Limits on Non-EU Economic Migration
Alan Johnson Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Immigration has enriched our culture and enhanced our society. Britain can benefit from immigration, but not uncontrolled immigration. The levels of net migration seen under the previous Government—an annual figure of almost a quarter of a million at its peak in 2004—were unprecedented in recent times. It is this Government’s aim to reduce the level of net migration back down to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands each year, not hundreds of thousands.
Of course, it is necessary to attract the world’s very best talent to come to the UK to drive strong economic growth, but unlimited migration has placed unacceptable pressure on public services and, worse, severely damaged public confidence in our immigration system. Our over-reliance on migrant labour has done nothing to help the millions of unemployed and low-skilled British citizens who deserve the Government’s help to get back to work and improve their skills. The coalition’s programme for government confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We have always said that we will consult on the implementation of that limit. It is important that the Government take full account of the views of business and other interested sectors. We want to ensure that we can properly weigh the economic considerations against the wider social and public service implications.
I am therefore launching a consultation today on the mechanisms for implementing that annual limit, including questions about the coverage of limits, as well as the mechanics of how they will work in practice. The consultation also recognises the need to attract more high net-worth individuals to the UK through the routes for investors and entrepreneurs, which will not be covered by limits, and we ask for views on how that can be achieved. At the same time, I have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Government on the levels at which limits should be set for the first full year of their operation, which I intend should be from April 2011.
I am sure that all Members of the House would agree with me that the Migration Advisory Committee has an excellent track record in this area, and I want to take this opportunity to record my thanks to David Metcalf and the rest of the committee for taking on this critical piece of work. The consultations will be complete by the end of September, and I intend to make final announcements about the first full annual limit before the end of the calendar year.
It is important that today’s announcement does not lead to a surge of applications during this interim period, which would lead to an increase in net migration, undermining the purpose of the limit and putting undue strain on the UK Border Agency. I am therefore also taking a number of interim measures, and I have laid a statement of changes to the immigration rules in support of those measures. First, I am introducing an interim limit on the number of out-of-country main applicants to tier 1 (general). For 2010-11, this route will be held flat from the equivalent period for 2009-10. The tier 1 routes for investors, entrepreneurs and the post-study route are not affected. Secondly, to ensure that those who do come through this route are the brightest and best, I am raising the tier 1 (general) pass mark by five points for all new applicants.
Thirdly, I am introducing an interim limit on the number of migrants who can be offered jobs by sponsor employers through tier 2 (general). This route will be reduced in the interim period by 1,300 migrants, the equivalent of a 5% reduction across the relevant routes of tiers 1 and 2. The tier 2 routes for intra-company transfers, ministers for religion and—I am not sure whether to say this, given the comments at the end of the Prime Minister’s statement—elite sportspeople are not affected. These interim measures will take effect from 19 July.
It is vital that we restore public confidence in our immigration system. Our plans to do that extend much further than the measures I am announcing today. We support e-borders and the re-introduction of exit checks. We have said that we will create a dedicated border police force to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We have committed to improving our asylum system to speed up the processing of applications. We have said that we will end the detention of children for immigration purposes, and the UK Border Agency has already launched a review engaging a wide range of experts and organisations on how to achieve this.
Our commitment to reduce net migration will require action, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) will indicate in a moment, beyond the economic routes. It may assist him if I tell the House now that I will be reviewing other immigration routes in due course and will be bringing forward further proposals for consideration by the House. And, of course, unlike the previous Government, we are committed to applying transitional controls for all new EU member states.
The commitment to introduce limits on non-EU economic migration is a major immigration commitment of the coalition Government. Today’s announcement is a key step towards the delivery of that commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for a copy of the statement. I am pleased that she has come to make the statement to the House. However, I had already seen the statement she has just made because it was handed to me by a journalist this morning at 11.15.
Obviously, the Home Secretary originally intended to lay a written ministerial statement today. Indeed, the title was laid last Friday. This morning I sought that written ministerial statement. I was told that the Home Office was having a press conference prior to issuing the written ministerial statement—something unknown in my time as a Minister. Therefore, I sought the written ministerial statement again. At 11.15 am a journalist who had been to the press conference handed to me a written ministerial statement that is almost precisely the statement that the right hon. Lady has just made.
I hope the Home Secretary takes the matter seriously. As I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have a right to see written ministerial statements before they are circulated to the media.
The Home Secretary’s announcement represents nothing more than a small adjustment to the points-based system. It was spun to the media over the weekend as a profound adjustment to net migration. Migration to this country has gone up. If the Prime Minister were talking to his French and German colleagues, he would know that there were 4 million migrants in Germany, 4 million in France and about 1.5 million in this country. Since the 1990s, the last time the Conservatives were in power, there has been a huge explosion of migration around the world, as the UN has detailed.
Yes, migration has gone up since the last time the Conservatives were in power, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that net migration has fallen substantially over the past three years? Will she confirm that tier 1 migration—the most highly skilled—fell by 44% in the first quarter of this year? What is the problem with skilled migration that she seeks to resolve? Will she also confirm that the number of asylum seekers has fallen to the levels last seen in the early 1990s—a third of their peak, and the same peak everywhere else in Europe? We are 15th in Europe regarding the number of asylum seekers per head of population.
Will the Home Secretary continue to support the points-based system that we introduced, which ensures that no unskilled worker can come to this country—the door has been closed on tier 3 for the past two years—and that skilled workers under tier 2 can come to this country only if their sponsoring employer has advertised that job in Jobcentre Plus for four weeks prior? Can she confirm that she intends to continue with those measures, which we introduced?
How many skilled workers will be denied entry to the UK under that temporary cap, and what percentage of total net migration will that represent? What makes the Home Secretary think that the UK can avoid the problems the US experienced when President Bush introduced a quota on skilled migrants, with disastrous consequences and a whole series of readjustments 10 years ago? Can she give an example of the problems caused to our society by skilled migrants coming to the UK under the current flexible arrangements?
What effect does the right hon. Lady think her announcement today will have on population growth? Over the weekend I heard Government Members speculate that this morning’s announcement—this trivial adjustment —will somehow ensure that our population avoids reaching 70 million. Does she believe that? If so, how does she think that that will happen?
Given that this measure has been Conservative policy since the less progressive “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” days of their 2005 manifesto, why have they as yet failed to come up with a figure for their pre-determined quota? Does the right hon. Lady intend to implement fully Labour’s tough measures to deal with the abuse of tier 4, the student route, which, along with spousal visas and EU migration, will be totally unaffected by the cap she has announced today?
Today’s announcement will affect fewer than one in seven migrants to this country, and those whom it will affect are the migrants our economy needs the most. If the cap is set too high, it will be meaningless; if it set too low, it will damage our economy. At best it is a gesture; at worst it is a deceit. The Home Secretary knows that a cut in her Department’s budget of one third, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—25%, according to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor—will have disastrous consequences for border control. Is that not the real reason for controlling immigration, rather than this artificial and unnecessary tinkering at the edges?
Mrs May
Let me first address the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the written ministerial statement and my coming to the House. He is absolutely right: I had intended to make a written statement, and the title was indeed placed before the House so that Members could be made aware of it. Over the weekend I spoke to the Government Chief Whip about the possibility of changing that statement into an oral statement, because at the time I felt it more important to come to the House to make an oral statement, which is precisely what I have done. The right hon. Gentleman said, “Will I take this issue seriously?” Government Members have taken Parliament seriously over the past 13 years, so I shall take no lessons from him or any of his colleagues about taking it seriously, given how they bypassed Parliament for 13 years and reduced the House’s powers to hold the Executive to account.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about migration figures, but immigration actually tripled under the Labour Government. It is our desire to get the number down from the hundreds of thousands a year that it has reached under Labour to tens of thousands a year. If he wishes to look at numbers, he should look no further than the past comments of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who said that there was “no obvious upper limit” to immigration. It is this Government who are taking the issue seriously, who promised that they would do something about it and who are taking the action that is necessary.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle made a number of comments about technicalities and the issue of jobs being advertised for four weeks in a jobcentre. Currently, immigrants can come into the country if the resident labour market test or the shortage occupation list requirements are met. We are consulting on whether they should be combined so that a tier 2 migrant is able to come in if both tests are relevant and met. That would be a significant tightening of the current rules.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the wider social impact, as opposed to the economic impact. He has only to go out and talk to people about the pressure in some areas on public services, hospitals and schools. Another issue that his Government failed to get to grips with over the years is the significant number of unemployed people in this country. Some of those people do not have the necessary skills to get into the jobs that are available, but the job of the Government is to ensure that they do have those skills and to give them the support they need to get into those jobs, rather than simply thinking that the answer is to pull in migrant workers from elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to students. If, instead of commenting on the statement he thought I was going to make, he had listened to the statement that I made, he would have heard me say that we would indeed be looking at other immigration routes in due course and bringing further proposals to this House. I recognise that this is one part of the job that we are doing as regards immigration, and other measures will come forward in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not yet have a figure for the annual limit on immigration, despite the fact that this has been a Conservative policy for some time and was in the coalition agreement. I can tell him why not: because we have, for some time, been committed to going out there and consulting those who will be affected—businesses, public service providers and others—about what the limit should be. As I said, the Migration Advisory Committee will be advising the Government and recommending what that annual limit should be. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to the approach of the previous Government, who, in one consultation exercise after another, merely paid lip service to consultation because they had already decided what they were going to do. People then got fed up with being asked to give comments and finding that Government took no notice. We are genuinely consulting people and will be listening to the responses that we get.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alan Johnson Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lynne Featherstone
There have been a number of discussions, as I just said, and the Prime Minister himself has said that the issue will be brought forward for debate in this Chamber at an appropriate point.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I would be interested at some stage to learn the Home Secretary’s views on the issue, because it is a crucial one both for the Home Department and for equalities. The Lord Chancellor told the House the other day that he had voted for anonymity in 2003. I voted against it, and that is still my view, but at some stage I would like to know the Home Secretary’s view.
As for the Minister, she will know that the Prime Minister recently told the House when he replied to a question on the issue that Baroness Stern had
“found that 8 to 10% of reported rape cases could result in false allegations.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 329.]
The Minister should know that the Stern report made no such finding and that what Baroness Stern recommended was independent research to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences. Does the Minister agree that the Government ought to be implementing that recommendation, instead of proposing to introduce anonymity?
Lynne Featherstone
In the first instance, I am sure that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Justice will indeed look at what sort of research is necessary, prior to bringing any debate to the House.
Lynne Featherstone
I can really only refer to the rape crisis centres—both parties in the coalition agreement have committed to up to 15 rape crisis centres—and sustainable funding from the victim surcharge.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
According to the British crime survey, the incidence of domestic violence has decreased by 64 % since 1997. Does the Minister agree that the British crime survey is the best measurement of long-term crime trends?
Identity Documents Bill
Alan Johnson Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She does indeed have an honourable record of maintaining opposition to identity cards. I will make reference to this point later, but I can tell her now that we will not be offering refunds to all those who chose to get an identity card. [Hon. Members: “Outrageous!”] Labour Front Benchers shout “Outrageous”, but we made it clear that we were opposed to identity cards. The Liberal Democrat party made it absolutely clear that it was opposed to identity cards. People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary recall that the Labour party’s manifesto in 2005 had a commitment to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme? Does she recollect that it was the Labour party that won that general election? In what way was it illegitimate—or, indeed, “stupid”, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—for people then to buy a card that was legitimate and had been set out in the manifesto of the winning party?
Mrs May
I must make a confession; I did not study the 2005 Labour party manifesto in any great detail because I was too busy promoting the 2005 Conservative party manifesto—[Interruption.] I am not trying to rewrite history; the right hon. Gentleman and his party won the 2005 election and introduced the identity card scheme. Let us remember; the scheme was not introduced in the very early stages of the Government’s term, but we made it clear from an early stage that if the Conservative party came into government, ID cards would be scrapped. That was clear to people, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I feel honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be the subject of your first pronouncements from the Chair. It will be a pleasure to serve under you.
We on the Labour Benches will not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Although we do not think the general election was in any way a referendum on ID cards, we accept that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have a mandate to abandon the measure. We believe that the 15,000 cards already in use should continue to be a legitimate form of identity, and that those citizens who have purchased them should not be treated in the unfair and arrogant way that the Home Secretary proposed: it is arrogant to punish the public because the Government believe that the public were duty bound to presume a Conservative victory at the general election. That is constitutional nonsense and I have never heard anything so arrogant from a political party in my life.
We think a version of the national identity register must continue to exist in some form, and that second generation biometric passports need to go ahead. However, we will pursue those arguments in Committee and at other stages of the Bill’s passage.
In recent times, my party has been consistently in favour of an identity card scheme, the Liberal Democrats have been consistently opposed and the Conservatives have been inconsistent to the point of perversity. The Bill before us to abandon a voluntary identity card scheme, which the right hon. Lady says is intrusive, bullying and unBritish, was in the first semi-Conservative—I suppose we could call it—Queen’s Speech for almost 14 years.
The irony is that the previous Queen’s Speech under a Tory Administration, in November 1996, included a Bill to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme, following extensive public consultation by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, who said that the potential benefits fell into two categories. It is worth repeating them to the House. This was a Conservative Government, proposing a Bill at the Queen’s Speech—[Interruption.] “Fifteen years ago,” says the Minister for Immigration. We will get on to what has changed in the almost 15 years since 1996, and how the problems that led that Conservative Government to put forward an “unBritish, bullying and intrusive” Bill have actually worsened in the ensuing period. However, Michael Howard summed up the benefits succinctly, noting first, the
“direct benefits to the individual holder (e.g. through use of an identity card as a travel card or to provide reliable proof of identity including for commercial transactions)”;
and, secondly,
“the wider benefits to all citizens, (e.g. by reducing the level of certain crimes or by providing more efficient or less costly provision of state services).”
That description of the benefits is as accurate today as it was then. The consultation under the Conservative Government found that 64% of the public supported ID cards, with 36% opposed, and the last Tory Government to be elected to power in their own right—perhaps the last in more ways than one—proceeded to include the measure in the Gracious Speech.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I, too, very much welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend understand the concerns of my constituents, who have been in touch having bought that voluntary ID card precisely for the reasons that he just gave? They saw it as an opportunity to get proof of identity without going down the route of obtaining a passport and to have something in their pocket? Does he also understand their concerns in writing to me and asking me to vote against this measure because they want either to get some recompense for the card that they have bought, or, if hon. Members will pardon the pun, to passport it for use in another way?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend should write and tell them that the Government believe—this Government, who believe in the big society and in listening to people—that the scheme into which they bought, which Parliament approved at every stage and which was in the 2005 manifesto of the party that was elected to government, is somehow illegitimate. His constituents should realise that it was their mistake in not presuming a victory for the Tory party at the recent general election. That seems to be the reason.
That description of the benefits to which I referred is accurate, and the consultation carried out by the previous Conservative Government showed overwhelming public support. The Labour Government resuscitated the proposals and subjected them to a fresh, six-month public consultation and further scrutiny in the form of a draft Bill in 2003. The Select Committee on Home Affairs held a simultaneous inquiry, and the outcome of all that was, again, overwhelming public support.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am trying desperately to understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position. He still seems to be for ID cards, but he will not oppose the Bill this evening. What is the Labour party’s position on ID cards? Can we expect to see them in a future Labour party manifesto?
Alan Johnson
That is to be determined by the party. However, we cannot suggest that we did not lose the election; we cannot simply oppose every measure that the Government propose. We have to ensure that we consider the will of the people. I do not doubt that the mandate of the two parties in government allows them to introduce the measure before us, but they are absolutely wrong to cancel the national identity register, to say that they will not go ahead with second-generation biometric passports and, most of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said, to take such an arrogant and dismissive approach to the British public.
The Home Secretary said that ID cards would be made a footnote to history, so let us carry on with the history. The Conservative Government proposed ID cards and undertook public consultation; Labour resuscitated the proposal; the Home Affairs Committee supported it; public scrutiny supported it; and the draft Bill gained overwhelming support.
I should at this point mention the strange episode of the ten-minute Bill in January 2002, when the then Member for Broxtowe, now sadly no longer a Member, proposed leave to introduce an identity card Bill. The House will know that on a ten-minute Bill only the die-hard supporters of a proposition will turn up to vote, but among that bunch of ID card zealots, those people who wanted an “unBritish, intrusive and anti-democratic” scheme, we find the former shadow Home Secretary, now the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the current Leader of the House, and a whole bunch of their Conservative colleagues.
To listen to the Home Secretary speak today, one would never believe that she once walked through the Aye Lobby in support of ID cards. I have to reveal that she did. Members should listen to her speech today, or read it again in Hansard, and then recall that the Home Secretary supported Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill on 20 December 2004; and she was not a Tory rebel: she voted with her party in support of that Bill, whose measures she now seeks to repeal. The Conservatives continued to give their support. Indeed, they supported it under the leadership of Michael Howard at the 2005 general election.
The right hon. Lady now says that people were foolish to go out and buy ID cards, but both main parties at that general election supported ID cards, so the proposition that they should be removed is quite extraordinary. The Conservatives continued to give their support right into the 2005 general election, when Labour’s winning manifesto pledged
“to provide citizens with a…secure identity card to protect them…from identity theft and clamp down on illegal working and fraudulent use of public services.”
Why does the Home Secretary now believe that it was an infringement of civil liberties, the cause of the end of civilisation as we know it, when she voted for that precise scheme in 2004?
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your position. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that only a few days ago the head of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said that the scheme would have been an expensive folly and an unwelcome intrusion into people’s private liberties and lives? Does he also know that the TUC head said that he welcomed and supported this Government’s proposals to get rid of ID cards? Given Labour’s current financial circumstances, is it wise to ignore paymasters in that way?
Alan Johnson
The TUC is a lot of things, but it is not a paymaster. I was not aware that Brendan Barber had said that, but if that is his view he is perfectly entitled to express it. I am setting out the views of the current Home Secretary and the Conservative party on Second Reading on 20 December 2004 of the Bill whose measures they now seek to repeal. Indeed, they are not just seeking to repeal that legislation, but describing in extraordinarily derogatory terms anyone who supported it.
I quoted our precise manifesto commitment in 2005. We were in the course of carrying out that commitment, and everyone recognised that it would be a long process, but it began with the Tories’ enthusiastic support at the 2005 general election, and ended with their bitter opposition. How do we explain the Conservative party’s change from hard-headed pragmatists to the political wing of Liberty? In respect of the issues that galvanised the Conservatives to act in the 1996 Queen’s Speech and support the Identity Cards Bill on Second Reading in 2004, the only change is that the problems that they sought to address have become more acute.
The mantra of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is civil liberties, but the Home Secretary should remember that when we talk about civil liberties—our basic freedoms—we are not talking solely about the rights of individuals but about the rights of society as a whole. We are talking about the right to be able to travel freely, the right to have access to efficient and effective public services, and the right to live our lives free from crime. ID cards, biometric passports and the national identity register that supported them were designed precisely to protect those freedoms, but at the same time to help to increase security—the security of each individual’s identity, the security of our borders and, yes, an added layer of security in the fight against terrorism.
The Home Secretary might like to be aware, because she mentioned it, that it was not me who first pointed out the link with terrorism—it was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is, I confess, not normally guilty of any inconsistency. During the Second Reading debate in 2004, he said, as shadow Home Secretary at this very Dispatch Box:
“I would not have countenanced ID cards before 11 September. After that, however, I accept that we must consider them. After 11 September, it is incumbent on all of us to examine carefully any measures that might enhance the nation’s security. Identity cards introduced properly and effectively may help to do that.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1953.]
That is what he said as shadow Home Secretary.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
My right hon. Friend—I will call him that, because he knows our relationship—is carefully not quoting the rest of the speech or saying what actually happened. What we did at that time was to give the Government of the day the benefit of the doubt because there had just been some terrorist events that obviously brought the country into some risk. We therefore said, “We will support the Government on this, under five tests”—they were very fond of five tests in those days. The five tests were that the Government could control the cost of the programme, which they did not; protect the privacy of the individual, which they did not; manage it competently, which they did not; protect the security of the data, which they did not; and show its effectiveness against terrorism and crime, which they did not. That is why we opposed it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before the right hon. Member replies, may I remind people that interventions should be very short?
Alan Johnson
I apologise to my right hon. Friend in this broad coalition, but I do not have time to quote the whole speech. Of course he made those points in that very important debate, after which the Tories walked through the Aye Lobby with us. I do not agree that the tests were not met. My point, however, is that the Conservatives are now in government. They can carry out the proposal that was in the Queen’s Speech in 1996 and meet the tests that they set.
That debate took place on 20 December 2004, three years after 9/11 and, unfortunately, seven months before 7/7, and before the airline bomb plot, the liquid bomb plot, and all the other terrorist outrages that we have had to counter. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that anything has changed in relation to national security except that these problems are more acute. We are at a severe level of readiness. No one on the Government Benches can say, “Well, things have changed since 1996,” or since 2004. They have changed—they have got worse, and that has made the case for ID cards stronger.
Alan Johnson
I will make some progress and then give way.
Of course, for the Government, as the Home Secretary said, it is conveniently symbolic to have this debate so early on in this Session of Parliament. It is a symbolic act to prove that the coalition can actually agree on something, as it certainly cannot agree on Europe, the alternative vote, or even the Human Rights Act.
It is certainly true that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been consistently smug in suggesting that a simple ID card scheme will mean the end of civilisation as we know it. Not for nothing are the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister known as the self-righteous brothers, although they are bound to have lost that loving feeling before too long. The Deputy Prime Minister has a Dutch mother and a Spanish wife, so he should know that the claim that ID cards are an affront to liberty and freedom would be greeted with bemusement in Holland, Spain, France, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and all the other countries that have managed to provide their citizens with the cards’ pragmatic advantages without becoming despotic oligarchies.
The Bill has provisions to keep the clauses of the 2006 Act that relate to false documentation, and we welcome that, but we need much more than penalties for false documents if we are to win the fight against identity fraud and illegal immigration.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Was it the shadow Home Secretary’s intention that it would be compulsory for everyone to have ID cards? If not, how on earth could they help to prevent terrorism, benefit fraud or anything else, given that the people who were likely to commit those acts were unlikely to apply for an ID card?
Alan Johnson
That is a very good point. No, it was not my intention to make the cards compulsory. Indeed, we made it absolutely plain that people could use their biometric passport as an identity document or use an ID card, which was a smaller, simpler, cheaper version. France has a voluntary ID card scheme, as do many countries in Europe that would not go to the compulsory stage, and it helps people to protect and prove their identity, which is the fundamental reason behind it. As I said, it was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden who mentioned the link with terrorism, not moi.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a customarily amusing yet powerful contribution to the debate. He is wise to accept the mandate of the coalition Government, whereby they believe that they have a right to dismantle their version of the surveillance state. Does he agree, however, that the Bill does not remove any obligation on any Department to verify people’s identity, so there will be no less identity verification going on? If the Government really want to reduce the surveillance state, they should give citizens ownership of their data so that Departments do not continually data-share—there might be more of that as a result of the Bill—and have a transparency register that means that every occurrence of data-sharing that goes on between Departments is in the public domain so that people have the right to challenge it?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point; he has a good track record in this area. He is highlighting the real issues of civil liberties, which are not only to do with a simple identity card to prove and protect identity but a whole range of other issues that I shall come to in a moment.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Alan Johnson
No, I need to make some progress.
If we want to travel abroad, take an internal flight, open a bank account, take up a new job, register with a doctor, get a driving licence or get married, we need to prove our identity. No one would dispute that it is perfectly reasonable to have to provide proof of identity in such circumstances. For those who voluntarily acquire an ID card, it enables them to prove who they are quickly, easily and securely. It provides a universal and simple proof of identity and a convenient end to the disorganised use of a year’s worth of photocopied bank statements that people have to hand over—phone bills, birth certificates and so on, all copied to numerous different places because of the ways that people have to prove their identity. The Conservatives agreed about that almost unanimously in 1996 and again in 2004. For those lucky enough to be blessed with youthful good looks—like you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker—it also provides proof of age. For those who are less well-off, it provides a cheap and convenient alternative to a passport for European travel. It enables people easily to access the services to which they are entitled. The fact that a robust and trusted form of identification can be a tool for empowerment is something that the Government have ignored in all their posturing on civil liberties.
Mr Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman talked about other countries in Europe and gave us a long list without deviation, hesitation or repetition, but can he say whether one of them introduced a national identity register? That is unique to this country, and an unprecedented complete disaster.
Alan Johnson
Yes––France.
There was nothing Big Brotherish about the system that we were implementing. We already have the NHS database for those registered with GPs. Incidentally, I note from yesterday’s Independent—I do not know whether it is true, but if we have read it in the papers, it probably is—that the Government have reneged on their pledge to scrap that database. We already have the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database for those with a driving licence and the passport database with information on 80% of the people in this country—exactly the same information as is on the ID card.
All that we want to do is make it easier for banks, GPs and employers to verify someone’s identity and thereby make it much more difficult for people to create multiple identities and commit identity fraud. That crime costs our economy £1.2 billion every year and has increased by 20% in the first quarter of this year alone. Combating identity fraud protects the security not just of individuals but of all of us collectively. Drug dealers, people traffickers and terrorists depend on access to false documents. Having no simple method of establishing and recording someone’s identity simply plays into their hands, as the police have said in numerous submissions, as the Conservative party stated in its pronouncements before the 2005 election and as the public have said in every consultation held by Governments of both persuasions over the past 14 years. The introduction of ID cards was linked to the switch to biometric passports, with all the costs intertwined. The national identity register is crucial to both, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment.
Conor Burns
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the scheme would be successful on none of those points unless it were, in time, to move towards being compulsory? People who are going to commit crimes would not participate in a voluntary scheme. During my early years in Northern Ireland, people were compelled to carry photographic driving licences whether they were drivers or not. That fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state, in a profoundly detrimental way.
Alan Johnson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which has rather bedevilled this debate, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden well knows. There was a confusion among the public and politicians about whether the scheme would be compulsory or voluntary, and the whole debate in 2004 and subsequently was about whether future Parliaments would have the opportunity to declare the scheme compulsory. It would have taken a vote of Parliament, but yes, that was implicit in the legislation.
In the debate on 20 December 2004, Charles Clarke, who is sadly no longer in the House, said in his very first address to the House as Home Secretary, “Don’t vote for this Bill if you don’t want to see ID cards become compulsory.” The current Home Secretary voted for the Bill. I can only imagine what she would say if we proposed a compulsory ID cards scheme, having heard her rhetoric about how a voluntary scheme is the end of civilisation. However, she voted for that scheme on the clear statement of the then Home Secretary that Members should vote for it only if they wanted it to become compulsory. I disagree with a compulsory scheme and believe that we can have simple proof and protection of people’s identities without it becoming compulsory.
Second-generation biometric passports, planned to commence in 2012, would provide a crucial additional level of security, enabling verification that the person presenting a passport had the same fingerprints as those encoded on the chip. Amazingly, the Liberal Democrats appear to have convinced the Tories in their political pre-nup to scrap second-generation passports.
Robert Flello
There were appalling events fairly recently involving British passports being used in state-sponsored terrorism. Would not that extra layer perhaps have prevented that atrocity?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend pre-empts a crucial point that I shall come on to in a moment.
There was no mention of scrapping second-generation biometric passports in the Conservative manifesto. In fact, the Tories have not only been in favour of biometrics but wholeheartedly and enthusiastically in favour of them. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) summed up the matter in 2007 when he said:
“There is not a Conservative Member…who disagrees with the notion that there should be biometric passports.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 671.]
The Prime Minister himself has admitted that
“there is a need for the use of biometrics on passports”.
Why the change of heart when we know that by locking people to one identity using advanced passport technology, we would help protect our country against the use of multiple identities by criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists? Why, given that updating our passports would bring us in line with the rest of Europe, which has already set minimum passport standards to include facial and fingerprint biometrics, do we intend to allow our country to become an easy target for illegal immigration and our citizens to be subject to onerous checks at airports and ferry ports around the world? We had already introduced facial recognition image biometrics in British passports in 2006, but now the countries in the Schengen agreement are going further and the US has already imposed a fingerprint requirement on all visitors who have not historically required a visa—in other words, those from the UK.
I turn to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised. In March, when I was Home Secretary and sitting alongside the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), the House heard about the inquiry carried out by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, at the request of the Dubai authorities, into how 12 people with joint UK-Israeli citizenship had had their passports cloned without their knowledge. Those were pre-biometric passports. Second-generation biometrics would make such cloning impossible. Indeed, the current Foreign Secretary, who was then shadowing the position, when that statement was made, said:
“The Foreign Secretary said that the biometric passports introduced four years ago are more difficult to counterfeit. Does he consider these new passports to be as invulnerable to counterfeiting as it is possible to make them, or will the Government review whether any other steps are needed to protect the integrity of British passports? Is there any suggestion that British passports are more vulnerable than those of other countries, including other EU countries?”—[Official Report, 23 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 135.]
No, there was not such a suggestion then, but there is now that, amazingly and incredibly, this Government are planning to abandon second-generation biometric passports and leave our country more vulnerable to attack. It is beyond me to understand how the new Home Secretary could have been lulled into that decision. Identity fraud, illegal immigration, terrorism and organised crime are international problems, and it makes sense for Britain to continue working with our international neighbours to tackle them. Biometric passports are part of an international drive to make travel documents more secure. Their electronic security features, including fingerprints, are a significant impediment to forgers and counterfeiters, and we need to keep pace with our neighbours if the UK passport is to continue to be recognised as having the highest integrity.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I, too, congratulate you on your illustrious elevation, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In Dover, people are concerned that border security has been lax for years. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not put more energy into dealing with the security of our borders? If he had done that rather than dealing with ID cards, maybe we would have had less illegal immigration.
Alan Johnson
That intervention was not worth waiting for. We put considerable effort into securing our borders. As he represents Dover, he will know that the chief constable of Kent has seen the number of illegal immigrants roving around the county reduced by 92% since my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) went over and did a deal with Sarkozy, who was then the Interior Minister, and shut down Sangatte. We have taken every measure possible. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the security of his constituents in Dover, I tell him that I am talking about the current Government abandoning second-generation biometric passports, probably on the basis of a decision at the hippy commune known as the Liberal Democrat conference. That is an incredible decision.
On funding, the Government claim that scrapping the scheme will produce an initial £84 million in savings in the next four years. I would be extremely interested to learn how the Home Secretary came to that figure. On none of the statistics I saw when I was doing her job only three weeks ago does that make sense. Seventy per cent. of the start-up costs for ID cards are linked to first-generation biometric passports, to ensure that they fall into line with international standards. Those costs are unavoidable and the money is committed, so where does the £84 million come from?
Steve McCabe
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary needs to publish the detail of those alleged savings? All we have heard today is how she is going to rip-off 15,000 people who have already paid for the card.
Alan Johnson
Indeed—and for the grand sum of £1 million, which she will save by not giving pensioners and students their money back on the cards they acquired because they had the temerity not to forecast a Conservative victory at the general election. We will question that more closely in Committee.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; I was unfortunately unable to persuade the Home Secretary to take an intervention on refunds.
I am seeking my right hon. Friend’s support for a suggestion made to me by one of my constituents, and perhaps the Government will also consider it. If the Government are unwilling to refund those who applied for a passport and paid the £30 in good faith, perhaps they would consider giving a credit to all card holders for the next time they apply for a passport.
Alan Johnson
That is a sensible suggestion, except that some people who have ID cards do not have passports. They are part of that 20% of the population who generally will not have a driving licence or bank account. We used to call them the socially excluded—indeed, the Government are supposed to be wedded to the idea of helping them—and many of them will not have that facility because they do not have a passport, but my hon. Friend’s point is relevant, and I shall address it further shortly.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary must also cost in the additional cost in unemployment benefit that must be paid to my constituents if they do not manage to secure alternative employment when they lose their jobs because of the Government’s decision?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend might get an answer to that from the Home Secretary. Perhaps those staff should not have had the temerity to take those jobs, because they should have known that the Conservatives were going to win the next general election. This is the new, bizarre world in which we are living.
Abolishing the national identity register would save very little for three reasons: first, all the information held on our existing passport database will continue to be held; secondly, that information will need to be held securely, as it is now; and thirdly, we will still need to collect and securely hold the fingerprints of foreign nationals on a database.
The Government’s claim that scrapping ID cards will save £800 million in operating costs over the next 10 years is utter fantasy. We always proceeded on the basis of full cost recovery and made it perfectly clear that over 10 years, the operating costs of ID cards would be recovered through fees, so there would be no charge on general taxation over that period. However, if there are no ID cards, there is no charge for ID cards, and therefore no way of recovering the costs. By cancelling the scheme, the Government remove the income stream but leave the cancellation costs, which the taxpayer will be forced to pay, and let us not forget the continuing cost to the economy of fraud, abuse of the NHS, illegal immigration and unauthorised working. By cancelling the scheme, the Government will make not a saving, but a substantial loss.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that our black and Asian British constituents will come under suspicion, because some in authority will assume that they ought to have the card that foreign nationals must carry? We will have a return of the sus laws, because there will be double standards: one towards black and Asian migrants and British citizens who might be suspected of being migrants, and another towards other British citizens. Can the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister assure us that there will be no increase in stop-and-search or sus law-type provisions against black and Asian British citizens?
Alan Johnson
That precise point has been made by Liberty, which opposes ID cards—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says that Liberty does not make that point, but it does, on the basis that ID cards for foreign nationals will be compulsory. Although it is a card with fingerprints and biometric identification, we cannot now call it an ID card, which is really silly—it must be called a “permit” or “warrant” or some such thing. Liberty says that either everyone should have a card, which is novel for Liberty, or no one should have one.
Alan Johnson
I will not give way because I am about to conclude.
My final point is that the Government intend not only to stop issuing cards, but to make the 15,000 already in circulation illegal. I find that despicable, and I do not think that that is too strong a word. How can any Government seek to punish hundreds of thousands of its citizens for having the temerity to take advantage of a scheme that was pledged in a manifesto, supported in law and introduced in an entirely legitimate way? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering from the Front Bench, but I will gladly take an intervention.
Alan Johnson
Fifteen thousand is a significant number of people—[Interruption.] On Monday, the Deputy Prime said that he had made a slip of the tongue when he told one of my hon. Friends that the Government will certainly campaign for a yes vote in a Welsh referendum to devolve powers to Wales, and I think I am entitled to make a similar slip of the tongue. Of course I am talking not about hundreds of thousands of people—it would have been if the scheme had gone on a few months longer—but thousands, and 15,000 is a significant number of people.
Those in possession of identity cards ought to be able to continue to use them as a legitimate form of identification, and to travel in Europe and access services. At the very least, they should receive a refund, or the Government should take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and offer a discount off future purchases. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking that they could treat people with such off-hand arrogance, and they must look again at that aspect of the Bill.
The Opposition remain unconvinced by the Government’s arguments for scrapping ID cards. The money saved will not pay for 3,000 extra police officers, as the Lib Dems claimed. In the long term, the proposals will cost us more money, hamper the efforts of the police to tackle identity fraud, and weaken rather than defend civil liberties. Illegalising cards that have already been issued will penalise those who bought them in good faith, including pensioners and students. Scrapping second generation biometric passports will threaten our borders and encourage illegal immigration, because our passport technology will lag behind that of our European neighbours. I urge the Government to rethink this expensive, misguided and spiteful little Bill.
Cumbrian Shooting Incident
Alan Johnson Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the shootings that took place yesterday in Cumbria. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones will make this statement in the other place.
I know that the whole House will want to join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to everybody touched by yesterday’s tragic events. In particular, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who were so senselessly killed and injured in the shootings. We also send our thoughts to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is in Cumbria today, in his constituency. He represents communities that have been touched by tragedy too many times in recent months—but they are strong communities and I know they will bear these sad events with dignity and fortitude.
I would also like to pay tribute to the police and emergency services. In my short time as Home Secretary I have been struck by the bravery, professionalism and sense of duty that police officers demonstrate every single day. Yesterday, the men and women of Cumbria constabulary—aided by the civil nuclear constabulary, neighbouring police forces and the other emergency services—showed these qualities in abundance. They have the support and admiration of the whole House as they go about rebuilding the lives of the people of Cumbria.
I spoke yesterday to Chief Constable Craig Mackey, and we talked again this morning. He has told me that his force is now conducting a full and thorough investigation to find out exactly what happened, how and why. More than 100 detectives have been assigned to the task. Their investigation will look into Derrick Bird’s history, his access to firearms and the motivations for his actions.
As I said yesterday, while the police investigation is ongoing, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any details beyond what has been released by Cumbria constabulary, but I would like to tell the House what I can.
Twelve people were killed yesterday, in addition to Derrick Bird. There were 11 casualties who were being or have been treated in hospitals in Whitehaven, Carlisle and Newcastle. Of those, four are stable, four are comfortable and three have been discharged. The police are confirming the identity of those who died, and names are being released by Cumbria constabulary as and when formal identification is confirmed and immediate family have been informed. More than 30 family liaison officers have been working throughout the night to identify formally the 12 people who were killed and notify their relatives. The police investigation is being led by a major incident group from the police headquarters in Penrith, and there are 30 different crime scenes.
Derrick Bird’s body was located in woodland near Boot at around 1.40 pm yesterday. No shots were fired by police officers. At this stage, the police believe that he took his own life. Two weapons were recovered by police and are being examined by forensic experts. They are a shotgun and a .22 inch rifle fitted with a telescopic sight. Derrick Bird was a licensed firearms holder. He had held a shotgun licence since 1995 and a firearms licence for a .22 inch rifle since 2007. I can now tell the House that the police have confirmed to me that his licences covered the firearms seized yesterday.
I will visit Cumbria tomorrow, together with the Prime Minister, so that I can meet Chief Constable Mackey and other senior officers in person and make sure that they have all the support that they need to complete their important work. I can also announce today that I will, if necessary, provide additional funding for Cumbria constabulary through the police special grant facility.
I spoke this morning to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has asked his Department’s emergencies management team to contact the local authorities involved to see what support and assistance they need. The Minister with responsibility for civil society, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), will talk to charities working in Cumbria and is looking at ways to provide them with extra support at a time when their work will be vital in helping the community to recover.
Undoubtedly, yesterday’s killings will prompt a debate about our country’s gun laws. That is understandable and, indeed, right and proper, but it would be wrong to react before we know the full facts. Today we must remember the innocent people who were taken from us as they went about their lives. Then we must allow the police time to complete their investigations. When the police have reported, the Government will enter into, and lead, that debate. We will engage with all interested parties and consider all the options, and we will make sure that hon. Members have the opportunity to contribute. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the best way to ensure that Members have such an opportunity before the summer recess.
Mass killings such as those that we saw yesterday are fortunately extremely rare in our country, but that does not make them any less painful, and it does not mean that we should not do everything that we can to stop them happening again, so where there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them, and where there are changes to be made, we will make them. But for now, let us wish the injured victims a speedy recovery, remember the 12 innocent lives that were taken, and pray for the families and friends left behind.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It seems perverse to welcome the Home Secretary to her first outing at the Dispatch Box, given the awful and tragic circumstances that have led to this unscheduled appearance, but we wish her well in her demanding job, and I thank her for providing me with a copy of her statement in advance. I join her in sending condolences to the families and friends of those killed yesterday, and we send our heartfelt hope that those who have been wounded recover from their injuries. As she says, the police and the emergency services have performed magnificently, and on behalf of those on the Labour Benches, I, too, pay tribute to the dedication and skill of those involved.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary’s ability to answer questions at this stage will be limited, given the ongoing police inquiries, so I will limit my remarks to a few areas on which I believe it may be fruitful to concentrate attention. As the Home Secretary said, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) is quite rightly with his constituents and cannot be with us in the House. I spoke to him yesterday and again this morning, and he makes the point that while we should not rush to change firearm laws, we should at least review them in the light of this case. Does the Home Secretary agree?
In particular, we may need to focus on the question of follow-up checks. Does the Home Secretary think that they are adequate, and does she agree that there may be a need for a greater role for GPs and the NHS? She will know that while there is a role for the applicant’s family doctor before a firearms certificate is issued, there seems to be little involvement thereafter to ensure that the certificate holder’s mental health, in particular, is not deteriorating.
Cumbria constabulary is, I know, an excellent force achieving excellent results. I am sure that it will be examining the whole question of response times and whether there was anything more that it could have done in the dreadful circumstances with which it was presented yesterday. As the Home Secretary says, such incidents are thankfully rare, but she will know that since the Mumbai massacre, our counter-terrorism capability has put in place strategies to deal with such an eventuality. Is she happy that the expertise and knowledge being assembled in this area is being disseminated across all forces, so that it can apply equally in a non-terrorist related incident, which is what the incident in west Cumbria appears to be? Does she think that a small, rural force such as Cumbria is properly equipped to deal with events that are more often predicted to happen in urban areas?
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday about doing anything that he could to help Cumbria police, who have had to deal with a series of tragic events. The House will recall the death of PC Bill Barker last year in the dreadful floods that badly hit the area. I am pleased to hear about the help that the Home Secretary will provide through the special grant facility; that is indeed good news. Presumably, she is confident that it will cover all that Cumbria police need for the ongoing investigations, and indeed what they may need for counselling for those officers directly affected.
The Prime Minister also rightly praised the work of the NHS, and in particular West Cumberland hospital. My hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington (Tony Cunningham) have today written to the Secretary of State for Health—who, I am pleased to see, is present—about the uncertainty over future funding for that hospital. That needs to be resolved quickly; the hospital’s work is difficult enough at this time without those continuing problems.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has asked me to express his thanks, on behalf of the community that he represents, for all the expressions of support that he has received from across the House. These are dark times for a strong and close-knit community, renowned for the beauty of its surroundings and the warmth and friendliness of its people. They will recover from these recent tragedies, but the help and support of everyone in this House and of those whom we represent will be essential to that process. The Home Secretary can certainly be assured of our support as she seeks to find answers to the questions raised by these tragic events.