a huge amount of work. It is in our national economic and security interests to ensure that our borders are secure and that we regain the sovereign right to close them or, when necessary, to limit the numbers of those transiting them.

[Chris Bryant]

Based on our existing treaty obligations, the only way in which the hon. Gentleman could do that would be to leave the European Union. Is that not true?

[Mark Pritchard]

No, not at all, but on the issue of leaving the EU, thank goodness that at last, because of the Conservative-led coalition Government, the British people will have a say with an in-or-out referendum in 2017-18. The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap of saying “We have always done it this way. There can be no change because we know no other way.” What I am calling for today is for border controls to be within the review of EU competences. Is it now the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition to wish not even to discuss regaining some sovereignty over British borders? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer that.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is being absolutely preposterous in his argument. He knows perfectly well that if he wants to completely and utterly “have the right to close our borders”—his words, I think—to anyone from other European Union countries, we either force those countries to leave the union, or we leave it ourselves. We have treaty obligations to those people and, in fact, there was not even a vote in the House on the question of whether Bulgaria and Romania should join the European Union, because there was unanimity that they should do so, under the terms of the treaty as was provided.

[Mark Pritchard]

We will wait and see—we do not know whether what I have said will happen in the short term—but, as a highly intelligent man, the hon. Gentleman knows that all treaties can, at least in principle, be subject to amendment and change. I rest my case on that point of fact.

In conclusion, Britain has benefited much from EU migration and immigration, but there have also been disbenefits. Figures from the previous Government, following the last influx of European migrants in 2004, showed that their estimates had been spectacularly wrong. I pay credit to Migration Watch UK, which arguably has the best and most consistent record on immigration data. It estimates that 250,000 Bulgarians and Romanians will move to the UK between 2014 and 2019 and, as we heard earlier, the figure could be higher. Such an influx will reshape communities, affect public services and strain social cohesion.

We need to bear down on racism and xenophobia, but one of the best ways of doing that, as policy makers, is not through reactive policies but through preventive and proactive ones that make a difference to people’s lives, and a balanced immigration system that works. The British people are tolerant people, but they want an immigration system they can trust, that is fair and that helps the most vulnerable, not one that takes advantage of British generosity of heart and British hospitality. The Government are making genuine progress in achieving that, but there is still much to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I do not think that my hon. Friend and I disagree. I was trying to say that the British public expect, as a minimum from their Government, some sensible estimate of the numbers coming from Romania and Bulgaria. Why would a country open its borders to two foreign countries when it has no idea how many people will come to our shores from those countries? All I am asking, as a starting point, is why do we not use what happened last time to work out our estimate? If we do that, we eventually end up with well over 400,000 Romanians and Bulgarians in this country. I hope I am wrong—I hope those numbers are a huge exaggeration—but the Government are not saying whether I am wrong or right; the Government have no view, and they refuse to take one. The British public expect rather more than that from Her Majesty’s Government.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to try to fix the problem, although I do not think it is a problem that can be fixed. We should say, “No, we are not going to have immigration from Romania and Bulgaria.” When the transitional controls end, we should say, “Sorry, we are not going to allow immigration from these two countries.” For those who want to remain in the EU but renegotiate our terms of membership, that would send a firm signal of intent that this country means business.

At the moment, I do not believe that the other EU countries believe we are serious in trying to renegotiate our membership. I feel renegotiation of our membership is doomed to failure. I do not believe the other EU countries will take us seriously—they are going to shuffle about for years and years to put off the day when any new treaty could be signed. We may well be in the same bind in five, six, seven or 10 years’ time. I think we should leave the EU, but for those who want to stay, a firm signal of intent that we mean business in renegotiating our membership would say to the Romanians and the Bulgarians, “We are sorry, but Britain is full and we will not take immigration from your two countries.”

There are very good reasons for saying no, not least crime levels. There is currently a crime wave of bag snatchers and pickpockets on London underground. I am a special constable with the British Transport police, so I know what I am talking about. Eight out of 10 pickpockets on the London underground are Romanian, and I would welcome an intervention from the Romanian ambassador to say, “We recognise that you have a problem here in London with crime levels from our nationals. We are going to try to help address that situation for you.”

Of course, London is a huge magnet. With 7.5 million residents, it is the largest city in western Europe, compared with 3.5 million in Berlin, 3.25 million in Madrid, 2.5 million in Rome and 2 million in Paris. London is one of the world’s most cosmopolitan cities, and with English as our native language, London is a magnet for millions of people throughout the EU. Romanians or Bulgarians looking for some of their fellow countrymen in the EU are most likely to find them here in London. London is a magnet that attracts people from those two countries.

The very least that Her Majesty’s Government should do is ensure that all European nationals who intend to come to our country and stay for more than three months have to have a residency card. Her Majesty’s Government are allowed to do that under the rules—this point has been put to the Immigration Minister previously, not least in the excellent private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), and I have also raised it with him directly on the Floor of the House—and other countries do it, not least Spain. That means those countries have a far better handle on the numbers of other EU nationals coming across their borders, and it would give us a far better handle on where EU nationals are coming from and where they are living in this country. It would also help us with issues such as benefit entitlement, access to services in the national health service, and school places.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Will he set out the difference between a residency card and an identity card? The Conservative party, along with others, objected to an identity card, which is a complex area with many political challenges and pitfalls.

[Mr Hollobone]

A residency card is not an identity card in that sense, but there would be a requirement for EU nationals coming to live here for more than three months to have one. The card would basically be a trail of documentation that tells us who those people are, where they have come from and where they are living in this country. At the moment, Her Majesty’s Government, as far as I can tell, have no idea which EU countries are sending the most people here and where they are living.

We also need to get a far better handle on EU nationals coming here with young children, because there is pressure on school places in both Kettering and Peterborough, probably in The Wrekin and certainly in our big cities. Unless we get a better handle on the type of people coming here and their economic requirements, our local councils and other services will not be able to provide the public services appropriate for their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The petition that generated such a response focused on the desire to extend for a further five years the restrictions in place. I very much support that objective while recognising the constraints in European law and the realpolitik of renegotiation that applies to the discussions held by the Minister.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) spoke for many when he referred to the great concern and the need for a more muscular and robust response. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gave a good example of the sheer scale of new national insurance numbers that are being applied. I represent the adjacent constituency in the fens, and can attest to the pace and scale of migration that he highlighted and how that was not mirrored in census data or the funding formula under the previous or current Governments to address school funding for those for whom English is a second language. That backdrop frames our debate today and generates the concern that has led many to sign the petition.

I also recognise that in those renegotiations we need to be cognisant of the fact that many British people are benefiting from the rules allowing them to work elsewhere in Europe—even though that is not, in most cases, in Bulgaria and Romania—and that often, welfare reform issues are mixed up with immigration issues. Many in the farming community rely on seasonal workers and say that without them, the rural economy would suffer seriously. In other areas and in other debates, we need to address why such businesses are so reliant on labour from elsewhere in the EU at a time when others are not working. Sometimes we conflate different issues within the subject matter of the petition being signed.

The underlying concern behind the petition is one that I very much share, but I would like to broaden the discussion a little. Today’s debate has focused very much on low-skilled workers, but the difficulties with the free movement of labour and the automatic right to work are not confined to such workers. For example, it was in my constituency that David Gray was unlawfully killed by Dr Ubani, an EU-qualified doctor who could not speak English. He gave Mr Gray an overdose that killed him, and yet, as a doctor, he had the automatic right to work in the UK without passing any language test. For five years, we have been told that we can do nothing about that loophole, as the General Medical Council now calls it, because of EU law. When I raised the matter after being elected to the House—one of the first things that I did was campaign on the issue—I was constantly told that nothing could be done because of EU law, even though the French managed to have a workable system that generated language tests.

I simply highlight that case because I welcome the fact that the Government are fixing the problem, but also because it illustrates that the issue is not only confined to low-skilled workers. It is not just low-skilled workers who will come from Bulgaria and Romania. Where there are issues, for example, with doctors and their ability to speak English, those should be addressed. That case also highlights the risk-averse nature of much of the legal advice one often receives from Whitehall, which says to Ministers, “We cannot do things”. That is not a true representation of what EU law allows. It does allow the more robust approach that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex spoke about.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend raises an important point on the principle of always testing, because however expert the legal advice that is given by Government lawyers, it should always be tested and re-tested. He also makes an important point about those with higher skills. He may or may not be aware that, for example, veterinary surgeons coming into this country—of whom there are many from the EU—are not required to take an oral or written English test, and the same problems that he has highlighted arise with some of those vets.

[Stephen Barclay]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In terms of veterinary science, I was not aware of that pertinent point. Of course, all Members welcome people with skills joining the UK economy and the benefits that they bring, but the specific point is about the speed with which officials are willing to react to the regulatory risks that arise—whether from a vet, a doctor or from others—and their willingness as part of the renegotiation to take on some of the sacred cows of EU law and what it is alleged that treaties require us to do.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister for the specific action that he is taking on the pull factors. A tremendous amount of work, on which he is leading, is being undertaken across Departments, and it is particularly important. The issue is often discussed through the prism of the British perspective. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am concerned about the impact that much of that inward migration has on taxpayers—a burden is placed on the taxpayer, on our benefits system, or on our NHS, particularly from those who have not contributed.

The other reason why I think the Government’s action on pull factors is so important is that, often, the most vulnerable people in the community that I represent have been misled—they have been mis-sold too. A ruse that operates in an area such as Wisbech involves people being promised a job and accommodation if they come and work in the farming community. When they arrive, the gangmasters, who are often illegal, say, “This week, we only have work for two days, and next week, we only have work for three days. The week after, we only have one day.” What modest savings people might have are exhausted very quickly. The gangmasters will then lend them money, because it is very difficult for someone who perhaps has borrowed money from family members to face the embarrassment or even the immediate financial difficulty of going home. Therefore, these illegal gangmasters get people into the UK on a false promise, then abuse them by getting them into debt, and from there, they have control—“You must buy our counterfeit goods. You must come in the minibus and pay a high daily fee.”

What is scandalous is that many of the most vulnerable people in our community are affected. They are not voters, nor are they visible, and often, where they are subject to crime, it is not reported, so the police then have difficulty, saying “Should we take action and fund work on this? It is not reported crime.” I note that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee is here, and I hope that he and his Committee might address the issue of known crime that is not reported and is affecting many of the most vulnerable, and how resources are used, because that is a tension in itself.

The pull factors are bringing people here who are then being abused. The debate is focused through a British prism—travelling to Bulgaria and Romania and telling people that they should not come here because they will not be eligible for some of the benefits that they think they might be is very much about defending the taxpayer. It is right and proper that we do that, but I put the case that such intervention is often in the interests of those who might be persuaded to come here, because they are misled into doing so and then are subject to the illegal gangmasters who abuse the process.

Although we welcome tighter action and controls within the scope of the law—I commend the Minister’s work on the pull factors—the main thrust of my remarks relates to those who are here. In a sense, that may be slightly counter-intuitive, because the Bulgarians and Romanians are not yet here, but we know that they will be. If one looks at what has happened so far, there has been a failure across agencies to take action on the abuses to which people are subject once they are here.

For that reason, I have been working closely, as the Minister will be aware, with the Home Secretary and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the multi-agency task force that we have now set up in the fens. The issues apply not only to Wisbech, which I represent, but to Boston and Peterborough, where my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough faces such problems, and to Spalding, King’s Lynn and other places across the fens. The issues are so often seen as urban, as city issues, when the concentration in certain rural communities is out of scale and out of proportion with the communities that are absorbing them. The work of the multi-agency task force is extremely important. It is at an early stage—I ask the Minister to meet me in a couple of months for us to review progress—but I would like to draw three specific points to his attention and that of Chamber.

The first relates to houses in multiple occupation. The automatic registering of HMOs only applies if there are three storeys. That may be an issue in London, but in the fens, most of the accommodation is not on three storeys. In one example, 22 people were living in a bungalow. The census just does not reflect that, and that then feeds into many of the issues about antisocial behaviour, because if lots of people are living in one house, where do they go? They tend to go and have a drink on the street. That upsets neighbours. It creates problems such as that of urinating in public places. It just is intimidating to many people to see gangs of people, even if they are acting lawfully.

In my view, there has been a failure by agencies to take on the issue of houses in multiple occupation. There has been a licence system more recently in Peterborough. We do not still have one in fenland; I believe that we should. This is not just an issue for London and other cities; it is an issue that is acute in North East Cambridgeshire, and the sums of money involved are not inconsiderable. Some hon. Members might think that the more people there are in a house, the less the landlord will get, but that is not the case. The going rate in Wisbech is £50 per person; the more they have in, the more they get.

Sometimes the landlord does not even know what is happening. Sometimes the landlord has rented the house to a couple of people and is living away and is not aware that it is being used as an HMO. Some of the letting agencies are breaking the law, because they are under a duty to conduct a review every six months, but they do not do so; and again, officials tend not to act. There is also an abuse in relation to council tax. There is an abuse in relation to the tax on that revenue that is being paid. However, Government tend to see this as a rural issue. It is a bit too far from the desks in Whitehall. There are not too many national journalists reporting it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Exactly, and Bulgarians and Romanians will be grateful to have heard precisely that point.

Just because someone is concerned about the levels of or the pace of migration, does not make them a racist. There might be some people who want to engage in the debate who have prejudiced views, but the vast majority of ordinary decent people in this country who have expressed concern do so from a position of no prejudice at all but simply because they are worried about the society in which they live. Let us face it, because of the now different travelling opportunities around the world, many countries have had to face a complete change. Italy was always a country that sent people abroad, and now it has had Bulgarians and Romanians coming in in significant numbers. Greece is exactly the same. It invented the word diaspora for all the Greeks who had gone all around the world, but in the past 10 years it has been a country of immigration, not emigration, completely changing the concept of what it is to be Greek.

I used to be a curate in High Wycombe, and there was a very large community of Poles there, who had arrived during and after the second world war and had become an integral part of the community. Similarly, there are more people from St Vincent living in High Wycombe than there are in St Vincent itself. They were deliberately brought to the United Kingdom after the second world war because we did not have enough people to make the chairs and keep the economy growing in such places. I believe, therefore, that a hermetically sealed country would be a mistake, leaving aside the fact that many British people have always wanted to go elsewhere in the world to make their fortunes. One thing that extending the European Union should have done is give British business and British individuals a greater opportunity to make their way in the world, in other countries, and many of them have done so in Spain, France and Italy, and also in Bulgaria and Romania. I hope that British industry will seize the opportunity of Bulgaria and Romania as a means of making money and advancing British business.

I note that there was unanimous support for enlargement when the proposal came to the House of Commons in 2004. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) is not in his place at the moment, but the one thing I would say to him is that he could have made the point in 2004 if he had really believed that the Government had completely and utterly got their figures on migration from eastern bloc countries wrong. He could have tabled an amendment to the Act that implemented the treaty to say that there should be further transitional controls. He could have made a speech about it. He could have argued that Bulgaria and Romania should not be allowed to join the European Union and he could have forced a vote on the treaty. But he did not—no one did. We have to bear in mind sometimes that hindsight is a political sin and not a political virtue.

I agree with the hon. Members who said that migration must be controlled and sustainable, because otherwise local communities simply cannot cope. It is about infrastructure, schools, the health service and so many different things. I willingly accept that Labour was wrong not to have put in place the transitional controls for the maximum period that was allowed under the treaty when the A8 countries joined the European Union. As probably one of the most ludicrously pro-European Members of the House, I would say that we were not pro-European enough. The irony was that while France, Germany, Italy and Spain were saying, “Polish people, Estonians and Latvians, you can come here to live but not to work until seven years are over,” we decided to go it alone, and that made the problem infinitely worse because there was only one place where people could go. Talk about a pull issue! That was almost a push issue. I willingly accept, therefore, that we got some things wrong.

It is worth bearing in mind what has happened in relation to Bulgarians and Romanians in member states that have removed transitional controls ahead of us. For instance, in Germany, the numbers went from 158,000 in 2009 to 272,000 in 2012. It is worth pointing out, of course, that Germany is now actively promoting immigration, because it believes it needs it. One of its Ministers recently said:

“While our population is ageing, we have a low birth rate. Currently, of the total population of 80 million in Germany, 41 million are employed. Over the next 15 years, we could lose about six million workers just for demographic reasons”.

The Germans therefore want to encourage more people to come to their country.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is usually well informed, and I am sure this was an oversight, but Germany, although not sealing its borders, is looking at reducing the pull factors for the new accession countries. He may not have heard about that yet.

[Chris Bryant]

It is actively campaigning at the moment to encourage inward migration, and particularly skilled migrants. [Interruption.] I see the civil servant shaking his head, but we will doubtless hear from the Minister when he is inspired by his civil servant to correct me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

It is a privilege to conclude this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am grateful to all colleagues for an even-tempered and measured debate on an issue that is important to all our constituents. I am also grateful to the Government, who are making good progress on reducing net migration, and I am pleased that the Minister has just confirmed that we will soon hear more details.

The British people are tolerant and fair-minded. I believe that the least they can expect from national policy makers is an immigration system that is both balanced and sustainable. I hope that today’s debate has advanced that collective pursuit.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in 2014.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is raising some serious points, but when she uses the generic term “north Wales” or refers to the country, does she also accept that the majority of children’s homes—child care facilities, orphanages or whatever term one wants to use—are still run, and always were run, by loving and caring individuals, and that although these are serious allegations, they are not as widespread as some might suggest?

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I am not as certain as he is that he can make such a categorical statement. I think there is a lot going on in this country still which we need to get to the bottom of.

The Jillings report paints an alarming picture of a system in which physical and sexual violence were common, from beatings and bullying to indecent assault and rape. Some staff linked to abuse may have been allowed to resign or retire early. The insurers suggested that the chair of the council’s social services committee—Malcolm King, a brave whistleblower—should be sacked if he spoke out, writing:

“Draconian as it may seem, you may have to consider with the elected members whether they wish to remove him from office if he insists on having the freedom to speak.”

Despite such obstructions, the panel stuck to its brief to investigate child care in Clwyd in the wake of a number of allegations and court cases involving carers. Most of the allegations covered the period 1980 to 1988, and a four-year police inquiry saw 2,600 statements taken and 300 cases sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eventually, eight men were charged and six convicted.

A key issue in north Wales continues to be whether there was a paedophile ring at work. One internal Clwyd council report from the time—like Jillings, unpublished—said:

“There remain worrying current instances of conviction and prosecution for sexual offences of persons who are known to have worked together in child care establishments both in the county and… other parts of the north-west”.

The report continued:

“These suggest, that abuse could have been happening unabated for many years and, that there could be operating a league or ring of paedophiles who help one another find sources and situations where abuse can be perpetrated and the addiction fed.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing it, and I pay tribute to the powerful and often authoritative speeches we have heard this afternoon from people with a real understanding, in different ways, of the issues that come into play when we examine child sexual exploitation. I suppose that, rather like the poor, child sexual exploitation will always be with us. There is no way of eradicating it entirely; there will always be the combination of power and predilection which means that children can be sexually exploited. We need to ensure—I hope this debate will contribute towards this—greater public awareness of the issue and a greater willingness among authorities in so many different agencies to prioritise the issue and to recognise that the prevalence of child sexual exploitation is greater than people have perhaps been willing to admit in the past, not least because they find it so repellent.

I am disappointed that no representative from the Department for Education is here today, as it leads on this issue. Although the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), spoke from his departmental point of view, we need the Department for Education to provide that leadership, that ability to have the overview and that commitment always to seeing the child—not the criminal and not the trafficked person, but the child within—in all conditions.

One issue that the Select Committee found in our investigation into child protection in England, which did not focus on this area in particular, was a tendency among many authorities, such as the UK Border Agency in some cases and the police or health workers in others, to see the condition—perhaps seeing someone in a criminal environment as a criminal or someone in an immigration environment as an immigration issue—rather than a vulnerable child.

Another theme of our report was that older children are poorly served by social services compared with younger children. As many Members have powerfully said this afternoon, there is a tendency not to believe those children and not to see past their behaviour, which can be pretty awful. A troubled teenager who has been abused will not always present in the most sympathetic way. They might be involved in criminal or other antisocial behaviour and people tend not to see past that to the child who has been exploited and abused in various ways, so they do not ensure that the child gets what they need.

We all want to see a more effective system. It will never be perfect and will certainly never eradicate child sexual exploitation and we should recognise that, but we want a system that is as attuned as it possibly can be to identifying people at risk, protecting them and taking action against perpetrators who seek to exploit children.

I made inquiries of East Riding of Yorkshire council, in which my constituency sits, and I was pleased to find that it is taking child sexual exploitation seriously and has set up a child sexual exploitation strategic group. I read through the terms of reference. In some respects, it is rather a dull, dry document, but it is important that it contains stipulations such as:

“This is a strategic group during which those attending will be expected to have decision making responsibility”.

It is important to ensure that the right people turn up in such circumstances, as it is no good for someone with no authority from an organisation to turn up to tick a box. The group is absolutely right to identify that its members must have decision-making authority for their organisation on child sexual exploitation. It lists the agencies whose attendance is required, makes provisions so that anything less than 75% attendance must be questioned and expects people to attend consecutive meetings.

That is all about the nuts and bolts and quite a long way away from the more emotive issues we have discussed this afternoon, but ensuring we have the right people in the right place, taking responsibility and ensuring that the issue does not drop down the agenda, as can so easily happen, is very important. All strength to the arm of those involved across the agencies in the East Riding of Yorkshire and elsewhere in recognising the severity and prevalence of child sexual exploitation.

Let me run quickly through some of the relevant recommendations in the Select Committee’s report on child protection, which came out last week. Older children were a major theme and we wish to see

“the College of Social Work, in outlining curricula, and individual institutions delivering social work training must ensure that teaching delivers an understanding of the effect of maltreatment on older children”

and

“their ability to cope”.

The tendency is to believe that they are more resilient, but all too often they are not and the effect of abuse in the teenage years can be just as traumatic as in early life. It is just as long-lasting and just as likely to lead to unemployment, drug abuse and, in some cases, a cycle that leads to their becoming abusers in due course if they are not given appropriate support.

We were particularly concerned about care leavers and the accommodation and range of support provided for them. We visited care homes in Barnsley and were struck by the commitment of the staff and, after talking to the young people, by the quality of the support they felt they were getting. We must never be complacent in believing that our children’s homes are all safe and that we do not have abuse in our care system. However, we must also recognise that if, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) suggested, as many as one in seven children in care are subject to some form of abuse, seven out of seven of those children were subject to some form of abuse before they came into the care system. That in no way excuses failings in our care system, but we must recognise that problems in the past must not be read into problems today, although we should never be complacent. Whatever the problems in our care system, it does offer a place of safety; it does provide a haven and hope for young people. When we met children from around the country who came to a seminar with us behind closed doors, and in our visits to care homes, children told us so again and again.

I, perhaps philosophically, would have a predisposition to worry about taking children away from poor parents in the community and into the even worse parenting of the state. What we found, and the evidence we saw, was that in fact the care of the state for those children, although it is not all perfect—anything but—was, for most of the time, far better than what happened before. It is important that young people hear that, especially before they seek help. Why will they seek help if they think the help provided will make them more of a victim than they already feel? We must build up the quality of the service that our care system offers, but we must also ensure that people out there in the community, and children themselves, realise that care can be a really positive step for them.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does my hon. Friend agree that where there is best practice—whether it be in Barnsley or elsewhere, whether provided within the public or private sector—municipal and council boundaries should not get in the way of the sharing of that best practice, or even of good local authorities taking over child care facilities in bad local authority areas, and that there should be no ideological barrier stopping the private sector delivering the best care?

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. Obviously, again talking philosophically, I have no problem with that. Where we can split commissioning from provision, it is possible to create a better tension. The ability to challenge the service is increased if it is not directly provided by one’s department. My hon. Friend was right to make that point.

Such is my loquacity that I have used up most of the time without covering most of the issues that I wanted to talk about. As a Committee we recognised in our report that abuse between teenagers is an overlooked issue in the child protection system. That was mentioned in today’s debate. There is a need for that issue to be recognised, and for strategies to be developed to deal with the complications involved in assisting victims and perpetrators out of that abusive situation. We agreed that the primary aim within Government must be effectiveness, but we are not convinced that the system at the moment enables vulnerable children to be treated as children first. Earlier I spoke about the way in which other agencies tend to view young people.

We recommended that Childline be assisted and enabled by the Government to market its existence and services more widely, especially to older children. When we visited Childline, we were surprised to learn the number of older children who already use it. While people who do not use it might think Childline would be seen as only for younger children, children themselves seem to be using it; but we felt that more could be done to make it possible for Childline, which has a brand that people know, to be promoted more effectively. It was said earlier that for someone in the care system, the only person it is possible to complain to is someone else who works for the local authority. Well, Childline provides a third party to go to, and the NSPCC is behind it; so the more we can promote Childline, the more likely we are to make children safe.

We must do everything we possibly can to make children safer, while accepting that child sexual exploitation will go on. The one thing we have not touched on this afternoon, because we are all rightly focused on ensuring that we get better systems in place, is how we strike a balance so that children are not taught to view all adults and all men as a form of sexual predator until they are found to be otherwise. In my childhood, my best friend and I, wandering around, spent a lot of time with men in our community, none of whom sought to abuse or exploit us in any way. My life would have been very much less rich if that had not been possible. I think, frankly, today it is not possible, so some boys in single-parent households have little or no contact with men. That is enormously to be regretted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). She is a first-class MP, and her constituents have every right to be proud of her, particularly for bringing forward this important and timely debate.

A lot of this discussion has centred on care facilities, orphanages and children’s homes, and rightly so, not least because of recent headlines. We have also heard about the exploitation and sexual abuse of children within nuclear or orthodox families, in private homes, and within public schools. The problem is widespread, and I, too, support those who have called on the Government to launch a wide-ranging inquiry into this issue.

Children do not choose their parents or the family circumstances into which they are born, but the tone of many comments made in this place, not today—this debate has been very measured—but in the recent past, have fundamentally misunderstood the problem. When talking about children in care, some people talk about vulnerable children, but it is the environment in which they often find themselves that is vulnerable. It is an environment not of their choosing, an environment that, in a way, can be directed and changed by the state. Despite some bad examples, as we have seen in recent weeks, the majority of people working in care homes, orphanages and child care facilities do so with due diligence, professionalism, and love, care and affection.

I speak with some authority, because I spent the first six years of my life in an orphanage. Having been to the orphanage reunion last week, I can tell hon. Members that every person there spoke highly of all the carers. I do not have one single bad memory. Perhaps I am lucky. Perhaps I am blessed. But it is important to put that on the record. The majority of people providing care do it with love, professionalism and dedication. I pay tribute to those who showed me love for the first six years of my life. There are those who, in the first six years of their life in a so-called orthodox family, do not enjoy the same level of care and love. So, although there are bad apples, the majority are doing a good job every hour of every day of every week. I pay tribute to them.

There is a wider issue about exploitation: what the state is doing and not doing. We have rightly focused on sexual exploitation, but the fact is that the taxpayer spends £250,000 for each of the 5,000 children in care facilities today. There are a total of 90,000 in care each year, and 60,000 in care right now—it ebbs and flows over the year—but 5,000 are currently in full-time care. Someone mentioned Oliver Twist. I think I am the only member of the Oliver Twist club. I remember being in the Dining Room, and somebody said, “Oh what’s that tie, Pritchard? What club is that?” I said, “It’s the Oliver Twist club,” and he said, “I’ve never heard of that.”

Perhaps today, more people have heard about it. It is for those people who I believe all have a God-given skill or ability. Some will end up as fantastic mechanics, artists or scientists, so it is absolutely correct that the state gets this right. It is absolutely wrong that too many children in care leave with no qualifications. It does not mean that they do not have brains, intelligence or an intellect. Too many children leaving care end up homeless, in prostitution or on the wrong side of the law. Not only is it wrong and bad value for money for the taxpayer to spend nearly £1 billion a year for the 5,000 children in full-time care, it is also morally wrong that we are sending them out to a life often locked into poverty or crime because the state has failed to monitor their educational achievement or lack of it.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling personal speech. Will he join me in paying tribute to the unsung heroes of family life and the care system, the grandparents and extended kin? They do an heroic job, often taking care of the children of their children who are afflicted with drug and alcohol problems or other family issues.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am very happy to do that. I would like the Government to be more imaginative and innovative in the tax system—as I think the Conservative Opposition said before the election—in recognising the work of grandparents and rewarding them for it, because where the family works well, it is obviously the best place for children to grow up.

I have huge respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), the new children’s Minister, as I did for his predecessor. I am excited about his promotion, because I know that he has great personal knowledge of fostering and adoption. This is an opportunity for him as an individual Minister and for the Government. As I said in a speech last week in the Chamber—albeit a speech on Europe—if we are not making a difference in this place, what is the point of being here? While there is strategic focus in the media, the Government and the nation as a whole, this is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the coalition Government to make a real difference by changing the way children are fostered, making changes to the adoption system and fundamentally changing the way we look after children in full-time care.

As I mentioned, my view is that everybody has something to contribute—everybody has a God-given ability or talent. Therefore I hope the Government will bring forward definitive and precise measures to tackle the issues arising from the mistakes made in the past—to be fair, under successive Governments—where children left care with the list of problems that I outlined earlier, costing the taxpayer even more money, by the way, as the homelessness bill, the criminal justice bill and the bill for getting people off drugs and alcohol rises.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the profile of children’s issues is not lowered in the Department for Education? Does he support the Select Committee on Education recommendation that, as has happened with schools, a non-executive board member with expertise in this area should be appointed to the board of the Department?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for the Chairman of the Education Committee’s intervention. I note the excellent report and work that his Committee has done, and I commend that report to the House and for wider reading. To be honest, I have not really thought about that issue, but I am guided by his wisdom and expertise, and I am happy to discuss it with him.

Briefly, I note that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned training. That is absolutely right. Although the majority of social workers do a great job, my experience was pretty mixed, frankly. That is sometimes down to resources—fair enough—but it is also down to training. I would like to see root-and-branch reform of the way in which we train our social workers, so that they are not driven only by targets or political correctness, but are freed up to use their common sense. I want to see a bit more licence in the system for people of experience, not just graduates fresh out of university—although that is important as well—so that we have a mix and a range of people, perhaps from other professions, attracted as mature social workers, with their own family experiences, to ensure that the provision of care and the quality of care is improving all the time.

There can also sometimes be institutional inertia when we talk about care packages and care groups looking at individual cases, with multiple agencies perhaps taking too long to take decisions on individual children’s lives. Perhaps we could streamline the way in which agencies take such decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) suggested, it is important that all the relevant groups have people in them who can take decisions quickly, efficiently and effectively.

As we move towards the elections for police and crime commissioners, I hope that we can focus the minds of our new commissioners, whether they are from the left or the right, because we need police forces to take a fresh look at this matter. I note that West Mercia police has placed a particular emphasis on transgender crime. All crime is wrong, and transgender crime is wrong, but I suspect that it is not as widespread as child abuse and child exploitation. I would hope that a more strategic focus can be adopted as a result of this debate and of some of the headlines that we have seen over the past few days. We as a Government have a responsibility to care for every child in the care system, and I hope that this debate will move that forward.

Abu Qatada

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is misguided. We have submitted our case this afternoon, and Home Office lawyers will be arguing in court tomorrow about the bail conditions. It has always been possible to have stricter conditions under bail than under control orders. The question is therefore what bail conditions will be set, and we will argue for the strictest possible ones.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Of course, Mr Justice Mitting does have form in this area, not only with Abu Qatada but with Abu Hamza. Abu Qatada will be laughing in his prison cell right now, and in his luxury flat—no doubt paid for by the taxpayer—tomorrow. What further discussions can the Home Secretary have with the Jordanian authorities to ensure, in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ second part judgment on evidence obtained by torture, that the Jordanian Government can satisfy not only SIAC but the ECHR and the British Government?

[Mrs May]

We are pursuing all avenues of discussion with the Jordanian Government to see what can be done to address the important point that the judgment has raised. My hon. Friend referred to Justice Mitting. I would point out that, although I obviously disagree with the judgment today, Justice Mitting has given a number of judgments favourable to the Government in deportation cases, so I suggest that my hon. Friend take a more rounded view of the judge’s decisions.