Windrush

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Let me begin by thanking all the contributors this afternoon. The Windrush crisis has revealed something rotten at the heart of this Government: a blurring of the line between looking like an immigrant and being an immigrant. We can see now that race and immigration cannot be separated. Ministers have tried to claim that the Windrush crisis was a one-off. They have replaced the Home Secretary and pretended that that is the problem solved. Members have raised many individual cases this afternoon. For these people, the Home Secretary’s resignation did not put the issue to bed. We need to look back at what led to this crisis. We need to deal with what is urgently in front of us: justice for the Windrush generation. We need to look ahead, to make sure history does not repeat itself. If the Prime Minister orders her MPs to vote against this motion, it will expose the Tories’ crocodile tears on the Windrush scandal as a sham. The British public will not accept a cover-up.

Looking back, we see that the Government were well aware of the risks in 2014 when they designed the hostile environment. They were told by MPs, by campaign groups and by their own civil service, yet the Prime Minister went ahead and implemented it anyway. The Government have known about specific problems with the Windrush generation for a long time, too; individuals have been contacting the Home Office for years, and the media have been giving voice to Windrush cases for six months. As the former Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) knows that the independent inspector sounded the alarm about the Government’s right to rent scheme before Easter. They have known all this time, yet they cannot tell us how many people have been wrongfully deported, wrongfully detained, and wrongfully denied healthcare and public services. Ministers have been reluctant to come forward with the facts, and we need to know these right now. If the Prime Minister is too weak to be accountable, Labour will have to force her to be accountable.

Now that people are in this awful situation, the Prime Minister must urgently confirm the legal status of the Windrush generation. Ministers have spoken of “granting” British citizenship, but let us be clear: these people are already British citizens. Their citizenship needs to be confirmed, not granted, and indefinite leave to remain is not good enough.

The Government have set up a taskforce. Does it have the capacity to deal with all the cases in two weeks? Can it expand if the case load demands? The Government have said that they will take a generous approach. What exactly will be the burden of proof and when will we get that in writing? Application fees have been waived. Can the Minister confirm that people will have more than two weeks to apply and have them waived? Will the Minister confirm that the waiver applies to all administrative costs associated with applying?

When the Prime Minister was establishing the hostile environment policy, there was a cross-Government approach. We need a cross-Government approach to solving the crisis created by this hostile environment. What communication has the Minister had with the Foreign Office to train high commissions in the Caribbean to deal with Windrush cases? What discussions has the Minister had with the DWP and HMRC to ensure that, where there is evidence of residence and arrival, that is shared with the taskforce? What discussions has she had with the Justice Secretary on the re-introduction of legal aid for immigration cases?

The Windrush generation have suffered a great injustice. They must have access to legal aid. As part of the hostile environment, checks and balances on the Home Office have been removed. In 2013, the Tories exempted immigration cases from legal aid, so people cannot challenge wrong decisions. I hope the Ministry of Justice is paying close attention to this crisis. There will be other groups who are affected in the way the Windrush generation have been. There are highly skilled migrants in the UK now whose visas are being refused on the basis of minor tax errors. The Government must reintroduce legal aid for immigration cases.

Justice for Windrush also means compensation. The Government accepted that there must be compensation for all those affected, and their families. The Home Secretary has said that this will be an independent process. What is the timeframe? How much has been allocated for it? Can the Minister confirm that compensation will apply to loss of employment, denial of access to benefits, public services and healthcare, as well as any shortfall in national insurance and pensions? Will it also cover the trauma, pain and suffering caused by the Government’s reckless hostile environment?

Looking forward, we need a complete change of policy and approach in the Home Office. A change of face will not do. The Home Secretary has said he wants an immigration system that behaves more humanely and with a greater sense of fairness. That does not come about through warm words; it comes about through action.

The Windrush generation came to Britain to build our modern, global Britain after the second world war. In 2018, it is 70 years since the Empire Windrush docked, 50 years since the “rivers of blood” speech and 25 years since the death of Stephen Lawrence. The Windrush crisis is the shameful culmination of our history. We need to investigate what led to this crisis. We need to get justice for the Windrush generation and we need to correct our future course so that history does not repeat itself.

Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I, too, have a Commonwealth heritage, and I understand and support every word said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I thank him for his excellent and impressive work against this injustice. I also thank the petitioner and the 178,000 who signed the petition.

The Prime Minister tried to hide behind the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), but, in reality, she was the architect of these terrible policies and their awful consequences. The previous Home Secretary simply carried on her work. The news coverage of the past few days has been wall to wall on the politics of the resignation of the previous Home Secretary and the appointment of the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). The petition allows us to recentre the debate on the most important issue: the Home Office’s appalling treatment of the Windrush generation. They are British citizens who have been made homeless, been denied healthcare, lost their jobs, and been detained and potentially deported.

Thanks to The Guardian, a number of cases are now well known. We have also heard many cases in today’s debate, such as Paulette Wilson’s. Another case I want to share is that of Sarah O’Connor, who arrived in this country aged six. She worked in a computer shop from age 16 until last October. She lost that job when the benefits agencies challenged her immigration status. Other employers refused to hire her when they realised she had no passport. Only last month when her case received national media attention did the Home Office promise to waive her fee for a biometric card application. As we know, there are many more such cases and, at a Windrush meeting in my constituency, I came across similar heartbreaking cases.

The scandal is wider than the Government want to admit. It includes those who came from other Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, many African countries and others. The Migration Observatory estimates that 57,000 such UK citizens from the Commonwealth are directly affected. The scandal also affects children who were brought to this country after 1973, by parents who had arrived here before then. Immigrants who are starting out in a new country cannot always afford to bring their children with them. Although those children did not arrive in the UK before 1973, they are clearly part of the Windrush generation.

How did this scandal come about? Two words: hostile environment. That was a policy that was supposed to apply to illegal immigrants but, as was predicted, it affected anyone even suspected of being an illegal immigrant. That is exactly what happened to the Windrush generation. In 2014, the Tory-led Government removed protections for Commonwealth citizens who had arrived in this country before 1973. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister brought in the 2016 Immigration Act, which obliges landlords, employers, the NHS and benefits offices to demand written proof of nationality, which many people do not possess. The Government knew that the early arrivals from the Commonwealth—British citizens—did not possess such proofs, but they went ahead anyway.

We have heard many questions from Members in the debate. What needs to happen now? We need answers. How many of the Windrush generation have been deported or detained? How many left voluntarily, under threat of deportation? How many have been refused re-entry after travelling abroad? Will the victims be fully compensated for all costs, all loss of income and services, and distress? Will the helpline report cases for deportation enforcement where it believes people are here illegally? Did the Home Office issue advice to immigration tribunals and judges of the change in the earlier Immigration Act 2014, which removed protections for Commonwealth citizens?

The Government have attempted to introduce red herrings in the debate, but illegal immigration is opposed on all sides, and Labour is in favour of deporting illegal migrants—we have pledged 500 extra Border Force guards to tackle the problem. The Commonwealth citizens who came here legally are still legal. It is only this Government’s policies that have treated them in effect as illegal. It is that scandal that the Government have created and should end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

There is a significant question of deemed leave and processes in 1973 that did not give people a legal document that demonstrated their status. That is the failing that we have to put right. There may well be people out there who do not come forward. We have to work to give people confidence, but also to give them an important document that enables them to go on and get their British citizenship—all at no cost. I do not want anyone to fall foul of this going forward. If we just grant deemed leave again, we may find ourselves in this situation again.

Many Members have mentioned the difference from EU settled status. That is an important and difficult point. Since I came into this job, a great deal of my time and energy have been taken up with making sure that the settled status scheme, which we will open later this year, will work. It matters to me that it works digitally and easily, and that, rather than the “computer says no” mentality, we have a default position whereby if people are here, the computer will say yes.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) asked about whether the app will work on iPhone; we have been working on that for many months. It works on an Android phone, but Apple as yet has not released the update that would enable it to work on iPhones. I recognise that that is a problem. I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to talk about that, because I cannot force Apple to participate—I wish I could, but I cannot. It is important that, for those EU citizens, many of whom have been here for years just like the Windrush generation, we make the process simple, straightforward and digital.

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the Minister for the clarification that no case will be passed on for enforcement, but we have seen that this is not simply a question of enforcement. There is the health issue—people are suffering from cancer and dying—and people are becoming homeless or losing jobs. What will she do to help them?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is absolutely right to say that the taskforce is prioritising appointments for people in vulnerable positions—those who are out of employment or at risk of falling out of employment, those with health conditions and those with problems with tenancies. There is a significant group of people with whom we must work, but it is right to prioritise people on the basis of need. We are working really hard. In Sheffield, it was great to see call-backs going on, appointments being made and people having conversations.

My right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary made it very clear that we will compensate people for loss, but it is right that we get the compensation scheme right from the outset. Members have raised interesting points about what should be included in that, many of which might seem really self-evident and straightforward—it should cover legal costs, loss of employment and housing, and so on—but there might be other aspects to it. A number of people have talked about counselling for stress and trauma. It is important that we have an independent person who enables and empowers us to get that right from the outset. That will take a little time, but it is important that we have someone independent of the Home Office who is able to engender trust.

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

One reason why we are improving the national referral mechanism is precisely to build resilience during that vital period. We are trebling the period once a person has been found to be a victim of modern slavery in order to build resilience in respect of those people, so that they are not prone to becoming victims of modern slavery or trafficking again.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration recently found no evidence that the Home Office is actively monitoring the link between the use of right to rent and victims of modern slavery, despite concerns that the scheme makes it difficult for victims of modern slavery to come forward. The inspector also found that the Home Office is failing to measure the scheme effectively, and yet it has refused to fully implement the inspector’s recommendations for a proper evaluation. Will the Minister do so now?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have looked at the national referral mechanism because we are conscious that criminal gangs, as they find out what law enforcement and others are up to and as crime develops, change their modus operandi. If there are particular issues that he wishes to raise with me, I will be happy to meet him to discuss them further.

Salisbury Incident

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. May I start by paying tribute to the courage and dedication of the emergency services that responded to this horrendous incident? In particular, may I say that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the officer who has been hospitalised following this attack? I also pay tribute to the people of Salisbury. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the great cathedral city of Salisbury remains open for business?

The apparent poisoning of Yulia and Sergei Skripal and the police officer who suffered serious injury must of course be fully and completely investigated. I wholeheartedly concur with the Secretary of State that the investigation should be allowed to take place free from speculation, conjecture or interference. At best, these can be a distraction; at worst, they can hamper the investigatory efforts. Hon. Members and right hon. Members should be equally cautious and guarded in their comments. Idle or ill-informed speculation is not helpful. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that all the necessary resources are being made available to the investigation? Clearly, it is vital that there should be no speculation about the conclusions of the investigation, and that it is allowed to take its course, but will she ensure that she continues to keep the House updated?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary, asked the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday about the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the Government have all the necessary sanctions available to them? A number of proposals are currently being debated in Committee. Will she look at them again to ensure that we have the necessary tools?

This case raises broader and extremely important issues. These include how we prioritise the fight against crime and terrorist crime in this country. There is, after all, no greater priority for the state than to secure the safety of all those who are resident here. Today is not the day for discussion of those priorities, or divisions over them, in the fight against crime and terrorism, or for a discussion on budgets and how they are allocated. We will return to those matters at another opportunity. For now, let us be clear that we on the Labour Benches are appalled at the idea that anyone might be poisoned on the streets of our towns and cities, and we offer our full support to those seeking to investigate the matter. We commend the professionalism, dedication and bravery of the emergency services, and we share the Government’s determination that this case should be brought to a speedy and just conclusion, and that similar incidents should be prevented in the future.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his carefully thought-out and considerate comments. I am delighted to hear such unity of purpose across the House on this matter. He referred to the great cathedral city of Salisbury, and I share his views on that city and on the people of Salisbury, who have reacted so well. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is with me here on the Front Bench, for his consideration and support over the past four days.

Yes, I can reassure the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and the House that the police and the emergency services have the necessary resources. That is always one of my first questions, and they have been reassuring on that matter. On his point about keeping the House updated, of course I will do that. I thank him for his consideration and understanding that there might be limits to that, but when I can, I will of course take the opportunity to come here to discuss the matter with the House. Partly because of the severity of the situation, I recognise the need to do that whenever possible. Members are rightly keen to find out what is happening.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We are of course engaging with the Members of Parliament who are proposing additional amendments. There have already been amendments to the Criminal Finances Act 2017 that reflect the sorts of initiatives he is asking for. There are additional proposals relating to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and we will be considering them carefully.

Seasonal Migrant Workers

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will keep my remarks brief, following your wise words.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on opening the debate, and all other Members who have contributed to it. There is clearly a consensus that the Government need to take urgent action. Labour would take decisive action to reinstate the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. We would put jobs and prosperity at the centre of our approach to Brexit. We would not sacrifice crops and British farming businesses in order to please factions of the Conservative party.

Farming and agriculture have the most pressing need for seasonal migrant workers. The Association of Labour Providers estimates that between 90% and 95% of seasonal workers in food processing and agriculture are from other EU countries, mainly Romania and Bulgaria. The sector is already having difficulty finding labour to meet its needs. Even before we voted to the leave the EU, businesses were calling for the Government to act to address the labour shortage. A report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee found that:

“The current problem is in danger of becoming a crisis if urgent measures are not taken to fill the gaps in labour supply.”

The Committee was also concerned that the Government did not seem to recognise the scale of the problem.

In his speech to the National Farmers Union, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs finally acknowledged the extent of the problem, but he did not commit the Government to doing anything about it. He said:

“It’s already the case that the supply of labour from EU27 countries is diminishing as their economies are recovering and growing… I also understand that you need to see action quickly. Not least to deal with imminent pressures in the year ahead. The NFU has put forward strong and, to my mind, compelling arguments for a Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme.”

But he stopped there; he did not commit to taking any action.

The only commitment that the Government have given is that “the Migration Advisory Committee is looking into it.” That is not good enough, because the MAC will not report until September, after the end of this year’s peak season. Businesses need to know in order to plan for next season. Also, the remit of the MAC’s investigation is very broad, so there is no guarantee that seasonal migrant workers will be central to its recommendations, or that it will find in favour of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Even if it does, how much longer will it take for the Government to implement it?

Other sectors are also reliant on seasonal migrant workers, such as hospitality, tourism and care work, to name a few. We have just gone through a winter crisis. The national health service is turning away desperately needed staff because Britain has hit the cap on skilled visas for the third month in a row. Cambridge University Hospitals states that the cap has prevented it recruiting three doctors—two for intensive care and one specialist in liver and pancreatic surgery. We need certainty for many different sectors, and a long-term solution to labour shortages in the UK’s most important industries.

Labour will not let British farmers go under because of factional infighting and arbitrary immigration targets. Our approach to Brexit will be for jobs and prosperity first. Labour is for fair rules and reasonable management of migration. We will design our immigration policy based on the needs of the economy. We will not do what this Government are doing and say, “This is our immigration policy,” and then work out afterwards what that means for the economy.

Draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 General Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

First of all, Labour supports the proposal to waive passport application fees for members of the armed forces, members of the diplomatic service and individuals who have been affected by a crisis. It seems an oversight that these people have had to pay fees until now, and it is right that that situation is being corrected.

Labour is opposed to the 27% increase in the cost of children’s passports and the 17% increase in the cost for adults. A family of four applying by post would pay £287 for all their passports. We consider that an extortionate fee. Penalising people who apply for their passports offline hits families with children and everyone who does not feel comfortable applying for a passport online. In response to one of my written questions, the Immigration Minister said that

“Her Majesty’s Passport Office is developing further help for those who wish to apply online, which includes exploring options for making services available from the High Street and by working in conjunction with community support groups.”

Exactly what progress has there been on that? How many high street services have been made available? How many community support groups have been contacted, and in what ways are the Government working with them? It is vital that such support is rolled out ahead of the fees increase at the end of March.

The Home Office and Ministers have repeatedly made the commitment that post-Brexit registration of EU nationals will cost no more than the cost for UK nationals of applying for a passport. Does that apply to the price of a UK passport before or after this increase comes into force? It would seem underhanded for the Government to fix the cost of settled status applications at the cost of a British passport, and then increase the cost of applying for a passport.

Finally, research by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that the hostile environment and right-to-rent policies are causing discrimination against British citizens who do not have passports, particularly those from ethnic minorities. When asked, 42% of landlords stated that as a result of the scheme, they were less likely to rent to someone without a British passport. The black and minority ethnic tenant without a passport was 25% less likely to be offered a viewing of a property and 20% less likely to be told that the property was available.

What are this Government doing to monitor the right- to-rent scheme, and to make sure that it does not engender discrimination? What are they doing to ensure that those with the right to rent have easy access to documents that prove that, and do not have to pay £85 for a passport unnecessarily?

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

It is very important that we make it clear that, for EU citizens already living here and who have come here before the specified date, we want as smooth and seamless a process as possible. They will be able to apply digitally online, and we want that process to open on a voluntary basis later this year.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The most recent migration statistics show immigration from outside the EU, which the Government have always been able to control, going up, while EU citizens are leaving in their largest numbers for almost a decade. The Government have again postponed their White Paper on post-Brexit immigration strategy. Rather than taking back control, are this Government in fact driven by confusion and inaction?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working very hard to make sure we have a sustainable immigration system both now and going forward. I welcome the fact that there are so many students coming here to study—he will of course be aware that there is no limit on the number of students who can come to this country—but what I really welcome is the number of EU citizens who came to this country not just looking for a job, but with a job to go to.

Refugee Children: Family Reunion in the UK

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for securing today’s debate and for his excellent speech. There have been many great contributions this afternoon, so I will not name any hon. Members, but simply thank them all for enriching the debate.

At the moment, unaccompanied children who have been granted refugee status do not have the right to sponsor their family members to join them. We are one of the few countries in Europe with that policy. Adult refugees can be joined only by their spouse or partner and dependent children under 18. That means that they cannot bring siblings, parents, aunts or uncles.

In her speech yesterday, Labour’s shadow Home Secretary announced our policy on family reunion. Under a Labour Government, if a child has been granted the right to be here, so will their parents or carers. If they have been brought up by carers or parents with a right to be here, they will also have that right, even after they turn 18. That will allow child refugees to be reunited with their families, and will end the awful practice of children who have spent their childhood and adolescence in the UK being deported at the age of 18 to countries that they often know nothing about, and with which they have no affinity. I will make the positive argument that family reunion promotes integration, and then refute the Government’s false claim that this policy will act as a pull factor.

Separation from family members is a real barrier to integration. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says:

“there is a direct link between family reunification, mental health and successful integration.”

The first thing that many migrants say when they are granted status is, “How do I bring my family?” That can lead to spending enormous amounts of money and effort in attempting to bring family members here, even when that is impossible under the immigration rules.

Samba is a refugee who has been in contact with the Refugee Council. She is a mother from central Africa who has been resettled in the UK with two of her children, but separated from her daughter and grandchildren. She sent every bit of money she had to her family and lived in poverty. Many refugees are unable to focus on taking steps to integrate because of worry about family members and feelings of guilt.

One refugee, Mwanza, described to the Refugee Council going to English language classes and taking nothing in, because of the worry about his wife and daughter, who are still in a refugee camp in central Africa. Mwanza’s difficulty in English classes affected his ability not only to integrate, but to support his family, as English is essential for finding employment.

Integration is already a real challenge for refugee children coming to the UK, and separation from their families makes it much harder. On the other hand, when refugees, especially children, are reunited with family members, that accelerates integration, both for the new arrivals and for family members already in the UK.

The Government’s reason for not doing more to reunite refugee families in the UK has been that they do not want to create a pull factor that encourages unaccompanied children to make dangerous journeys to the UK. We reject that argument completely, for two reasons. First, it fundamentally misunderstands the causes of migration flows. People do not leave their families and take dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean and Europe, with all the associated risks, because of the welfare benefits of the UK. Apart from anything, many refugees arrive with a misunderstanding of our refugee system. Push factors on migrants far outweigh any other issue. So long as there is war, violence, persecution and conflict, people will be forced to flee their homes.

Secondly, a lack of legal routes to resettlement actually encourages people to make dangerous journeys. Legal schemes disrupt the activities of people traffickers, rather than encourage them. Where legal routes are limited, where children lose faith in systems and trust in officials, they turn to people traffickers or smugglers, who exploit them.

Omar has been granted refugee status in the UK after fleeing Syria. His brother is 17 years old and is in danger of being forcibly recruited into the army. The rules on refugee family reunion do not allow Omar to sponsor his brother, so he is forced to explore the possibility of helping his brother to make the dangerous journey to Europe. Once Khaled arrived in Europe, he would be able to ask for his case to be transferred to the UK under the Dublin III regulations. They would both rather avoid a treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, but without a legal route, they have no other option.

It is clear that extending family reunion rules is in the interests of refugees and society as a whole. Labour promotes a fair, managed migration system that honours our humanitarian obligations. We support the family reunification Bill that will come before the House on 16 March. We want to allow refugees to settle, integrate and live fulfilling lives in the UK, and to avoid the perverse situation where children who have close family in danger abroad cannot be reunited with them, and are brought up instead in our care system.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, it might be helpful for her to know that the mover of the debate has indicated that he would like a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 General Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

We are not opposed to these measures. However, we do have some concerns and questions, which I will put to the Minister. On fines for those who fail to collect their biometric residence permit, will the provisions apply to those who legitimately cannot collect permits in time—for example, if they are ill or hospitalised? Why does the Home Office not allow people from outside the UK to have the BRP sent to a nominated address in the UK? How many of these fines does the Minister expect the Government to collect?

Turning to the super premium service proposals, the cost to individuals and families has become extortionate. The proposed arbitrary rate is a lot of money. What is the justification for privatisation? Why cannot the Home Office provide the service itself? Would it not be better and cheaper to sort out the chaos in the Home Office and then pay a private company to take over that part of it?

At the moment, people are finding out that even when they pay for premium service, their applications are severely delayed and decision making is poor. We do not want to see a private company being brought in and charging more but offering a worse service than that being offered at present. What has the Minister done to ensure that that will not happen?

Last year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated double the number of complaints against the Home Office compared with 2015-16 and upheld 60% of them. Some 95% of the complaints were immigration-related. The key issues people complained about were delays and decision making. In order to compete internationally for talent, students and tourists, who all contribute massively to our economy, we need urgently to reform the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office—£2,600 an hour is a lot of money. How long do these applications usually take and how much does the Minister expect people will be charged? At the maximum £2,600 an hour, if it takes four hours to process an application it will cost more than the £10,500 currently charged. It is feasible that some complex applications will take more than four hours to process.

Finally, the fees will include a profit for the commercial partner. I regret that applicants are now having to pay for a private profit as well as the cost of processing their application. How much does the Minister expect the profit margin will be? Has the Home Office started finding contractors and negotiating with them, and if not, when does it intend to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. If she wants to raise specific cases with me, I am very happy to look at them. However, the reality is that, where issues are complicated and visa applications are not straightforward, it is absolutely right that full rigour is applied to inspecting and determining them.

[Afzal Khan]

On the issue of complexity, how do we know that the process is not being abused by the Home Office? Are there set formulae or criteria that say what is complex?

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue about which I know he has been particularly concerned. I cannot comment on this individual case, but as soon as we have a new Immigration Minister, I will volunteer him or her to speak to my hon. Friend.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

International students make an enormous contribution to our economy—Labour estimates the figure to be £25 billion a year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government now support Labour’s policy of removing international students from the net migration target?

[Amber Rudd]

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we value the contribution that those students make to our economy, cultures and university towns. In the past 10 years there has been a 25% increase in their number, and in recent years there has been a 9% increase in the number of them attending Russell Group universities. Those numbers remain uncapped and we continue to welcome them.