EU-Australia PNR Agreement

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The coalition Government are firmly committed to protecting the security of their citizens and to defending their civil liberties. Our experience is that both security and privacy are possible. We must resist trading one off against the other as some would wish us to do.

We are firmly committed to consistency in our approach to civil liberties and will seek to translate our domestic agenda to the EU level—this includes purpose limitation; rigorous evidence-based arguments; the principles of necessity and proportionality; stringent data protection safeguards, especially when handling sensitive personal data; independent data protection oversight; and, of course, full compliance with EU law and the EU treaties.

The UK, in common with many other EU member states and third countries, places considerable value on the collection and analysis of passenger name record (PNR) data (that data collected by carriers in the exercise of their business) for the purpose of preventing terrorism and serious crime. The appropriate use of PNR data is vital in keeping the public safe.

In line with this view, the Government continue to press for an EU PNR directive that includes provision for intra EU flights. The Government also believe that clear PNR agreements between the EU and third countries play a vital role in removing legal uncertainty for air carriers flying to those countries, and help ensure that PNR information can be shared quickly and securely, with all necessary data protection safeguards in place.

This agreement replaces the EU-Australia PNR agreement which has been applied provisionally from June 2008. The European Parliament postponed its vote on that agreement and asked the Commission to come forward with a single model for international agreements before it took a final vote. On 21 September 2010 the European Commission published a communication on the global approach to transfers of PNR data to third countries, together with a package of draft negotiating mandates for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States. In response to this, the Council presented a draft Council decision to authorise the Commission to open negotiations for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the US, together with draft negotiating guidelines (collectively referred to as the negotiating mandates).

The UK opted into these negotiating mandates in December 2010 and announced this decision to Parliament on 20 December 2010.

We fully recognise the importance of working with partners outside the EU given that the threats we face are global in nature and, in common with other EU member states, we view Australia as a key partner.

I wish to bring to Parliament’s attention that, after due consideration of civil liberty, data protection and security issues, the Government have decided to opt in to the Council decisions to sign and conclude the EU-Australia PNR agreement.

In particular, the agreement;

Restricts the purposes for which data can be processed to the prevention of and combating of terrorist offences and serious transnational crime;

Makes express provision for data security;

Restricts the period for which data may be retained to five and a half years, with data being masked after three years unless it is required for an ongoing investigation;

Provides that the masking mechanism shall be reviewed one year after entry into force and suggests archiving as an alternative method of restricting access if masking does not prove to be efficient or cost-effective;

Prohibits the use of sensitive personal data and mandates the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to delete any such data it may receive from carriers;

Provides for the oversight of the Australian Information Commissioner;

Sets out rights of access, rectification and erasure and redress;

Contains specific provisions about data retention, including who may have access to the data throughout the retention periods;

Regulates the transfer of PNR data to other Australian Government authorities;

Only permits onward data transmission to a third country on a case-by-case basis and for the purposes outlined above. The data may not be transmitted further without the permission of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

The Council decisions to sign and conclude the agreement were deposited on 23 May. These can be found at the following links:

Council decision to sign:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011: 0280:FIN:EN:PDF.

Council decision to conclude:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0281:FIN:EN:PDF.

The Government will continue to work with the Scrutiny Committees when they consider whether to opt in to Council decisions to sign and conclude the US and Canada PNR agreements once these agreements are published, and will of course update Parliament on the Government’s opt in decisions.

Human Trafficking

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am today publishing the Government’s human trafficking strategy “Human Trafficking: The Government’s Strategy” a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

Victim care arrangements remain central to the Government’s approach to combating trafficking. Adult victim care arrangements will be strengthened, with support offered by a greater range of specialist care providers. This will ensure that victims have access to the care they need, tailored to their particular circumstances and in line with our international commitments. We will also ensure that children remain a focus of our efforts as we look to combat those traffickers who exploit vulnerable children.

A renewed focus on preventing human trafficking is required. The UK is already a world leader in the fight against trafficking but we recognise more can be done with international partners to reduce the threat from overseas. The strategy recognises the importance of working with source and transit countries to target and disrupt the work of traffickers and prevent more vulnerable men, women and children from becoming trafficking victims. A key aspect of our approach will be better intelligence gathering and sharing and, from 2013 the National Crime Agency will play a vital role in spearheading our fight against organised criminal groups who are engaged in human trafficking.

The strategy also sets out our aim to better co-ordinate our border and policing law enforcement efforts to prevent traffickers from entering the UK. We will use intelligence to target those convicted or suspected of trafficking at the border as well as developing risk-based indicators to facilitate the systematic targeting of high risk passengers.

We will also ensure we monitor intelligence in relation to key events such as the Olympics and Paralympics to respond quickly and appropriately to any potential increased risk of trafficking.

Family Migration

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Today, I am publishing a consultation on family migration. Immigration has enriched our culture and strengthened our economy, but uncontrolled immigration places pressure on our public services and on community cohesion. The Government have already introduced a limit on non-European economic area economic migrants entering the UK; have reshaped tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system to increase selectivity and skills requirements; have started implementing changes to tier 4, the student visa system; and are currently consulting on breaking the link between economic migration and settlement, and on other temporary work routes. These policies will reduce net migration, but we need to take action across all routes to ensure this returns to sustainable levels and we bring a sense of fairness back to our immigration system.

This consultation on family migration is the next in our programme of immigration reforms. In the year to September 2010, family migration accounted for around 17% of all non-EU immigration to the UK.

The proposals included in the family consultation are aimed at tackling abuse, promoting integration and reducing burdens on the taxpayer. A contribution to reduced net migration would be welcome but is not the primary goal. The focus is on delivering better family migration: better for migrants, for communities and for the UK as a whole.

The consultation concentrates on the family route: those non-EEA nationals entering, remaining in or settling in the UK on the basis of a relationship with a British citizen or person settled in the UK. This includes fiancé(e)s, proposed civil partners, spouses, civil partners, unmarried or same-sex partners, dependent children and adult and elderly dependent relatives. In 2010, 48,900 visas were granted to people on the family route, of which 40,500 were issued to people on the basis of marriage or civil or other partnership, and 8,400 were issued to dependants.

We set out firm proposals for reform of the family route. The key elements are: a minimum income threshold for sponsors to provide appropriate maintenance, on which we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to advise; in line with other routes, extending the probationary period from two years to five years before a spouse or partner can apply for settlement (and before which non-contributory benefits may not be claimed. Access to the labour market, to the NHS and to schooling will be unaffected by this change); and a requirement to understand everyday English before settlement is granted. We propose that all those seeking settlement or citizenship should demonstrate an appropriate level of English, and we will consider whether changes to the current testing regime could further assist integration.

We also propose to help UK Border Agency caseworkers consider spouse and partner applications by defining what we mean under the rules by a genuine and continuing relationship, marriage or partnership; to end immediate settlement, and immediate access to benefits, on entry for spouses and partners who have been married or in a relationship for at least four years before coming to the UK, and for adult dependent relatives, including those aged 65 or over, and to require both groups to complete a five-year probationary period; and to look at arrangements for dependent relatives aged 65 or over to settle in the UK, reflecting health and social care costs to the taxpayer.

The consultation also invites discussion on some broader propositions, particularly in relation to tackling sham marriages and forced marriages. On sham marriages these build on existing joint work between the UK Border Agency and the General Register Offices across the UK, local registration services and the Anglican Church. They also explore the case for legislative change in England and Wales, including making “sham” an impediment to marriage and allowing a marriage to be delayed while a suspected sham is investigated.

It is important that we look at family migration in the round and so the consultation also deals with other family migration issues.

In 2010, 45,200 dependants under the points-based system were granted a visa with a route to settlement in the UK. The consultation proposes moving to a five-year probationary period and everyday English for settlement for the spouses and civil and other partners of points-based system migrants, in line with other groups.

Many British citizens and persons settled in the UK have family members living outside the UK. This results in a high volume of visa applications from people wishing to visit family here. In 2010, 350,300 family visit visas were issued, with around 73% granted on initial decision by the visa officer. In 2010-11, 95% of family visit visa applications were decided by the UK Border Agency within 15 working days.

We have reviewed the arrangements for the operation of the family visit visa. We are concerned that taxpayer funding of around £40 million per year is being spent on appeals where appellants are commonly misusing the appeals system, by submitting information on appeal which should have been put forward as part of the original application, or where a second application (costing another £76) is the most appropriate route for securing a visa. We are also concerned that this is a disproportionate use of taxpayer funding (for an appeal process which can take up 34 weeks to be concluded) for the benefit sought: a short-term visit to the UK. Greater priority should be given to appeal cases that have far-reaching impacts for the individuals concerned and for the public at large, for example asylum claims, settlement applications and the deportation of foreign criminals.

In the light of this, we are reviewing the full right of appeal for family visit visas and we invite views on whether there are circumstances in which an appeal right should be retained, beyond the race discrimination and human rights grounds which, in line with other categories of temporary entry clearance, will continue to be available.

Finally, the consultation invites discussion on the balance to be struck on article 8 of the European convention on human rights (the right to respect for private and family life) between individual rights and the public interest in public protection and maintaining immigration controls. Article 8 is not an absolute right and our proposals aim to set out requirements that must be satisfied in family migration cases which are consistent with our ECHR obligations. We also want to be clear about the circumstances in which the public interest will outweigh an individual’s article 8 right.

Details of the public consultation can be found on the Home Office website and a copy will also be placed in the Library of the House.

The consultation will run for 12 weeks, until 6 October 2011, and we will announce our firm plans in due course, with a view to implementing changes during 2012.

Identity and Passport Service

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Identity and Passport Service annual report and accounts 2010-11 have been laid before the House today.

Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

UK Border Agency

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The UK Border Agency annual report and accounts 2010-11 has been laid before the House today.

Copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

Home Department

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Kate Hoey]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the safety of Syria as a place for visa applicants in Iraq to collect their visas.

[Official Report, 21 June 2011, Vol. 530, c. 211W.]

Letter of correction from Damian Green:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on 21 June 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Damian Green]

We are closely monitoring the security situation in Syria. Our visa application centre remains open for business and applicants are able to make their applications in the normal way. Applicants who live in Iraq can choose to visit Syria, Lebanon or Jordan to make their applications.

The correct answer should have been:

[Damian Green]

We are closely monitoring the security situation in Syria. Our visa application centre remains open for business and applicants are able to make their applications in the normal way. Applicants who live in Iraq, however, are now directed to our visa application centres in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey in order to lodge their applications.

Police Forces

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Congratulations on your elevation, Sir Alan. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this important and timely debate. Everyone on both sides of the House recognises and applauds the vital work done by police officers, from chief constables such as Chris Sims to the most newly recruited PC on the streets. In the short time available to me, I want to address many of the issues that have been raised.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I must apologise to the hon. Lady; I will not. I have eight minutes in which to respond to a very dense debate.

Our vision for policing can be expressed quite simply: the police have a clear mission to cut crime. Our entire approach is designed to support that mission through a comprehensive and clear programme of reform. There are four key elements to our programme: improving democratic accountability; ensuring greater transparency and engaged communities; increasing efficiency and value for money, and returning discretion to the professionals; and getting a stronger grip on serious, complex and organised crime.

Of course, reducing the budget deficit remains a priority, and the police service will have to play its part. A 12% cash reduction in central Government funding over four years, which is equivalent to 20% in real terms, is a challenging but manageable settlement for the police. In real terms, the average reduction in central Government funding to the police will be about 5.5% per year.

However, Government funding is not the only source of funding to the police. About a quarter of their funding comes from the police precept component of council tax. If the precept is increased in line with forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the spending review settlement will represent only a 6% cash reduction in total funding by 2014-15, which is equivalent to 14% in real terms. Those figures show that although the reductions are challenging, they also are achievable. By introducing the reforms I have mentioned, we will create a police service that is more efficient and responsive to local demands, despite the inevitable funding reductions that it will face in the coming years.

That touches on the central incoherence in the points made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who speaks for the Labour party. The former Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who performed that function admirably, admitted in public that the previous Government were going to cut police budgets. Subsequently, in one of the Opposition’s flirtations with honesty, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), announced that he would have had to introduce much more serious cuts across the board had he remained Chancellor after the election.

Although the former Chancellor was perfectly honest about the fact that he would have announced some cuts, and although former colleagues of his in the previous Government have admitted that the cuts they would have introduced would have been much bigger, the tone adopted by Opposition Members throughout the debate has been that any change or reform would be disastrous for the police service. Their approach is simply incoherent. Had the Labour party remained in government, they would not have taken that line.

[Mr Hanson]

We are talking about £1.3 billion versus £2.5 billion of savings and efficiencies. It is that £1.2 billion extra that the police inspectorate said was not achievable and that is causing the difficulties that my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned.

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the figure under the previous Government would not have been £1.3 billion. That is what they told us before the election, but we now know that they would have told us something completely different after the election had they been re-elected.

Let me move on to some of the points that have been raised. On improving democratic accountability, the hon. Member for Gedling asked me who had approved the proposals for police and crime commissioners, and the answer is the House of Commons, which voted for the legislation.

[Vernon Coaker]

Not the House of Lords.

[Damian Green]

We are in the process of swapping bureaucratic control for democratic accountability by replacing police authorities with directly elected police and crime commissioners. Despite the recent vote in the House of Lords, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Government anticipate that police and crime commissioners will be introduced across the whole of England and Wales, with the first elections taking place in May next year. The coalition agreement made that clear. We fully intend to go ahead with the proposals, and we expect the Commons to reinstate the policy.

As I said, the second element in our reform programme is increasing transparency and creating engaged and active communities. That will help communities, which is important, but it will also help police engagement with communities.

The third element of our reform programme is introducing local professional discretion to help to increase efficiency and value for money. That is directly relevant to the many points made about morale. As we all know, there has been too much unnecessary paperwork over recent years.

[Alison McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I am sorry, but I really have not got time.

That has happened as a result of central Government adding layers of bureaucracy to make up for the lack of local accountability. The Government have taken the lead in cutting interference from the centre in police business. We want to respect the police’s operational independence and to give them the space they need to deal with any problems. That is why we published a draft protocol setting out the roles and responsibilities of police and crime commissioners, chief constables, police and crime panels and the Home Secretary. The protocol was drawn up in discussion with, and has the full agreement of, ACPO, including Sir Huge Orde, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives. It builds on recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee.

On top of that, we have axed many of the unnecessary bits of paperwork that had built up over the years. The policing pledge, public service agreement targets, performance indicators and local area agreements have all been scrapped. In their place has been put the one simple objective of cutting crime. The hon. Member for Gedling asked what we had done, and those measures are a significant answer.

We will continue to make decisions that improve the performance of the police and their relationship with the general public. Let me deal with that in detail. Mention was made of funding in Metropolitan police areas. The Metropolitan Police Service receives specific funding for its role of policing the capital. That funding comes in the form of national, international and capital city grant and totals £200 million this year. As with any force, we will consider requests for additional support where the costs involved in any single operation are significant and place an unmanageable burden on the Metropolitan police.

Inevitably, we have discussed the Winsor review extensively. The Government have been clear that action is needed to tackle the deficit, and the police service has its part to play. In an organisation such as the police, where pay is 80% of revenue expenditure, there is no question but that pay restraint and pay reform must form part of the package. Police officers should be rewarded fairly and reasonably for what they do. That is why the Home Secretary asked Tom Winsor to undertake his review. The review is not only about savings, but about making reforms to enable the introduction of modern management practices and to maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles, maintaining and improving the service to the public. The principles Tom Winsor sets out in his report provide the right framework, and we have referred his recommendations for short-term change to the relevant bodies for consideration.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I am sorry, I really cannot.

We have talked a lot about whether the cuts can be achieved without damaging the front line. Denis O’Connor of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary estimated that £1.15 billion could be saved if the least efficient forces brought themselves up to the average level of efficiency. We want forces to reach the standards of the most efficient, not just the average.

There are also areas outside the remit of HMIC’s report, including Government and IT collaboration, where further savings can be made. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an announcement about that yesterday, which will be significant. In terms of officers opting out of the pension scheme—

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Liverpool Passport Office

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) naturally takes an extremely keen interest in the future of the passport office and its staff, and I recognise the sentiments that she and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed.

The hon. Lady may be aware, although she did not mention it in her speech, that an employment tribunal hearing date for six of the people involved has been fixed in Liverpool for 30 September. I hope that she and the House will appreciate that, in view of that pending action, I am unable to comment on matters of legal interpretation, as they will be for the tribunal to determine. She and I, and others, have had discussions about the legal interpretations, and she gave powerful views on them, but as I said, I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on matters that are for the impending tribunal to determine.

The hon. Lady made a number of points and revealed a number of things. She said that she had got hold of an e-mail from, I believe, 2009. She will understand that I have had no access to that, not least because it was sent under a previous Administration. If she wishes to provide that to me, I will investigate and get fully involved in seeing what it tells us.

The hon. Lady made a powerful point about the question that could be asked to the commissioners. She will remember that at our recent meeting, she made the perfectly reasonable point that she wished to ask questions of the commissioners. I asked her to send me her question on the interpretation of the advice, and said that I would be happy to put it to the First Civil Service Commissioner. I have not received that question, but my offer still stands. If she or any of the hon. Members who were at that meeting wish to send me the question that they would like to ask the Civil Service Commission, I would be more than happy to ask it.

[Mrs Ellman]

I have written to the Minister recently on the legality of the situation. Those matters should be addressed to the commissioners. However, he previously remarked that he would not have had access to information given under the previous Administration. I would be most surprised if the civil service does not make all information available to Ministers, including information that existed under previous Administrations. This not a party matter, and surely the civil service deals with all information regardless of who is in government.

[Damian Green]

Of course this is not a party matter, but Governments do not have access to the papers of previous Governments—that is a long-standing rule. Let us not go into the constitutional niceties, though. It is a fact that I have not seen this e-mail that the hon. Lady mentioned. If she wishes to send it to me or hand it to me at the end of the debate, I will happily take it away and look at it. She will be aware that the IPS has offered its sincere regrets to the individuals involved, and I can only add my apologies for the distress that resulted from this operational error, which, as she said, took place under a previous Administration. The IPS has clearly apologised.

[Steve Rotheram]

I accept that this problem was not of the Minister’s making, but it is a problem for him to act on. It is not good enough to hide behind the legalities and legal niceties. It is a unique set of circumstances, and I do not believe that reinstating these 14 people from the passport office would set an undue precedent. Even before the tribunal sits, he should use his powers to right this wrong.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a legal decision, but a legal process is in action under the tribunal, and what he calls hiding behind legal niceties I would call obeying the law, which it is a good idea for Ministers to do.

[Mr George Howarth]

The Minister will know that, while a tribunal is pending, it is open to any employer to review the situation, decide that it is not worth proceeding to a tribunal and try to rectify the situation by their own actions. If he wanted to be bold, he could overrule what his officials are telling him and say, “Look, there is a moral case here.” It has been put effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and in the light of what she said, I think that we should resolve this situation before the tribunal.

[Damian Green]

I am conscious of the strong feelings involved, and as I said, I would be delighted to look at the new information that she has revealed to the House this afternoon.

The hon. Lady made a number of other legal points. As she will be aware, the civil service rules do not permit exceptions to enable permanent appointment under this type of system, although they can enable the extension of fixed-term contracts up to a maximum period of two years. She mentioned the letter from Paul Luffman, which was indeed a draft letter that was never sent. It was not sent to the commissioners because the Home Office human resources team were dealing directly with the commissioners, not the IPS.

I want to put on record what happened. The core of the problem sits with an error made by the Liverpool passport office in September 2008 in preparation for the peak demand period starting in March 2009. At that time, the Liverpool office ran a recruitment exercise using friends and families as a candidate-attraction method. The IPS issues more than 5 million passports each year and demand is subject to seasonal peaks. It manages the seasonal variations through the use of flexible employee deployment and through a variety of employee contracts. These contracts include full-time, part-time and part-year appointments and will occasionally include the appointment of staff on fixed-term or casual contracts.

For a number of years, the IPS has, in areas of the country where there are challenges for the permanent recruitment and retention of lower graded staff, used a localised process for the recruitment of fixed-term appointment or casual staff. In this case, short-term opportunities were advertised through the existing network of IPS staff. The recruitment process is closed, which means that the job opportunities are not advertised publicly and therefore other potential candidates are not given access to information about the opportunities available. However, those candidates given the information are selected fairly and are required to demonstrate appropriate levels of competence and behaviours through an application and interview. They are also subject to normal referencing procedures.

Posts advertised under the friends and family scheme should be clearly described as either casual or fixed-term appointments. By definition, friends and family schemes are not fair and open campaigns and, under the civil service Order in Council, cannot result in a permanent appointment to the civil service. Posts advertised and appointed in this way can result only in fixed-term or casual appointments for a maximum of two years. IPS works to defined policies for deploying and recruiting staff. Since 2005, the management and administration of IPS recruitment has been overseen by the IPS central resourcing team in human resources at its headquarters in London. The error made by Liverpool passport office in 2008 and 2009 was that it employed those 14 staff on a permanent basis. The recruitment had not been authorised by IPS’s head of resourcing and the Liverpool office had not described the scheme as falling under the friends and family provisions. This resulted in a list of candidates being subsequently employed on permanent civil service contracts by mistake.

In March 2010, the IPS central resourcing team carried out a routine audit of IPS external recruitment. The audit identified concern about the friends and family recruitment scheme that was adopted at the Liverpool office in 2008 to employ staff in 2009. The concern primarily arose from the fact that staff had been permanently recruited without any open competition or advertisement of the vacancies. IPS considered that the civil service Order in Council had been contravened on the grounds that permanent contracts had been agreed through a process that was not subject to open competition. In view of the contravention, IPS looked to withdraw the permanent contracts and place the individuals involved on fixed-term contracts.

The following month, April 2010, IPS notified the civil service commissioners that a total of 14 permanent contracts were being withdrawn and replaced by fixed-term appointments of under two years. However, that action was not taken immediately. Instead, IPS explored whether alternative approaches existed that could alleviate the potential impact on the staff employed. That process was protracted but IPS was unable to find new evidence to support any other approach. It was not until February 2011 that the final decision was taken to cease the permanent contracts. Having reached that decision, IPS briefed the local senior management team and national trade union representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union. The PCS local branch was briefed on 16 March 2011 to allow employee representatives time to prepare and consider an appropriate response. On 21 March 2011, the decision to dismiss the affected staff was carried out. The 14 staff affected, still in employment, had their permanent employment contracts terminated immediately and four of those staff, who had already completed two years’ service, by exception were offered a five-week paid notice period. The remaining 10 staff were offered and accepted fixed-term contracts of up to two years, including time already served. Of those 10 fixed-term contracts, three were scheduled to end on 14 June 2011, two on 31 August 2011 and five on 30 September 2011.

[Stephen Twigg]

The Minister has just described the sequence of events. Does he agree that one of the most disturbing features of this saga is that the problem was identified almost a year before the directly affected employees were informed? Would it not, with the benefit of hindsight, have been a great deal fairer for the employees concerned to have been advised that there might be an issue as soon as it came to light? Frankly, the situation in terms of finding other jobs, especially in the public sector, was a lot rosier in April 2010 than it is now.

[Damian Green]

As I have just said, the reason for the delay was precisely because the IPS management were searching desperately for ways to avoid where we have come to. It was done with the best of intentions, but I appreciate the power of the hon. Gentleman’s argument.

So far, four staff have elected to leave before their scheduled end date and four are still in post. Six of the staff who have left have found jobs elsewhere. Discussions with individual staff about potential compensation payments commenced in the week starting 20 June 2011. That is one of the matters that was discussed when I met hon. Members a few weeks ago. Those discussions remain under way and it is hoped that agreement about a suitable level of compensation can be reached. Those discussions will continue ahead of the tribunal hearing of 30 September.

At my meeting on 8 June with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and others, the question was raised of whether the people affected would be guaranteed an interview if any new recruitment was planned at the Liverpool office. IPS is unable, for legal reasons, to offer a guaranteed interview. However, it is open for the people involved to apply for posts under any future recruitment campaigns, and their experience of the work and the skills and competencies would be taken into account as relevant factors in considering any application.

A detailed review of what has happened and the lessons to be learned was immediately commissioned and reported in April 2011. The review has been shared with the staff, the unions, the hon. Lady and other interested Members. It is of course a matter for the individual staff concerned to take the matter further. As I said, six of them have submitted employment tribunal papers. It may well be that others choose to follow that approach. That is for them to decide, but it is important for me to acknowledge here that the people involved did a good job for IPS. We should make it clear that they were not asked to leave because they were inefficient or were unable to their job. We should also make it clear that IPS is engaging with all the people involved to determine whether we can reach an equitable settlement that will bring the matter to an earlier conclusion and reduce any further impact on those involved.

As I said at the outset, this matter arose due to an unfortunate error in 2008 at the Liverpool passport office. The review, which reported earlier this year, identified that a number of practical improvements have been implemented. A key change is that the recruitment of any staff is subject to central processing, which means that although local interviews and managing of the process take place, it will be a matter for the IPS central resourcing team formally to agree and approve any new appointments and the recruitment methodology to support them. Staff cannot be put on the payroll without that process having been completed. That is a key processing change and, as part of the next generation of human resources expertise in IPS, it will allow access to the right level of expertise, ensure that the right governance arrangements are in place and ensure that decisions are legally compliant. That has now been in place for over a year.

IPS has admitted that it failed to complete the right processes in 2008 and 2009, and it has taken steps to recover the situation. I appreciate that 14 people consider, rightly, that they have been disadvantaged in the whole process, but I can only emphasise again that the cancellation of their contracts is not a reflection of their ability or their contribution. Human resource services across government have to meet exacting standards and while IPS’s actions in this case have clearly had a serious detrimental impact on the individuals involved, I believe that it was an isolated error and that IPS has taken the right steps to avoid the situation being repeated.

IPS is looking to agree an equitable settlement with the people involved, and I would welcome information and support from the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who are, perfectly rightly, concerned about their constituents and who have engaged on the issue to ensure that we can bring the matter to as speedy a conclusion as possible, not least and most importantly for the benefit of their constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

4. If she will assess the merits of excluding from entry to the UK those people who were involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government remain very concerned by Mr Magnitsky’s death and are disappointed that the official investigation into the case announced by President Medvedev in November 2009 has still not been completed. I am due to meet the hon. Gentleman shortly to discuss this important issue, but the duty of confidentiality means that the Government are unable to discuss the details of individual immigration cases.

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to try to talk about individual cases anyway, I am afraid. There is no point in merely being disappointed. Sergei Magnitsky was working for a British organisation in Russia when he discovered a vast network of corruption. He was illegally arrested and murdered while in police custody. Many other countries are considering a ban: the United States of America, Poland, Canada, Holland, Germany, Estonia and the Czech Republic. Why cannot we ensure that those corrupt murderers do not come into this country?

[Damian Green]

The Government continue to raise our concerns and the hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the case. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both discussed the case with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov when he last visited the UK in February 2011. I understand that the official Russian investigation is due to report in August. As I have said, we are disappointed that it has taken so long but no doubt the hon. Gentleman and I can discuss more of the details when we have our meeting in a few days’ time.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does not the Minister understand that this man, who was a lawyer, was killed in jail by the Russian authorities? The case is similar to that of someone who was poisoned in this country, we believe, by someone who was subsequently elected as a Member of the Russian Parliament. Russia must understand that if it wants to be accepted as a modern state in the 21st century, this sort of gangsterism and state-murder will not be tolerated.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend expresses himself with great power and passion. It is important that all states around the world observe proper and civilised standards of behaviour and the British Government will certainly continue to impress that on Governments all around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

14. What estimate she has made of the potential cost to the economy of her planned changes to tier 4 visa requirements.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The impact assessment estimated the net cost to the economy of the student and post-study work proposals to be £2.4 billion. There will be additional compensating benefits from reducing abuse, ensuring cohesion, and increasing public confidence in the immigration system, but it is not possible to quantify the impact of these changes.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his clear response. He refers to a cost of £2.4 billion. The best case scenario is a cost of £1 billion, and the worst case £3.5 billion, for a problem that the Home Affairs Committee struggled to find anybody, other than the Minister, to say was a really serious problem; even Migrationwatch UK was not that bothered. Given that we do not want to lose £2.5 billion from the economy, will he rethink these proposals?

[Damian Green]

It would be absurd to say that there are no problems with the student visa system. It represents two thirds of the amount of immigration into the system, and it has become the biggest single loophole in our immigration system. On the slightly arcane theology of impact assessments, my hon. Friend will know that some strange assumptions have to be made by Government economists. For instance, this has to be costed on the assumption that if migrant students are no longer able to work here as before, not a single one of the jobs that they vacate will be taken up by a UK citizen, particularly one who may be currently unemployed. If there is replacement, which is intuitively very obvious, then the cost to the economy will be significantly lower. That is why we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to investigate this assumption, and we expect it to report in November.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Despite what the Minister has said about impact assessments, it is surprising and deeply worrying that the Government are pursuing a policy which, on their own view, will cost the country £2.4 billion and which, on their own view, will have only half the impact on net migration that they originally said. This policy was part of a package of changes that the Government said would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015. In support of the policy, the Prime Minister said in April to Tory party members:

“No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people. And it is a promise we are keeping.”

Well, not according to his Government’s own impact assessment, and not according to the Migration Observatory—

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I was just about to. Will the Minister be upfront and admit today that this is a promise that he and the Prime Minister will not be keeping?

[Damian Green]

No.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to protect women from domestic and sexual violence.

Tribunals (Maximum Compensation Awards) Bill

Damian Green Excerpts

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Obviously I cannot quarrel with the statistics that the hon. Lady quotes, but the issue is causing the coalition Government concern. That is why on 11 May the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that the Government would look in detail at the case for reforming compensation for discrimination:

“Compensation levels for cases of discrimination are unlimited and employers worry that high awards may encourage people to take weak, speculative or vexatious cases in the hope of a large payout. This can lead to employers settling such cases before they reach a Tribunal.”

The Government therefore seem to think that there is a problem.

I see my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on the Front Bench—we could have done with his wisdom on asylum cases in the previous debate. I hope he will be able to bring some of that wisdom to bear on this subject in particular, as I had the opportunity to talk to an official from his Department who said that the Government were carrying out a review of the subject. The point that I made to my hon. Friend’s official was that that is all very well, but how will it deal with the rulings in the European Court of Justice. In the ECJ case Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (1993) IRLR 445, the court decided that the cap that had previously been put on discrimination compensation did not provide an adequate remedy under European Community law.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so that I can confirm to him now, should the debate run out of time before I have chance to reply in full, which I very much look forward to doing, that the Government will be launching a public consultation on this specific matter later in the year. As he has already said, this is a matter that the Government are considering and receiving recommendations on, and we want the widest possible input into the public discussion of this important matter.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I thought that in the announcement on 11 May his colleague with responsibility for employment relations had announced the extension of the Government’s review of employment law into this area. The question I was trying to get an answer to was how compatible the Government’s aspiration to introduce a limit on compensatory awards was with the ECJ case to which I have just referred. The issue was drawn to my attention by staff in the House of Commons Library who wondered whether my Bill would cut across EU law, and that is why I have included clause 2, which states:

“This Act shall have effect and shall be construed by the courts of the United Kingdom as having effect notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

thereby reasserting the sovereignty of this Parliament to decide on such issues and not be subject to rulings from the ECJ interpreting European Union law.

Some firms of solicitors are already on to this point. I have a report from Lee Rogers, an associate at Weightmans solicitors, who says that the Government may face obstacles if they decide to impose such a cap. I really wanted to find out from my hon. Friend whether the Government recognised that this was a problem and, if so, how they would overcome it. There is no point in going out for consultation on something where the Government’s ability to manoeuvre is restricted by European Union law, unless the Government are saying that they will override that law. The fact that my hon. Friend does not seek to intervene again suggests to me that either the message that went through his office was misinterpreted, or that when he sought information from the responsible Minister he did not get a clear answer, so he has done the best that he can in his inimitable way from the Front Bench today with the problems that the Government obviously have on this issue. The public do not believe that compensation for discrimination should be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds; they think that is unreasonable.

People talk colloquially about something costing an arm and a leg, and I would not want to make this issue seem anything other than serious, but if somebody were to lose one leg below the knee, under the criminal injuries compensation scheme they would be entitled to £33,000. If they were to lose one arm and one leg, they would be entitled to far less compensation than is paid to people who bring successful claims for discrimination before an employment tribunal. We value the damage of hurt feelings from discrimination cases far more than the criminal injuries compensation scheme values the actual loss of a leg or an arm and that is absolutely ridiculous, so if the Government were able to bring in some amending legislation that would be very useful.

I also cannot understand why, if the Government are concerned about the level of compensation and tribunal awards, they allowed the ceiling for such awards to be raised in line with inflation in a recent statutory instrument. If they felt that the awards were already too high, why did they not rein them back and not increase their maximum level in line with inflation?

This is a simple, straightforward Bill, and I hope that it receives hon. Members’ support so that it can be discussed in Committee, and so that the Minister can be asked probing questions and answer those I have put to the House this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this matter. He said in his opening remarks that he regretted my absence from the previous debate, particularly when there was reference to asylum seeking. In that context, I would say that what he proposed in his Employment Opportunities Bill was the biggest single incentive to increasing the amount of asylum seeking in this country that I have seen in potential legislation. That was why I was extremely pleased to be in the Division Lobby voting successfully against it.

I move on to the current Bill. My hon. Friend is right to point out the concerns that businesses have raised about the high levels of compensation sometimes awarded by employment tribunals in cases of unfair or wrongful dismissal or discrimination. The debate has been particularly timely, on which I congratulate him, because as I said, one aspect of the Bill is currently under active consideration by the Government as part of our general review of employment law.

I should make it clear to the House that there already exists a limit on compensation for unfair dismissal. It stands at £68,400. The average award is considerably below that level, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said. The median award for unfair dismissal is £4,903, and the mean is £9,120.

On 27 January we launched a consultation on proposals to improve the way in which workplace disputes are resolved, and we published an employers charter to give employers more confidence to take on workers and support growth. In that consultation, we sought views on changing the formula for calculating employment tribunal awards, including that current limit on compensation for unfair dismissal. Among other things, the consultation sought views on increasing the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights from one to two years. The consultation closed after 12 weeks on 20 April 2011, and we are currently considering our response. We will publish that, setting out what we intend—