Student Visas

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point from his huge experience and from the fact that there are two excellent universities in Oxford and I certainly agree with him.

Let me move on to the problems that have been created by the speed of implementation. When the Home Secretary was announcing the revised tier 4 arrangements in March, she said:

“We recognise the need to implement these changes in a staged manner that minimises disruption to education providers and students.” —[Official Report, 22 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 858.]

We all know, I think, that that is not happening. The new requirements took effect on 21 April at an advanced stage of the university’s admission cycle and at a point where a number of offers had been made and, crucially, had been accepted. In Sheffield, our two universities and Sheffield international college had already made more than 20,500 offers to prospective students for degree-level courses and currently have 1,300 offer holders and applicants for English language programmes. All those offers have to be revisited as applicants may now no longer meet the UKBA’s new subset score requirements. The colleges must now notify students who have accepted offers and who, therefore, have a legally binding contract with them that they must meet new conditions. They are deeply concerned about the legal ramifications of such a change and the damage that could be done to their reputation. They have to alter the terms of the offers that have already been accepted. Could that not be avoided by having transitional arrangements in place to enable students to be admitted in this new academic year on the terms on which offers have been made?

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Let me clarify this matter. If the certificate of acceptance was issued before the new rules came in, the new rules do not apply. There is no retrospection in this. Before this hare is set running, let me stop it because it is simply not true.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I have to say that that is certainly not clear to our universities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It goes back to the fact that the Government are not achieving the Home Secretary’s desired intent, which is to ensure that these changes are introduced in a non-disruptive way.

I return to the point that the Minister made. Clearly, there is confusion within our universities, so it might be helpful if he undertook to liaise with Universities UK to put out a statement saying that all offers made will be honoured without the requirement to meet the new visa regulations—if that is what he said.

[Damian Green]

If an unconditional offer was made and accepted, the certificate of acceptance would have been assigned before 21 April and that remains valid for six months and therefore for the coming academic year. I met Universities UK and it was as a result of our discussions that the new guidance was put on the website. I am trying hard to meet the needs of both universities and hon. Members in this debate. To those who ask for flexibility and for me to talk to Universities UK, I can say that that is exactly what I have been doing. As a result of that, we have now produced new guidance, and I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with it.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for that contribution, but there is still some need for clarity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) has indicated, there is still a great deal of uncertainty. A lot of activity is currently under way in our universities to re-verify the offers that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) about the thoughtful and passionate nature of the debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) introduced this important debate in a thoughtful way.

I will follow the good examples of my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the former Home Secretary, in saying that there are clearly macro and micro aspects to this and it is important that we conduct the debate about student visas and tier 4 within the overall context of the Government’s immigration policy.

I should say at the outset that Britain is quite rightly internationally renowned for its top-quality education institutions. Many hon. Members have rightly made that point. The students who choose to study here from across the globe bring numerous cultural, social and economic benefits to the UK and to their own countries when they return. We all acknowledge that and it is certainly acknowledged across Government.

We must recognise that the student visa system had become a broken instrument. It has failed to control immigration and, in many cases, to protect legitimate students—a point that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made. He said that severe damage has been caused. He said that people come here honestly hoping to study and then find that they have been scammed. Bogus colleges are scamming not just the British immigration system but the students who come here.

Student immigration has more than trebled in the past 10 years and is now far larger than the other two main routes of immigration—the work route and the family route. Too many of the people who come here calling themselves students have a primary motivation of working here, and not of receiving a high-quality education. Too many institutions are providing a service that is not about education but immigration. Addressing that issue is at the heart of what we are seeking to do. Many Members from all parties have agreed that it is worth driving out that abuse.

There are endless examples of institutions and “students” working the system to get round language requirements and rights to work, and to bring in dependants. That is not just a small problem; too many colleges provide minimal or no tuition or classroom study. We have students barely able to hold a conversation in English turning up to “study” degree-level courses.

Last year, both Governments—the Labour Government and the coalition Government—were in power. So I hope that I will respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford South about being non-partisan by saying that in 2010 tier 4 visas represented 14% of visas that were issued, but tier 4 visa-holders were responsible for 41% of refusals at ports, in other words actually being turned down by immigration officers. The equivalent figures for tiers 1, 2 and 5 visa-holders were all less than 1%.

We want genuine students coming to Britain to attend courses of high educational value at legitimate and responsible institutions. We need to maintain our international reputation for providing top-quality education, and we want the very best students to stay on in the UK to complete their studies. That is exactly what our proposals are designed to deliver and that is why the Home Secretary announced a comprehensive programme of reform on 22 March. I want to set out what those changes mean in practice and how they will contribute to meeting our wider objective of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. I also want to address the many specific points made by individual Members during the debate. I will try to deal with them all in the next few minutes.

Many contributors to the debate have talked about flexibility, including the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. Indeed, to minimise disruption to education providers and students, we are implementing the changes in three stages. The rules for the first stage came into effect on 21 April. Last Monday—13 June—we laid the second set of changes to the rules before Parliament. They will come into effect on 4 July. We will complete our changes by the end of 2012.

We continue to have extensive dialogue with the sector about the changes that we are making. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about that that there are numerous and constant contacts at official level and, where necessary, between myself and Universities UK and selected vice-chancellors about these changes, because we want to introduce them in the most practical way possible.

I want to respond to a specific point that was made about the timing of the changes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) read out the letter from the vice-chancellor of a university in his constituency asking if all the changes could be delayed for a year. I should say that when we began to have discussions on them last autumn, we were urged by the universities themselves to get on with them, because we all know that the longer there is any uncertainty in a system, the more people are wary of that system. Various Members have said that the uncertainty that exists is deterring people from making applications and so on. If we allow the uncertainty to continue for another year, I suspect that the results would be worse. So that was the wise advice that I received from the universities last autumn.

I must repeat the basic point that there are so many abuses of the system that we need radical reform. Many colleges seem happy to accept students who do not even meet their own admissions criteria and who speak very little English. In one college, we found that there were two lecturers for 940 students. In another, we found that students were attending classes for just one day a month and working excessive hours for the rest of the time. UK Border Agency enforcement teams recently picked up students who were supposed to be studying at a college in London, but were actually living and working in west Wales; indeed, every student whom we found from that college was doing that.

We are targeting the least compliant students and institutions, and of course that is what we should do. For too long, institutions in parts of the privately funded education sector have been essentially unregulated, yet all the evidence suggests that those institutions pose the biggest risk to immigration control. In a sample of tier 4 students studying at private institutions about which the UKBA had concerns, up to 26% could not be accounted for.

The UKBA has revoked the sponsorship licences of 64 colleges. I hope that that meets the reasonable request of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that the inspection regime should be robust. He said that the UKBA used to phone up institutions in advance to say that its inspectors were coming. As is evident from the number of licences that have been revoked, the enforcement regime is getting better.

I want to turn to the current points-based system. Again in the spirit of non-partisanship, I must say that this Government did not arrive and tear up that system. We said that we could build on it and we accepted the point of having objective ways of measuring who comes to the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. Under that objective system, a sponsor assesses the intentions and ability of the student; UKBA staff no longer have the power to refuse a migrant entry to the UK on those grounds. We therefore need to make absolutely sure that sponsors are exercising their powers responsibly, and that is one of the things that these reforms are designed to achieve.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Green]

I will give way once; I suspect that I will not get through my speech if I give way to all the Members who wish to intervene.

[Mr Jackson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On the points-based system, given that the overall purpose of immigration policy is to reduce net migration, can he confirm that after the introduction of the points-based system in 2007, arrivals of students, dependants and student visitors increased from 370,000 in 2007 to 489,000 by 2009?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely. Indeed, the numbers were still rising right up until last year. We now have the figures up to the summer of last year and the numbers were still rising at that point. As I was saying, we are building on the points-based system, but we are precisely introducing limits and precisely driving out abuse in the student system. That is why we will move on to other systems, so that we can get the numbers down. The points-based system is not enough on its own, but it is a platform on which we can build.

The Home Secretary announced new reforms that mean that all sponsors must now be vetted by one of the approved inspectorates and all of them must attain the status of highly trusted sponsors. In line with that commitment, we announced earlier this week that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate would extend their activities to cover privately funded providers. Sponsors must meet our immigration requirements and high standards of educational provision. Institutions that do not meet those requirements are now subject to a limit on the number of students that they can bring in. To stay on the sponsor register in the longer term, they must achieve highly trusted sponsor status no later than April 2012 and gain accreditation by the relevant agency by the end of 2012. The imposition of a limit responds to the urgent need to tackle abuse, allows sponsors time to adjust to the new system and prevents surges in applications from high-risk sectors. We are well on track to delivering a sponsorship system that the public can trust.

We are also raising the bar on entry requirements. All students coming to study degree-level courses must now be able to speak English at an upper intermediate level and others will have to speak English at an intermediate level. If students cannot answer basic questions in English about their course, UKBA officers will refuse them entry at the border. That was another point legitimately made by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. We are now bringing back the power for immigration officers at the border to recognise that someone is obviously, indeed blatantly, incapable of fulfilling the requirements of their visa.

In recognition of our trust in universities, we are flexible about the methods that they use to assess a student’s level of English. That brings me on to a specific point that was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. Let me start by discussing what is, if you like, the biggest transitional issue. That is the English language requirement, which he raised in his introductory speech.

The appropriate level of English for those coming to study at level 6 and above is an upper intermediate level across each of the four disciplines: reading; writing; speaking; and listening. That is level B2 on the common European framework of language. A lower level—B1—is the appropriate level for lower courses, including the pathways courses that many Members have mentioned. Those are courses taken by people coming in who do not have the appropriate level of English but who want to take an English language course in the UK on their way to taking a full university course here. So we have set a lower level of English as a requirement for those students.

In order to get a visa, those outside universities will have to present a test certificate from an independent test provider proving that they have attained the required level. As another flexibility that we have introduced, universities will be able to vouch for a student’s ability if they are coming to study at degree level or above. Indeed, there might be the odd student who cannot meet the requirements for all four disciplines but is so exceptional that we will allow individual requests by university academic registrars.

A number of Members have talked about English language schools. People who want to come to the UK to study lower-level English can do so for up to 11 months through the student visitor route. We introduced that concession after discussions with the English language colleges last autumn, and the colleges have welcomed it.

On the confirmations of acceptance for studies and the visas, the requirements for an offer of a place at a university are separate from the requirements under the immigration rules. Universities could, and should, have assigned a confirmation of acceptance for studies to people who held unconditional offers before 21 April. Someone with a conditional offer has, of course, not yet satisfied the university’s own academic entry requirements. The immigration system and its requirements have always been separate from the academic entry requirements, and it is important not to confuse the two. For instance, any Government would refuse a student entry if their background indicated that a potential harm would be posed to the UK, even if a university had given an unconditional offer of a place.

It was mentioned that there are difficulties relating to the English language tests. The UKBA ran a procurement exercise and expanded the list of English test providers to ensure that there was significant capacity, and we are in regular contact with each of the approved test providers, which have demonstrated flexibility in expanding test centre capacity where there is demand. If there are blockages, we are trying hard to remove them.

There has been much inevitable discussion about the impact assessment, and various figures have been cited. I wish to put on the record that the net cost is said to be £2.4 billion. The £3.6 billion is the gross cost, but there will also be £1.1 billion of benefits. The truth about the impact assessment process is that it is in its infancy and is not yet satisfactory. I have spoken to the economists who do the assessments and they agree that the process needs to improve. I do not want to go into the economic theology of what works and what does not work because it is late on a Thursday afternoon, but I shall give one very practical example. The way in which the assessments are carried out requires us to assume that there is a zero displacement effect of students taking jobs on the local labour market. In other words, if a foreign student is doing a job and then leaves, 100% of that economic activity is assumed to be lost. In practical terms, however, it is likely that that person will be replaced by a British student or someone else. Clearly, therefore, the assessments are not satisfactory, and we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee, which is independent of Government, to look at the process over the summer.

The definition of immigration is beginning to vex us, and I am half-tempted to spend a long time discussing whether students should somehow be removed from the definition altogether. There is clearly an academic argument to be had, but I will just make the underlying point that although it would be fantastically convenient for the Minister for Immigration suddenly to discover that hundreds of thousands of people who were regarded as immigrants yesterday would not be regarded as immigrants tomorrow—I would hit my targets with no effort at all—that is not realistic, and I do not think that the public would accept it. In terms of confidence, the point is very well made that immigration statistics are imperfect, particularly regarding counting people in and out, and that is why we have re-let the e-Borders contract. Over the next few years we will develop a much greater ability to count people out as well as in, but it seems sensible to stick to the internationally agreed measurements we have always had, which are used by other countries, rather than apparently try to redefine our way out of what is a serious and difficult political issue.

The other big subject that many Members have mentioned is post-study work, and I am afraid that I will have to agree to differ with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. The students’ primary motivation should be to study, not to work. The ability to work after finishing a course or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) said, while doing a course, should not be a significant part of the motivation of someone coming here on a student visa. If people want to come here to work, there are work routes, and I do not want them to deceive either us or themselves by saying, “I’m here as a student but what really matters to me—the motivating force—is that I can either work during the course or stay for a couple of years afterwards.” It is simply not the case that everyone who does that gets a graduate-level job. In one cohort that we looked at, of those who were hanging around for the allowed two years after finishing their degrees, about 20% were unemployed, and 50% of those who were employed were in unskilled jobs and not making use of their studies.

[Tony Lloyd]

Does the Minister not recognise that there are some people who would benefit as part of the total package of education plus skills training but who might not qualify under the current post-study work route structure?

[Damian Green]

No. The problem is that the post-study work route has been abused as much as it has been legitimately used. We are not closing down that route altogether; we are specifically saying, “If you can get a graduate-level job, you can stay.” That seems very reasonable—[Hon. Members: “It is about the salary”]. I thank Members for that. Let me talk about the £20,000 salary that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central suggested was somehow wrong. I have to say, in the gentle spirit of non-partisanship in which I am making this speech, that the £20,000 minimum salary threshold for tier 2 was set by the previous Government, following a recommendation by the Migration Advisory Committee in August 2009. At that time, the tier 2 skill threshold was jobs at national vocational qualification level 3, and this Government have now raised that threshold to jobs at NVQ level 4, at which level the case for a salary threshold of at least £20,000 becomes even more compelling.

[Paul Blomfield]

What the previous Government surely had in mind when they set that threshold was not post-study work but the conventional application for tier 2.

[Damian Green]

It was set as a graduate-level salary, and it still is. We have kept that threshold. We have not inflation-linked it, and we have increased the skill level, so, if anything, there is a stronger case for it now.

I have a fascinating answer about accountancy qualifications for the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, but given that there are only three minutes to go I hope that he can hold his interest on that topic and bear to have my reply in writing.

In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, it is true that initially universities were automatically granted highly trusted sponsor status, but they were all required to apply for the status by the end of June 2010. All applications were considered against the published criteria. I was puzzled that someone said they were confused about the criteria, because they were published. Universities retained highly trusted sponsor status after June 2010 only if they had met all the criteria.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made a point about independent schools. Independent schools have been afforded greater flexibility simply because of their extremely low levels of non-compliance. They have earned that privilege because they are practically 100% compliant. The requirement for a secure English language test applies to all users of tier 4 general. Independent schools largely use the tier 4 child route, for which there is no English language requirement. That route is also available to sixth-form colleges that recruit 16 and 17 year olds.

There was a question about the list of financial institutions, and I can say that that list will be available on the UKBA website shortly. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) asked about quotas, and I am happy to assure her that there are no quotas for UKBA officials to grant or refuse applications.

Once all the rules have been implemented, I expect the reforms to reduce the number of student visas by about 70,000 a year, and I estimate that at the end of this Parliament there will be about 260,000 fewer student visas and about 100,000 fewer dependants’ visas. Members have raised many practical issues that I have not had time to address, but I will take them away and think about them hard, particularly the individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) .

I am of course aware of the importance of international students for British educational institutions and for the UK economy, but I believe that the measures strike the necessary balance.

Changes to the Immigration Rules

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in the immigration rules that will bring about the second of the changes to the student visa system, which the Home Secretary announced on 22 March, and were set out in detail in the statement of intent published on 31 March.

The changes will take effect on 4 July and will tighten the rules on the entitlements of students to work and bring dependants, will tighten the requirements around maintenance funds and require students to show academic progression to get a further visa. The new rules also introduce a streamlined application process for low-risk students.

I can also confirm that we are publishing the impact assessment for the changes to tier 4 on the UK Border Agency website, and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the House Library.

The Home Secretary has previously announced that from the end of 2012 all tier 4 sponsors will need to have had a satisfactory inspection or audit by one of a number of specified bodies who are involved in the regulatory framework for educational standards in the UK. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) have agreed in principle to extend their remits to carry out additional inspections to cover privately funded providers. Further information is available on the UK Border Agency website.

This statement of changes also includes changes to the tier 4 rules to extend the list of courses where an academic technology approval scheme (ATAS) clearance certificate is required from the counter-proliferation department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

We are also making some minor amendments to rules laid on 16 March on intra-company transfers and maintenance funds so they achieve the intended policy intention.

There are also minor changes to the immigration rules laid on 1 October 2010 in respect of the English language requirement for spouses and partners of British citizens and persons settled in the UK.

Lastly, the Government are also making new provisions in part 8 of the immigration rules to allow other dependent family members of refugees with limited leave in the United Kingdom to join them from abroad. Currently, only those who have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom are able to sponsor their other dependent relatives from abroad and those refugees with limited leave must make their applications outside of the rules and these are considered at the Secretary of State’s discretion. We want to ensure that refugees with limited leave have the same opportunity to sponsor their other dependent family members as those coming through the normal route and this will also include a requirement that they be able to maintain and accommodate them.

Immigration

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Home Office is today publishing a consultation on employment-related settlement, tier 5 of the points-based system and overseas domestic workers. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

Immigration has enriched our culture and strengthened our economy, but it must be controlled so that people have confidence in the system. This Government have already introduced a limit on non-EU economic migrants entering the UK; reshaped tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system to increase selectivity and skills requirements; and announced changes to tier 4, the student visa system. These policies will result in a downward trend in net migration and a reduction in abuse, but we need to take further action to ensure we reach sustainable levels.

This consultation is the next stage in our immigration reforms. We intend to break the automatic link between coming to the UK to work and settling here permanently. In 1997, there were fewer than 10,000 employment-related grants of settlement; by 2010, that number had risen to over 84,000. We need to be more selective about who we allow to stay. The consultation considers how we do that. Its starting point is that we need to be clearer in our labelling of temporary and permanent migration routes to enable migrants and the public to better understand the immigration system. We propose to reposition tier 2 as a temporary route, predominantly a means of filling short-term skills shortages in the UK labour market. Most tier 2 migrants should expect to leave the UK after a maximum of five years in the UK. In future, only a tightly controlled minority will be permitted to stay permanently, where it is in the interests of the UK to do so. We are seeking views on how to achieve this in a way which enables the best outcomes for the economy. Alongside the public consultation, the Home Secretary is also commissioning advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on the economic effects of removing or restricting settlement rights, and on criteria for identifying the most economically important migrants for settlement. We have already announced reforms to the tier 1 investor and entrepreneur categories, including the possibility of accelerated settlement for these high-value migrants. We will be consulting, however, on whether tier 1 exceptional-talent migrants should have an automatic route to settlement and whether we should remove the ability of all tier 1 migrants to apply for further leave to remain after five years in the UK. To aid integration and social cohesion, we are also considering the introduction of an English language requirement for the dependants of economic migrants who signal their intention to apply for settlement.

The consultation also sets out proposals for reform of tier 5 of the points-based system and the overseas domestic worker routes.

The Government do not plan any reforms to the tier 5 (youth mobility) category. We do, however, want to consider restricting leave under the tier 5 (temporary worker) categories to 12 months, to reinforce the temporary nature of the route, which is intended to be primarily for non-economic purposes, such as scientific exchange and artistic and cultural activities. The consultation asks whether it is right that migrants in these categories should be able to be accompanied by dependants and whether those dependants should have open access to the UK labour market. We will also consider raising the threshold for entry to the Government-authorised exchange sub-category of tier 5 so that the skills requirement is at graduate level, bringing it into line with the revised tier 2 arrangements. Our intention is that the UK ancestry route should remain unchanged.

Finally, the consultation considers the two routes by which overseas domestic workers may enter the UK to accompany or join their employer’s household. Currently, there are two routes: one for domestic workers in private households and one for private servants working in diplomatic households. Both allow for extended periods of temporary leave (five years and six years respectively) and both enable the domestic worker to apply for settlement after five years. This is exceptionally generous, and sits ill with an immigration system focused on meeting identified skill shortages and securing the brightest and best migrants. We are also conscious that overseas domestic workers may be vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. The national referral mechanism provides an effective means of protection and support for victims but we are considering tackling the problem at source. So as well as seeking views on restricting leave to a maximum of six or 12 months, which would allow domestic workers to accompany their employer for a short period only, and removing the right to bring dependants, we also want to consider whether we should close the private households route altogether. This would oblige those wanting domestic workers to recruit instead from the UK labour market, with the rights and protections that affords.

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

The consultation will run for three months, until 9 September and we will announce our firm plans in due course. As the Home Secretary announced in February, we intend the settlement reforms will affect those workers who entered economic migration routes under the immigration rules in force from 6 April this year and who, under the current system, could have expected to apply for settlement in 2016. The timing of reforms to tier 5 and the overseas domestic worker routes will depend on the outcome of consultation, but we would anticipate them taking effect during 2012.

A further consultation document will be published later this year, considering the rules applying to those who come to the UK for family reasons such as marriage.

EU Directive (Third Country Nationals)

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have decided to maintain the position that the UK should not opt in to the European Union directive providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third country nationals: Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009.

While sympathetic to the objectives behind this measure, the UK did not opt in under title V of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union during the negotiations because there were significant aspects of the draft directive which the UK did not support. These included the creation of additional administrative burdens on both employers and the public sector in requiring employers to notify the authorities every time they recruit new third country national employees and in requiring compliance inspections. The directive also extended the legal definition of employment in a manner creating further costs and liabilities to both employers and the authorities. This would mean, for instance, that enterprises utilising subcontractors might be held liable for instances of illegal employment by the subcontractor. The directive also guaranteed additional rights to illegally staying employees, including provision of back payments where an employee has earned less than the minimum national wage, which would be difficult to administer and would send the wrong message by rewarding breaches of immigration legislation.

Having reviewed the text post-adoption, the Government have noted that these difficulties remain and that our existing domestic provisions achieve similar outcomes without the additional burdens and costs the directive would impose on both business and the public sector. We have therefore concluded that it would not be in the UK’s national interest to participate. UK legislation already provides strict controls on the employment of third country nationals who do not have the right to work in this country. Between March 2008 and the end of January 2011, the UK Border Agency issued over 5,660 penalty notices under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and collected over £11 million in penalty payments.

A decision not to opt in to this particular directive does not prevent the UK from engaging with the EU on other matters relating to immigration and asylum and the UK continues to play a prominent part in developing EU strategy in these areas.

Identity and Passport Service: Restructuring

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am today placing in the Library of the House the Government’s response to the collective consultation exercise carried out with staff and trade unions on ceasing the passport application processing capacity at Newport passport office.

I had announced shortly after commencement of the consultation period in Autumn 2010 that the Identity and Passport Service would retain a customer service centre at Newport. I can confirm that will remain the position and will provide 50 FTE posts at Newport to deal with the 47,000 customers from south Wales and the south-west who make use of the Newport office.

The consultation period was extended by two months at the request of key stakeholders. We have taken that opportunity to listen and to evaluate the responses received from staff, trade unions, Members of this House and the Wales Select Committee, Members of the National Assembly for Wales and local leaders in Newport.

We have also taken into account other organisational changes impacting on IPS, particularly the effect of voluntary exit schemes. Some 170 operational have left IPS since autumn 2010 on a voluntary basis. That has provided IPS with the opportunity to consolidate some of its operational functions throughout their regional network.

We are maintaining our intention to cease the processing of postal and online applications at Newport. This remains the most effective approach to achieve the necessary reductions in excess staffing levels and capacity in the application processing network.

However, as a result of the consolidation work undertaken by IPS, a further 100 FTE posts will be located in Newport. The Newport office will maintain the IPS central customer complaints and correspondence function and share telephone customer enquiry handling with the Durham office. The handling of lost and stolen passports will be located at Durham and Peterborough and a specialist counter-fraud team will be based at Newport. The processing of overseas passport applications will be carried out in Liverpool, Durham and Belfast after repatriation in 2013.

The current premises in Newport will be retained until the lease break in 2013. After that date, the size of the premises used for Newport will be reduced by 50%. IPS will give up excess space at their offices in Glasgow and Durham by the end of the current financial year. The Durham estate will be reduced further by March 2014 to achieve an overall reduction of one third of current capacity. A strategic review of the north-west estate will be carried out and the options for Peterborough estate assessed after the main lease break in July 2013.

The programme of work combined with the voluntary exit schemes will reduce capacity by 300 posts. The proposed consolidation of specialist work across the regional offices will lead to a surplus of around 120 FTE posts in Newport compared to the original proposal to make 300 posts surplus. IPS will continue to work with those staff, with trade unions and others to find suitable alternative employment within IPS and elsewhere.

IPS commenced the consultation with the aim of a reduction in estate of around 19% and delivering savings of approximately £24 million over the comprehensive spending review period. The planned programme of work will deliver anticipated savings of £22.6 million over the CSR period, subject to carrying out a further voluntary exit scheme later this year and rationalisation of the estate will reduce the overall IPS estate capacity by 15%.

Section 19 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007 will come into force on 23 May 2011. Section 19 restricts the evidence an appellant can rely on at such an appeal to that which is submitted to and considered by the UK Border Agency in support of an application.

Reforming the immigration system and reducing the level of immigration to a sustainable number is one of the big tasks of this Government. Our goal is an improved system that commands the confidence of the public and serves our economic interests. We have made it clear that we will take a robust approach, that we will tighten up our system, stop abuse and welcome only the most economically beneficial migrants. This Government have already delivered a new annual limit on non-EU economic migrants and have announced reforms to the student visa system to be implemented over the course of the next year. These measures are aimed at attracting the brightest and the best, while reducing the level of net migration and tackling abuse.

People wishing to remain in the UK under the points-based system are required to submit all relevant evidence in support of their application at the time that application is made. This enables caseworkers to make the right decision in the first instance, often avoiding unnecessary and expensive publicly funded appeals. It also protects the integrity of the immigration system, ensuring all necessary checks can be made and any deception identified.

But this system has been subject to misuse at the expense of the taxpayer. Individuals already in the UK but unsuccessful in their application to extend their time here have been using the appeals system as a free second application process—putting in evidence at the appeals stage which should have formed part of their application. Our management information shows that around two thirds of PBS appeals allowed by the tribunal are due to submission of further evidence at appeal.

It is not right that the taxpayer should foot the administrative and appeals bill where this information should have been put forward as part of the original application or where a second application including all the necessary information, for which we will charge, is the most appropriate route to securing a grant of leave. Section 19 will restrict the type of new evidence that can be taken into account by the tribunal. It will prevent circumvention of checks, helping restore public confidence in our immigration system and contribute to wider improvements to reduce the overall cost of the appeals system.

The commencement order will come into force on 23 May and will apply to all appeals heard for the first time against refusals of applications to remain in the UK under the points-based system, regardless of the date that appeal was lodged. Appeals that have been part or fully heard by the first-tier tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) by this date will not be affected.

Human Trafficking

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on securing this debate, which, interestingly, follows a previous debate on this issue. I should point out that it was not an accident that the Government called that previous debate, because I made a commitment that we should have proper scrutiny when we decided to opt in to the European directive.

This is a matter of undeniable significance to both Houses. Many thoughtful points have been raised today, along with one or two slightly less thoughtful ones. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to Anthony Steen—it has become almost compulsory and certainly de rigueur to pay tribute to him in debates such as these—for all his work. I also thank the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who speaks for the Labour party, for her extremely constructive and thoughtful contribution. She and I disagree about individual details, but what she said at the end of her speech is exactly right. We all need to be—indeed, we all are—fundamentally on the same side on this issue. We are discussing how best to eradicate trafficking as much as possible. My hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks that it is much better to conduct this debate in terms that are not hysterical, which, as we progress, will be important not only for our debates in this House, bur for debates among wider groups that are concerned about the issue.

A wide range of issues have been raised this morning. Members have reflected on the complex nature of tackling human trafficking. Many have acknowledged the challenges inherent in tackling this appalling crime. Britain has a good record, under Governments of all hues, of tackling it, and this Government intend for that to continue. I am, however, happy to acknowledge that we can always improve. Indeed, it is striking that, while many Members have paid tribute, as do I, to the work of the POPPY Project, the hon. Member for Slough produced a report that says that Britain is doing worse on victim care than Albania. I think that that point was designed to gain an effect rather than to offer a truthful analysis of what is going on, but it illustrates the complexities and difficulties.

The Government are rising to the challenge of developing more sophisticated ways of tackling traffickers in the changing landscape of organised crime, while continuing, of course, to care for the victims of this trade in human misery. I listened eagerly to many of the contributions. It is clear that the subject of trafficking is close to the hearts of many Members. I acknowledge the point that our work should be transparent and responsive to criticism, when that criticism is well founded.

[Mr Field]

Does the Minister accept that one of the key problems that we all face in our efforts to raise the profile of this issue is that, to be brutally frank, there are no votes in it? All too often, some of the people who suffer most are regarded by many of our constituents as a troublesome problem. It is, therefore, all the more important that we utilise this opportunity. I hope that the Minister does not see politics as a platform for his views and that he can try to do something fairly constructive. I hope that he will keep that in mind as he continues his speech.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. This is not an issue that tends to gain huge headlines or create partisan politics, and nor should it. This is, therefore, an opportunity for Ministers and Governments simply to seek to do the right thing by some very vulnerable people.

Let me move on rapidly to address all the individual points that have been made by my hon. Friend and others. I reassure him that the work that was done by the UK Human Trafficking Centre will continue unaffected. The UKHTC plays an important role in our overall efforts to combat trafficking, and the Government are committed to ensuring its continued success. When it became part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, much work was done to ensure that the UKHTC retained its unique role, character and identity. That includes its focus on victim care and its competent authority role in identifying victims as part of the national referral mechanism. Merging the UKHTC into the national crime agency will not affect its important work or change its focus in any way. Specifically, as part of the NCA, the UKHTC will benefit from being able to draw on the resources and intelligence of the wider organisation, while retaining its focus.

During the debate, it struck me that two contradictory demands were often made in the same speech: first, that we need to work much better across different parts of the police, between police forces and between the police and different agencies; and, secondly, that specialist units should be set up. There is clearly a tension between those two entirely legitimate demands. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties recognise that.

[Michael Connarty]

The Scottish commissioner identified that dealing with trafficking is seen as additional work within police forces. If specialist organisations are absorbed inside larger police forces, dealing with the matter will clearly become a marginal activity, particularly for those forces that are currently being slashed and are losing 20% of their resources.

[Damian Green]

That is precisely why it needs to become a mainstream activity, which is what the strategy is designed to achieve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has referred to the national referral mechanism, as have other hon. Members. The NRM is a framework designed to make it easier for agencies—the police, the UK Border Agency, local authorities and non-governmental organisations—involved in a trafficking case to co-operate, to share information about potential victims and to facilitate their access to support. The framework is designed precisely to achieve the kind of coherence that we are seeking.

The expert decision makers—the competent authorities—are based in the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre and the UK Border Agency, and we are committed to ensuring that there are multi-agency working arrangements in both. I recognise that victim identification is an area that can always be improved, and the NRM was set up by the previous Government for that purpose. In the first 21 months of its operation, more than 1,250 potential trafficking cases were referred to the NRM by a range of front-line agencies, and our expert decision makers went on to grant a period of reflection and recovery in 65% of the cases decided. We remain committed to working with partners to ensure that our arrangements for identifying and protecting victims constantly improve.

My hon. Friend recommended having a one-stop shop to gather intelligence and care for victims. I will obviously think about that but, at the moment, the strategy has been to draw on the expertise of anti-trafficking groups to develop a support system that offers victims a more diverse range of services and enables more providers to support victims of this crime. That has been the basis of the approach up to now. The new victim care arrangements, which have been referred to, will mean that the Salvation Army is responsible for the co-ordination and contracting of victim care and will ensure that all identified victims receive support based on their individual needs. Those arrangements continue to be in line with the standards set out in the Council of Europe convention.

It is important to bear in mind that victims must not be compelled to share information with the police in order to access support services. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has referred to the POPPY project. I reassure her that money has not been taken away. A new contract is being let and we are having a different model. Rather than one provider doing everything, the Salvation Army will act as a gateway to other providers, so that a wider range of expertise is available.

[Emma Reynolds]

Is it not the case that the resources available for that contract are much reduced compared with what was given to the POPPY project?

[Damian Green]

Straightforwardly, no. That is simply not the case. It is one of the areas that has been protected. While I am talking about the Salvation Army, I strongly reject the comments about that organisation made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). As he knows, I agree with many of the things that he said, but his attack on the Salvation Army was deplorable. He seemed to suggest that a faith-based organisation could not deal adequately with victims of other faiths or of no faith. That is a disgraceful thing to say. If he is saying that a Christian-based organisation is not capable of fulfilling such a role, that is anti-Christian bigotry and he really should be ashamed of himself.

[Mr MacShane]

For heaven’s sake! The Minister is rather spoiling a good debate. I am appalled at the bigotry against the Eaves organisation—the POPPY project. Yes, I do believe that an organisation based on women is best suited to help trafficked women from different faiths. That was my point. I said on the record that I have nothing but praise and respect for the Salvation Army. It is the decision to remove the money from Eaves and the POPPY project that is deplorable.

[Damian Green]

When he reads the record, the right hon. Gentleman will wish to reflect on what he actually said about the Salvation Army.

The separation between sharing information with the police and access to services is important in ensuring that victims can reflect and recover, and to engage with law enforcement if and when they feel safe enough to do so. The strength of our approach to tackling human trafficking lies in its diversity and in having the UKHTC as our repository for collecting data and the NRM to draw together all those who may be involved in a trafficking case to make the right decisions on victim status. However, I recognise the importance of ease of access to the information that is available to victims of trafficking on how to report their experiences, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster recommended having a website for all the relevant information. I suggest that, given the situation in which many victims find themselves, access to a website may not be the most useful solution. Victims of forced prostitution might be locked in basements and will not have access to any basic services, let alone the internet.

In response to my hon. Friend’s points about the Metropolitan police’s human trafficking unit, the previous Government decided to discontinue that funding, which was provided on a time-limited basis, because they believed that trafficking work should be mainstreamed into the Metropolitan Police Service budget, as it is core police business. The team’s expertise was therefore not lost and reorganisation ensured that it retained its capability to support victims and mount investigations against trafficking.

I agree with my hon. Friend in congratulating the team that runs Operation Paladin, which acts as a point of expertise and guidance for all UKBA officers and Metropolitan police officers. It is important to note that although Paladin is a Met-UKBA joint operation, advice is not only restricted to the ports in London. Paladin offers an advisory service and routinely offers support to officers outside the London area. A specific point has been made about St Pancras. Of course, all passengers arriving at St Pancras have been cleared for immigration purposes at juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. If there is any suspicion that a child arriving at St Pancras is at risk, UKBA will refer to the appropriate authorities. Specifically, Operation Paladin’s coverage extends to St Pancras.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have many points to respond to that were made in the debate.

The issue of re-trafficking has been discussed. That is precisely why, as a key part of our new strategy, we will be working much more in the source countries—the sending countries. I am sure that we all accept that prevention is better than cure. That has been lacking, and it is something that we will address in the new strategy. Much criticism has been based on the lack of provision of information across agencies, and another key part of the new strategy will be to improve our performance in putting information around the system.

The right hon. Member for Rotherham has mentioned STOP UK, which is indeed one of the organisations that will be part of the Salvation Army’s supply chain. It has satisfied the procurement requirements so far but, obviously, I will take what he has to say seriously. The hon. Member for Slough asked about NRM decisions and support providers. As I have said, support providers advocate for victims in the provision of care and ensure that competent authorities receive the information that they need to make the right decision. Although there is no appeal system for the NRM, the decisions can be judicially reviewed.

Let me move on to child guardians and the national rapporteur. I know that hon. Members found the previous debate useful. We will, of course, be applying to the European Commission to opt into the directive. The directive contains a number of important provisions on the issue of child guardians. Local authorities already have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of children. So it is not, as some hon. Members have suggested, an additional burden on them. Can local authorities do it better? Absolutely. I have no doubt that some of them can and should do so.

Policing Costs (Football Matches)

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on securing this debate on an issue that is important in itself. As a season ticket holder at Reading football club, and after last night’s play-off results, I hope to be taking a personal interest in premier league policing next season.

First, I will comment on the vital role played by the police in ensuring the safety of the public at all football matches, not just those in the premier league. Levels of football violence and disorder have fallen consistently over a number of years, particularly since the introduction of tough banning order legislation and the associated radical football disorder strategy in 2000.

Last season, total attendance at regulated football matches in England and Wales exceeded 39 million people, mostly in the premier league. Over the same period, football-related arrests fell by 10% and levels of football violence and disorder continue to be low. However, a lingering threat remains—it is perhaps more than lingering in some cases—and the police continue to play a crucial role in ensuring public safety. Let me take this opportunity to thank them for their continued hard work and dedication.

As my hon. Friend is aware, premier league football matches are policed on a public order basis where the aim is to prevent or deter trouble. Police adopt a visible but low-friction approach. They will intervene in stadia as appropriate—usually at an early stage to prevent escalation—and defuse, detain or eject anyone who is engaging in violent, disorderly or antisocial behaviour. Such policing is intelligence-led and based on a dynamic risk assessment. It means that football clubs and police authorities are able to agree on an appropriate level of policing in advance of each match, based on the level of risk as determined by the latest available intelligence. That ensures that the policing service provided is proportionate to the risk.

The provision of policing at a premier league football match, or any other commercial event such as a music concert, is considered a “special police service”, and it is governed by section 25 of the Police Act 1996. Special police services are those provided beyond the normal line of duty, such as when extra officers are deployed at a site to reduce the risk to public safety during an event. Where the event is seen as commercial—such as a premier league football match—the event organiser is responsible for meeting the costs incurred by providing that service. The cost of policing an event is determined locally by the police authority in negotiation with the event organiser, and not by the Home Office. That system allows flexibility and permits police authorities to take into account any benefits and the ability to pay of the event organiser when determining charges at a local level.

Should an organiser be unwilling to pay for the level of policing deemed necessary to ensure public safety, the chief police officer can refuse to provide policing services. That may mean that the event organiser is denied a safety certificate by the relevant local authority, and without that certificate the event cannot take place.

Although the Home Office does not have formal powers to mandate charging or the level of charging, guidance has been provided in the form of circular 34/2000. Chapter 13 of that guidance deals specifically with the policing of football matches. The Association of Chief Police Officers—ACPO—produced guidance on charging for special police services in 2005, as well as in the 2008 document referred to my hon. Friend.

Football clubs are currently required by police forces to pay only for the policing of their so-called “footprint” area. That usually refers to the area inside the stadium and, for example, the surrounding car parks or streets. In latter case, however, costs can be recovered only when there is an express or implied request from the club for that service to be provided. The provision of “consequential policing” outside a football match—for example, at a railway station or town centre—is currently the responsibility of the police. It is provided at their discretion and at a direct cost to them. Football clubs are not currently required to pay for that extra service, as my hon. Friend has made clear.

I appreciate that in some cases that ambiguity has led to a disparity between what a police authority estimates as the total cost of policing a football match, and what the football club actually pays. It is clear that there is considerable depth of feeling about the extent to which football clubs, particularly those in the premier league, should cover the full policing costs incurred, and there are strong arguments on both sides. The police argue that policing a football match results in extra expense, regardless of whether their presence is on the club’s “footprint” or not. The football clubs argue that the distinction is not so clear cut, and that if they neither require nor request police presence away from their “footprint”, they should not be liable for the cost of police services elsewhere.

[Mr Burley]

On that point, is not the distinction rather more clear-cut than the football clubs would have us believe? As I mentioned earlier, an inspector for an area with a premiership football club that holds matches on Saturdays will sit down with their team and decide to deploy a certain number of extra officers at tube stations, trains and town centres. They know how much that extra deployment will cost and that such costs are the direct result of the match that afternoon—if there were no match, the extra deployment would not be needed. It is not confusing, because the extra costs are clear-cut.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend would be right if the number of police officers needed in anticipation of a particular crowd, disorder or other problem that might require special policing measures were unambiguous. I am afraid, however, that that is not the case. The police already provide a policing service, which is their job, and deal with crime and disorder in town centres, railway stations and so on. It would be easier if the situation were as clear-cut as my hon. Friend has suggested, but I do not think that it is.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Last year, the Metropolitan police said that 18,000 police had been deployed over the year to police premiership football. Have the Government looked at the impact of that on other crimes that take place while those policemen are deployed ferrying supporters between railway, bus and tube stations?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, but the logic behind that argument is that we should stop holding big public events that might excite emotion or violence, because there will always be a knock-on effect on police costs. We have a police service so that people can go about their normal business, and for many people in this country, attending football matches is just that. I am not sure that it should be regarded as an alien imposition on the wider community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made the ACPO case for full cost recovery, but football clubs play a key role in local communities and do a lot of good work in education and health. I am keen for them to remain in a position that enables them to provide those benefits to the community, and I do not want to tie them up with more red tape and obligations.

This issue will not go away, and it is clear that many people feel strongly about who should pay for policing premier league football. We must make progress on that. I recognise that the disparity between what premier league clubs are required to pay for policing and what police forces estimate the full costs to be could be interpreted as a form of subsidy. I argue, however, that that interpretation is too simplistic. It is important to remember that the provision of special police services extends beyond premier league football clubs to all organisations, both sporting and otherwise, that require such services. That includes non-profit-making local and community-led organisations, which must not be prevented from their activities by prohibitive policing costs.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have little time left. Having such a wide range of parties with an interest in policing makes the situation even more complex. As a result, a solution to the case of premier league football matches cannot be reached overnight. I agree, however, that increasing the clarity and consistency of existing guidance in the light of case law—such as the recent cases of Wigan Athletic and Greater Manchester police—could help to ensure a more reasoned approach to charging for special police services. That would help reduce the prevalence of disputes between event organisers, including premier league football clubs, and police authorities, while maintaining the all-important principle of local discretion.

I reassure my hon. Friend that Home Office Ministers are considering carefully all options to ensure a mutually beneficial resolution to the problem. We are not there yet, but an increasing body of evidence will enable us to get close to a solution that I hope will square the very difficult circle, and allow our successes in policing football over the past few years to continue, so that people can carry on enjoying football just as much.

Question put and agreed to.

Forensic Science Service

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I echo other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing this debate. I am aware of the importance of this issue and the sensitivities that surround it. Forensic science is clearly a vital tool of the criminal justice system and one which deserves proper consideration by this House.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Harold Shipman case, which is just one of the most dramatic—in many ways terrible, obviously—of the many cases in which forensic science plays a vital role. The Forensic Science Service has had a proud tradition of providing an excellent, professional service to the whole criminal justice system, but its financial circumstances meant that decisive action was needed to maintain the continuity of supply of forensic services to that system. In the end, I think that what all our constituents will most care about is that the system continues in an efficient fashion.

Let me go through why the announcement has had to be made and answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and by other Members on both sides of the House. The situation that led to the Government’s announcement to manage the closure of the FSS last December is clear: the challenging forensics market put the FSS in serious financial difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman said, the FSS had monthly operating losses of about £2 million and faced the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensic services. The Government have invested significant amounts of money in recent years in restructuring the FSS, but the downturn in the forensics market unfortunately meant that further investment in restructuring the company was no longer a viable option.

We considered three options to resolve the financial difficulties faced by the FSS: uncontrolled administration, further restructuring of the company, and a managed wind-down. Without the prospect of further financial help, the FSS board would have been forced to place the company into administration in early 2011. Uncontrolled administration would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system, and we were not prepared to take that risk. From everything that the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, I imagine he would agree that such a risk should not have been countenanced in any way. Although further restructuring would have had less impact on the criminal justice system than losing the FSS overnight, it would not have solved the key underlying problem of reduced customer demand. The FSS had already received a £50 million grant for restructuring, and although it has significantly reduced the size of its business, the market has continued to contract. The FSS’s share of the market has also shrunk as other competent companies have won police contracts through the police procurement process. That, combined with EU state aid and competition law constraints, meant that further restructuring was simply no longer viable.

I strongly believe that the managed wind-down of the FSS is the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. Several Members have asked about the attitude of other people within the criminal justice system. We consulted key partners across the system before making this decision, and their collective view is that a managed closure is in the best interests of the system as a whole.

[Andrew Miller]

I would be the first to acknowledge that the GovCo process had not been as successful as was hoped. What worries me about the position taken by the Minister and his colleagues is that no one can tell us what the economic facts are. Simply talking about the FSS’s expenditure is not adequate; we need to know the capital expenditure on forensic science—programmes past and present—of every police authority, but neither the Home Office nor the Association of Chief Police Officers can provide that information. Until that information is available, I am afraid that the Minister will have a hard job convincing people of what might be a meritorious case.

[Damian Green]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have read the evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a few weeks ago. He was pressed for that information, and undertook to go away and find it out. The hon. Gentleman said that he requires the full economic case. The starkest economic point is simply that the FSS is draining money away. Money has been put into restructuring, and it has not worked. As he said, the previous Government set up a GovCo in an attempt to solve the problem, but sadly, that has not worked. We knew that we could not carry on as before. The Government were faced with a set of options, and I am trying to explain why we chose what we did.

[Andrew Miller]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, and we have been told today that the Home Office cannot provide that information because it is impossible to calculate, but the starkest economic fact is that we do not know how we are managing public money that has been spent on forensic science. Surely it must be the Minister’s highest priority to work out that conundrum.

[Damian Green]

It is certainly a priority, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the operational expenditure of individual police forces is a matter for chief constables. [Interruption.] He makes a gesture, but it would be wrong for Home Office Ministers to try to detail every piece of expenditure by every police force in the country. By going down that route, we have over-managed police forces and other public services, to their detriment. I am afraid he will have to bite the bullet: allowing the police operational independence is an important way to improve the service.

[Philip Davies]

On the operational independence of the police, the Minister will be aware that some of the fiercest criticism of the closure of the FSS has come from police chief constables, including the chief constable of South Yorkshire, who said that it would

“have a ‘disproportionate effect’ on forces in Yorkshire and the North East because they are more reliant on the service than constabularies elsewhere.”

If the views of the police are so important, will he bear in mind their views on the closure of the FSS?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend leads me neatly into what I was about to say. The Association of Chief Police Officers, in particular, is clear that the forensic markets can cope with the managed wind-down of the FSS, and ACPO has been closely involved in the process being carried out by the Government.

To address the fears about uncertainty, the managed wind-down of the FSS will allow time for the restructuring of the timetable for tendering new contracts, for the re-tendering of existing FSS contracts and for other forensic suppliers to develop their capacity to meet any additional requirements. That approach will also enable the FSS’s business and assets to be transferred in order to build a healthy market around other existing forensic suppliers, which already account for about 35% of the forensics market. That is clearly a significant point. Some may think that there is no one out there and this is a leap in the dark, but more than one third of the market is already in the hands of other operators.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Does the Minister accept that many of the prices currently offered by private sector providers are the result of competition with the FSS? If that is taken away, there is a chance that the marketplace could consolidate or prices could rise, which would not be in our interests. Further to that, many of the people in that specialist area have been trained by the FSS. As I understand it, private sector providers’ prices do not take into account the increased cost base of training their own people to be as skilled as they need to be to cover all the specialisms currently being covered.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that competition drives prices down and makes industries more efficient. That is a universal truth. However, a competitive market exists, and the managed wind-down of the FSS will enable the individual players in that market to become more competitive and the market itself to become a more effective area of competition.

The Government want the UK’s forensic science industry to operate as a genuine market, with private sector providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost. That will, inter alia, preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact that forensic sciences can have on tackling crime. A competitive market can help drive down prices and improve turnaround times, meaning that serious crimes can be cleared up more quickly and efficiently. Ultimately, I am sure that that is what we all want.

Research and development in forensic science is essential to ensure the continued availability of a high-quality, efficient forensic science capability for the criminal justice system. Historically, such research has been undertaken by a wide range of organisations, including the private sector, Government-owned laboratories and academia.

Our decision took into account the need to manage the impact on forensic science research and development in the UK. Unfortunately, the FSS’s financial position had already limited the capacity for research and development for which it had become renowned. During the managed wind-down, we are working closely with the police, the FSS, the Crown Prosecution Service and other forensic providers to consider how the industry can build on existing expertise and continue the UK’s renowned research and innovation.

[Gavin Barwell]

The Minister outlined the options that the Government considered when taking the decision. Did they consider restricting the police’s ability to provide in-house forensic services? That might have given the FSS a larger market in which to compete. As he will know if he has studied the evidence received by the Select Committee, many private sector suppliers have expressed concerns about their ability to invest in the future in a declining market if police provision continues to increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am aware of the evidence given to the Select Committee. Perhaps this is a good time for me to address directly the question of how objective the advice given to police forces on forensic science will be if the service is provided in-house. The evidential value and integrity of forensic exhibits is tested under the intense scrutiny of the courts—from the point of collection, through analysis to interpretation and reporting. Each step in the process must be able to withstand such critical review, not least because the first body that the police must convince in any prosecution is the CPS. That is now an independent function. Fears that something untoward will happen if an individual police force does its own forensics in-house can be overstated.

Keeping one eye on the clock, I will deal directly with one or two other points raised in the debate. On the question of what will happen to the FSS’s archives, the Government obviously recognise their importance in academic terms and, perhaps even more importantly, to the investigation of cold cases. The forensic transition board has set up an archiving project board with members from the Home Office, the FSS, ACPO and key partners across the criminal justice system to recommend options for the handling and retention of FSS records so that historical data remain available to the criminal justice system. As part of that, we will seek to ensure that the necessary expertise remains to work on the data and mine them in the future.

Doubt was expressed about whether private providers will be able to cope, particularly with a major incident such as 7/7. As I mentioned, ACPO has made it clear that the forensics market can cope with the managed wind-down of the FSS. An orderly wind-down, which is what we are managing, will allow adequate time for the current forensics framework to be restructured, for existing FSS contracts to be re-tendered and for other suppliers to increase their capability. We are reviewing the FSS functions as part of the process of managed closure. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is the Minister responsible for crime and security, has kept Members informed of the Government’s plans so far and will continue to do so, particularly those Members who have forensic science sites in their constituencies.

The Government are aware that the decision to manage the closure of the FSS has put employees and their families in a difficult position. My hon. Friend has personally—

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Home Department

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Ruffley]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much (a) her Department and (b) its agencies have spent on the (i) design and production of new logos and (ii) employment of external (A) public relations and (B) graphic design agencies for each project of logo design or redesign in each year since 2000.

[Official Report, 3 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 652-54W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Damien Green:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) on 3 May 2011. The answer should not have included the 2005-06 spend attributed to the Information Commissioner, as it was not a Home Office agency.

The correct answer should have been:

[Damian Green]

The following table summarises the spend of the Home Office and its agencies (Identity and Passport Service (IPS), Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and UK Border Agency) on logo design and employment of public relations and graphic design agencies, broken down by project.

It is not possible to separate out design costs from design agency costs, and therefore costs provided above cover parts (a) and (b).

The Home Office has spent nothing on design or production of new logos or on the employment of external public relations agencies for any project of logo design or redesign since 2008-09.

The UK Border Agency and IPS have spent nothing on design or production of new logos or on the employment of external public relations agencies for any project of logo design or redesign since 2007-08.

CRB have spent nothing on design or production of new logos or on the employment of external public relations agencies for any project of logo design or redesign since 2002-03.