Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the effects on Scotland of the limit on immigration.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

A full impact assessment covering the whole of the UK will be published when we lay new immigration rules in March to implement the changes that will introduce the new limits from April. As the hon. Gentleman knows, immigration is not a devolved matter.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for his response. In my constituency, there are two universities and a number of successful science and technology companies. I have been presented with cases at my constituency surgery in which promising employees and students have been rejected simply because the immigration limits have been reached. Those people are highly qualified and would be of significant benefit to the Dundee and UK economies. How can we simply turn them away?

[Damian Green]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the purpose of the limit is to meet the need to control Britain’s immigration system in a way that enables businesses to bring in the skilled workers that they need. I remind him and employers in Scotland that the unemployment rate in Scotland is above the UK average, at 8.4% compared with 7.8% for the UK. We should have regard to the needs of Scottish workers when companies look to recruit.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When one of my great-grandfathers left the Gordon Highlanders as a pipe major, he could not find work in Scotland. Like many Scots, he came south to England. If there are job vacancies in Scotland, should people not be thinking of moving the other way? Is it not a bit strange for the Opposition to be on the one hand bemoaning unemployment levels, and on the other hand campaigning for higher immigration levels?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. It was the previous Prime Minister who made the unfortunate point about British jobs for British workers at a time when British workers were not taking the majority of the jobs available in this country. This Government are determined to balance the economy better in many ways, in particular by ensuring that as many of the available jobs as possible are available to workers in Britain and, indeed, Scotland.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I think that everybody in Scotland is getting tired of the complacent response on these issues. The Minister has managed to unite all businesses, all universities, the health sector and all employers in Scotland in opposition to the immigration cap, because of the damage it will do to the Scottish economy. When will he acknowledge that Scotland’s population issues are entirely different from England’s? Will he accept that one cap does not fit all when it comes to immigration?

[Damian Green]

There are indeed differences in Scotland, and one is that unemployment in Scotland is higher than in England, and higher than the average for the rest of the UK. I dare say that those who are complaining about this matter do not include workers in Scotland, and do not include the unemployed in Scotland.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

4. What funding her Department plans to provide for youth services during the comprehensive spending review period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to control levels of student immigration from non-EU states.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government launched a public consultation on proposed changes to the student visa arrangements on 7 December 2010. The proposals will result in a more selective system and reduce the numbers to support our aim of reducing net migration to sustainable levels.

[Mr Swayne]

What importance does the Minister attach to student visas in his overall objective of reducing net migration to a sustainable level?

[Damian Green]

It is an extremely important part of the overall reduction that we need. Taking action on students is particularly important as they make up roughly two thirds of non-European economic area immigrants, and the number of student visas issued has been rising in recent years. Getting a proper grip on the out-of-control system that we inherited requires action on all the main routes of immigration, and that is precisely what the Government will do.

[Andrew Selous]

Will my hon. Friend reassure me that in future there will be robust checks on the departure of all foreign students whose visas have expired?

[Damian Green]

Yes, we are proceeding with the e-Borders system, which already manages to track the journeys of roughly 55% of those who come in and out of the country. By the end of the Parliament, that figure will be up to mid-90%. My hon. Friend identifies a key problem: it is not just a question of who comes but of how long they stay and whether they go at the end of their stay.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In taking the action on students about which the Minister has spoken, will he acknowledge the importance of non-EU students to British institutions of higher education and learning? Will he ensure that he clamps down on the bogus colleges that have violated those students’ expectations?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to agree with both points in the hon. Gentleman’s question. Of course we want our universities to flourish and the brightest and best students to come to this country and study at good, genuine institutions. However, we are already cracking down on the bogus colleges and on those that do not provide a proper education. The significance of the distinction between those two things, which the hon. Gentleman rightly makes, is that more than 40% of those who come here on student visas study at below degree level. Often, the public perception of a student as somebody who studies at a university is simply wrong in the case of those who come here from abroad on student visas.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

But if, as the Minister says, 40% of students are on below-degree courses, his policy could have a major impact on the funding of colleges and universities. Has he had discussions with Government colleagues about the impact of achieving the 40% reduction that he is apparently looking for?

[Damian Green]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Home Office questions as the Labour party’s immigration spokesman. Yes, of course we have extensive discussions within the Government on the effects of the controls that we will introduce. He will have seen that very surprising numbers of people come here to do sub-degree courses not at public further education colleges but at privately funded colleges. He will be aware that there are many hundreds of those colleges, and that they are—frankly—of variable quality.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

8. What estimate she has made of the change in the level of crime since 1997.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

15. What estimate she has made of the likely change in the number of UK Border Agency staff as a result of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The UK Border Agency has estimated that the number of UK Border Agency staff will reduce by about 5,200 during the spending review period.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We deal with hundreds of immigration cases in my constituency every year. While the situation undoubtedly improved under the previous Government, there are still substantial delays in the UK Border Agency’s dealing with cases. May I suggest to the Minister that we need an increase in staff, not a reduction?

[Damian Green]

I am interested to hear that those on the Labour Back Benches are still calling for public spending increases. It will be interesting to see what those on the hon. Gentleman’s Front Bench say about that. He is wrong in several respects. The UK Border Agency is getting better, and it will get better still. It will do that in two ways. First, we will replace the costly and outmoded paperwork that it depended on in the past with the appropriate use of new technology. Secondly, the very use of that technology will mean that we can better target our resources of people and money on those who are most likely to cause harm to the UK. So we will be able to provide a better service, even with fewer staff.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

What estimates has the Minister made of the number of staff that would be required if the UK Border Agency got its decisions right the first time?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The higher the quality of the initial decision making, the fewer resources of money and people will be needed later. Part of the reason for having the new technology—new ways of applying for visas, for example —is that we will be able to use senior and more experienced staff to take the initial decisions, so that more of them can be got right first time.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

16. What estimate she has made of the number of police officers in Bolton (a) on the latest date for which figures are available and (b) at the end of 2014-15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

T5. I congratulate the UK Border Agency on its work. At the weekend, it caught five illegal immigrants on the French border who had been making their way to my constituency in a lorry. I welcome the increased border policing on the other side of the channel, but what further steps will the Department take to ensure that stronger measures are introduced to deter those who try to smuggle people into the United Kingdom?

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am delighted to hear that the effective controls that we are reinforcing at the border are having a beneficial effect in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She asked about further measures. I am happy to tell her that only a couple of months ago, at the Anglo-French summit, I signed a new treaty with my French counterpart which commits both countries to increasing the strength of our existing controls in Calais and extending them to other parts of the French coast. That means that we will be equally tough on any activity that is displaced from Calais to other parts of France. We are ensuring that our borders are much better controlled than they were in the past.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

T8. Is the Government’s position that the number of police officers and community support officers in this country has no impact on crime levels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T10. Why are the Government—unlike the Governments of other European countries which are increasing the support for the victims of trafficking—proposing to reduce the period during which a victim of trafficking will not face deportation from 45 days to 30 days?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady knows that the United Kingdom is committed to working with others, including our European partners, to tackle human trafficking. She was present for the debate in which I said that later in the year we would announce a new strategy on trafficking as a whole. That strategy will enable us not only to build on the work of the last Government in relation to caring for the victims of trafficking—which I commend—but to become much more efficient at prevention, in particular by acting overseas, so that fewer and fewer people are trafficked in the first place. That is the most effective action that we can take to reduce the incidence of this dreadful crime.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T9. How concerned is the Minister about the increase in family violence towards young women who adopt values that are contrary to the beliefs of their families?

Counter-terrorism

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary what the Government’s policy is on 28-day pre-charge detention.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Home Secretary is in Budapest at an informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, so I will be responding on her behalf. As the Home Secretary, Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have made clear, the first duty of any Government is to protect the British public and we will not do anything that risks our security. The arrests of individuals for terrorism-related offences before Christmas, the cargo bomb plot in October and the bombings in Stockholm in December have all demonstrated that the threat from international terrorism remains a serious one.

On 13 July last year, the Home Secretary announced that she was renewing the current order for 28-day pre-charge detention for six months, while the powers were considered as part of a wider review of counter-terrorism powers. As the Home Secretary will be giving a full statement to the House on Wednesday on the outcome of that review, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt her statement by giving details of the review today.

This Government are clear that the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to 28 days’ detention before they were charged or released was meant to be an exceptional power—that was always Parliament’s intention. But under the last Government, it became the norm, with the renewal of 28 days repeatedly brought before the House, despite the power rarely being used. Since July 2007, no one has been held for longer than 14 days, despite the many terrorists arrested since then. That is a testament to the efforts of our prosecutors, our police and our intelligence agencies.

As I said, the Home Secretary will, next Wednesday, announce to the House the findings from the wider review of counter-terrorism and security powers. She will set out the detailed considerations of the Government in determining whether the current regime of 28 days should be renewed and, if not, what should be put in its place. In the interim, I can announce that the Government will not be seeking to extend the order allowing the maximum 28-day limit and, accordingly, the current order will lapse on 25 January and the maximum limit of pre-charge detention will, from that time, revert to 14 days. We are clear that 14 days should be the norm and that the law should reflect that. However, we will place draft emergency legislation in the House Library to extend the maximum period to 28 days to prepare for the very exceptional circumstances when a longer period may be required. If Parliament approved, the maximum period of pre-charge detention could be extended by that method.

In the Government’s announcement on the wider review, the Home Secretary will set out what contingency measures should be introduced in order to ensure that our ability to bring terrorists to justice is as effective as possible. This country continues to face a real and serious threat from terrorism. That threat is unlikely to diminish any time soon. The Government are clear that we need appropriate powers to deal with that threat but that those powers must not interfere with the hard-won civil liberties of the British people. There is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting our security and defending our civil liberties. The outcome of our counter-terrorism powers review will strike that balance, and it is this Government’s sincere hope that it will form the basis of a lasting political consensus across the House on this fundamentally important issue.

[Ed Balls]

We are in the unusual constitutional position of having the Government make an announcement in response to an urgent question on a vital matter of national security. I shall return to that issue at the end of my comments.

First, I agree with the Minister that keeping the public safe and striking the right balance between security and the protection of liberties is a vital task facing any Government. That is why when I became Home Secretary—[Interruption.] When I became shadow Home Secretary, I told the Home Secretary that it was our intention, as a responsible Opposition, to support the Government on issues of national security and on the review of counter-terrorism powers. That was on the basis that decisions were made on the basis of evidence and were in the national interest, and that there was an orderly process.

That is still our intention, but this process has not been orderly—it has been a complete shambles. I am not referring only to the way in which this review has been delayed and delayed—it was first promised, last July, to be completed by the end of last summer. Nor am I referring only to the countless and very detailed leaks and briefings to the BBC on the outcome of the review. Such leaks have continued over the weekend—following my point of order of eight days ago—including to The Sun on the funding of surveillance. I have to say that this is no way to make announcements on vital issues of national security.

There is a third reason, which is the reason for this urgent question today. When the Home Secretary announced her review in July, she extended 28 days pre-charge detention for a further six months until 24 January and she said to the House:

“After that, it will be up to me as Home Secretary to come back to the House to ask for a further extension, to let the limit fall to 14 days, or to present new proposals that reduce the limit but introduce contingency arrangements in extreme circumstances.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1007.]

The Home Secretary has not come back to the House. I said that we would support a change on the basis of the evidence. There has been no evidence. There are no details of contingency arrangements. We are told that there will be a statement on Wednesday, but the policy on 28 days collapses by default on Monday.

In the absence of the Home Secretary, will the Minister tell the House what will happen on Monday if a terror suspect is detained? What will be the period of detention? Do the police and security services agree that this power is now not needed? Is that in the evidence in the as yet unpublished review? Do the Government really intend to let this happen by default, with no statement, no announcement and no evidence presented to the House? I must say that this is a deeply arrogant way for the Government to treat this House. It is a shambolic way to make policy on vital issues of national security.

Should not the Minister go away, come back this afternoon to make a proper statement, publish the evidence and allow right hon. and hon. Members to ask the questions that should be asked, rather than allowing the Government to treat them with such contempt?

[Damian Green]

I am sorry that I shot the shadow Home Secretary’s fox before he stood up with what was clearly a pre-written statement that did not bother with anything I actually announced—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question; I gave a substantive answer. He seems to object to that. I have come to the House of Commons to give a substantive answer to a question. I can understand why the noisy and excited Opposition Front Benchers are confused by this process, because under their Government there was never any substantive answer to an urgent question. It clearly came as a huge shock to the shadow Home Secretary that he actually had an answer, because it was clear from the rest of what he said that he had not listened to any of it.

The right hon. Gentleman’s substantive point was that he wanted the counter-terrorism powers review earlier. I think that in his more serious moments he might recognise that, rather than rush a review of something as important as counter-terrorism powers, it is important to get it right. In this area of vital national interest and the security of our country, the Government will not be driven, as his Government too often were, by the media agenda. We will take the right amount of time and get it right.

The right hon. Gentleman’s other point was about process. He had the cheek to talk about process in relation to counter-terrorism powers. I shall not take any lectures on process from the party that tried to use pre-charge detention as a political tool, that tried to impose 90 days detention, then 60 days, then 42 days—a party that, when that proposal was turned down by the House of Lords, finally and grudgingly settled for 28 days. The shambles of counter-terrorism powers was precisely illustrated by the disasters of the previous Government.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of when he will get the evidence. If he ever paid any attention to the proceedings of this House, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announce last week that the Home Secretary would make the statement that I have just talked about next week. I announced earlier that the statement would be made on Wednesday, but there is an underlying serious point that the House needs to address, which is the importance of balancing the security of the British people with the need to maintain our civil liberties. We need no lectures on that from the right hon. Gentleman. One of the most damaging failures of the Government in which he was a leading figure was an inability to strike that balance between security and civil liberties. At every turn, the Labour Government trampled on civil liberties, not just with their attempt to impose 90 days detention but with their databases on children and their ID card scheme. No amount of sanctimonious bluster from the Labour party can disguise their shocking record on civil liberties and security. This Government will repair their mistakes in that area.

My final thought for the right hon. Gentleman is that he said in his blog last week:

“I want to support the Home Secretary in reaching a new consensus about counter-terrorism policy”,

I am afraid that nothing he has said today has illustrated that what he claimed to think last week is what he actually thinks this week. He should go away and think hard about the serious nature of his job.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the coalition’s approach to counter-terrorism judiciously balances the country’s security needs with the defence of our precious civil liberties in contrast with the Opposition’s approach, which relied on draconian and counter-productive counter-terrorism measures that were highly damaging to fundamental British rights and were ineffective from a security perspective?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We need to strike a new and better balance, not just in the interests of civil liberties but in the interests of security. The wider the co-operation we have with the police and security services, the more secure we will all be. The better balance we are now striking is a significant step forward in achieving that.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I was the Home Secretary who increased the time from seven days to 14, not 28, and I think there is good reason for a balanced and sensible approach. But why are we able to have just one announcement on one part of the review without evidence today instead of the total review being announced? Do we have to wait until next Wednesday simply because the Home Secretary happens to be at an informal meeting in Budapest as part of her duties within the European Union? What is the difference between today and next Wednesday?

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman rather makes my point. I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last week that the Home Secretary would make a statement next week, and I am now able to reveal that it will be next Wednesday, so he asks the correct question: why are we doing this now? We are doing it now because the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asked an urgent question and I have shocked him by giving a substantive answer. I make no apology for that.

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

Can my hon. Friend explain why this welcome announcement appeared prematurely in so many media outlets at the same time? We always criticised that when we were in opposition and I would have hoped we would take firm action against leaks now that we are in government.

[Damian Green]

I have no idea where that information came from. I can only say that nothing to do with any of this has ever come out from me or my office.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is unfortunate if the House of Commons is not told the position before the media and I fully endorse what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) just said. Will the Minister accept that it is a welcome step that the 28 days is being reduced to 14 days, because 28-day detention was never meant to be permanent? As for party polemics, the 90-day limit was defeated as a result of Labour Members. One thing I should like to know is why, if we are to reduce the length to 14 days, the Home Secretary will have reserve powers? It should be 14 days without any particular powers being given to the Home Secretary that would not have the authority of the House of Commons.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for his long and distinguished history on the Home Affairs Committee of fighting for civil liberties. As he knows, he and I have often agreed on these matters, and I am glad to make an announcement of this sort today. He makes a perfectly reasonable point about the reserve powers. I should emphasise that it will be a draft Bill, only to be used in emergency circumstances, which the House would have to approve at the time. It is not a question of in any way leaving 28 days on the statute book. On the issue of leaks, I will certainly take lectures from the hon. Gentleman. I do find it just a tad hypocritical to hear those on the Labour Front Bench and new Labour apparatchiks—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can deal with these matters. First of all, the reply was a bit on the long side. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word “hypocritical”, please.

[Damian Green]

I of course withdraw the word “hypocritical”, and replace it with “surprising”.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has been able to give information to the House today, perfectly properly provoked by an urgent question from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. May we all reflect on the fact that the timing of these matters has reflected the extraordinary complexity and difficulty of dealing with these matters, and one might take the criticisms from the Opposition Front Bench a bit more seriously if they had less of a party political flavour about them?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a very wise point. I am still not entirely clear whether those on the Opposition Front Bench support this, because the shadow Home Secretary neglected to say that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

There may be support for the substance of what the Minister has said today, but what concerns the House is the fact that we have had to wait for an urgent question to be asked before being given this information. It is unsatisfactory. The Minister for Security was clear to the Select Committee when she appeared before us last December that Parliament would be told first about these matters and that it would not appear in the newspapers. Is not the best course of action to move the statement from Wednesday to Monday, when the order lapses, so that Parliament can question the Home Secretary on these matters? That is a way to resolve this rather unfortunate state of affairs.

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say several times that the statement has long been planned for next week, and it was announced to the House that it would be made then. With regard to the deadline being Monday, it is entirely reasonable that the law should revert to what it was. It was a temporary emergency arrangement for six months, which would lapse on Monday anyway. To try to equate that with the wider counter-terrorism review is not quite right. As I have said repeatedly, the Home Secretary has always planned to come to the House to talk about the very important wider counter-terrorism review. Indeed, the House was given unusually long notice of when she would appear, so it has been kept entirely in the loop on this.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his helpful statement on the end of 28-day detention without charge. Can he assure me that the statement will have a focus on surveillance with an aim to prosecution, rather than punishment without trial?

[Damian Green]

The statement will have as its root the security of the British people. As I have said, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the Home Secretary’s statement on Wednesday, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government, unlike the previous Government, take very seriously the civil liberties part of the balance.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

When I moved the motion for 28-day detention as the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism in the last Parliament, the Conservative party did not oppose it. After the election, it proposed a six-month period for a review, pending evidence. In order for Ministers to be able to account to the House, when will that evidence be presented, so that we can be assured that 28 days will not put the people of Britain at risk?

[Damian Green]

As I have said on many occasions, the Home Secretary will make a statement on Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman can ask her questions about it then.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the news that we will have the results of the review on Wednesday. Will it also include results of the review into extradition powers, and in particular the European arrest warrant?

[Damian Green]

As my hon. Friend knows, there are reviews on a number of matters. She tempts me down the path of pre-empting what the Home Secretary will say on Wednesday, but it would be sensible for me to continue to resist that temptation.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the Minister promise me that he will take absolutely no lessons from 90-day Labour when it comes to detention; a Labour Government who perhaps had the worst possible record of any modern European Government when it comes to civil liberties? I, too, welcome what he says about 28 days, but will he say a little more today about what he means by these reserve powers?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Not only is it surprising that Labour Members are so worried about leaks; it is equally surprising that they can bring themselves to talk about civil liberties given their shambolic and dreadful record on that issue. That is precisely why the reserve powers that we propose will be in the form of a draft Bill, so that nothing can be done without the full consent of Parliament—even in the most dire emergency, which we can all imagine happening—if it is thought that we need to revert to a longer period of pre-charge detention. It will be for Parliament to decide, and that is absolutely the right way to proceed.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the statement and the fact that the trajectory of pre-charge detention under this Government is going down, not up, as it did under the last Government. We will have to wait and see what the legislation says and look at the detail, but can my hon. Friend confirm one point in relation to evidence? A lot of evidence is already in the public domain in the form of the Home Office statistical bulletins, which show that in more than four years we have never needed 28-day pre-charge detention. Will he confirm that, and also that he has not seen any countervailing evidence that contradicts that?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend, who is a considerable expert on these matters, is of course right. No one has been detained for more than 14 days since July 2007, despite the many terrorist outrages that we have regrettably seen since then. To put the House fully in the picture, to date, 11 individuals have been held for more than 14 days pre-charge, six of whom were held for the maximum 28 days, three of whom were charged and three were released without charge. Again, for the those on the Opposition Front Bench to talk about evidence when they tried to foist 90 days on the House without any evidence at all was completely disrespectful.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Minister’s claims would have more credibility if it were not for the whoops and tweets coming from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Can he not accept that this will be seen in the country as a shabby political deal to make up for their failure in the Oldham by-election and a desperate attempt to hold the coalition together rather than doing what is best for national security?

[Damian Green]

That is a new low. It will be seen in the country as a significant step forward to achieving a proper balance between security and civil liberties, which is the responsibility of any sensible Government.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

All the pressure on this comes from the civil liberties lobby. May I urge my hon. Friend to put the safety of the British people first? I suspect that most people in London, if it were a choice between their daughters being blown up on a London tube or a terrorist who hates everything we stand for spending 28 days in relative comfort before being charged, would choose the latter. So act on the evidence and put the safety of the people first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

As I said in my statement, the first duty of any Government is the security of the people, but that has to be balanced against the wider civil liberties that my hon. Friend and I both hold dear. What we are achieving is the proper balance. What was in place before was unbalanced and, as I just said in answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), it was not contributing to extra safety against terrorism, but was potentially a power in the hands of the state that could have been abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) will not want the state to have powers that it could potentially abuse.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I have a hunch that both sides of the House could have united on a position around the reduction of pre-trial detention. But given that the Minister has just said that the security threat is such that the House should retain some form of emergency powers, is it not reasonable to ask that the Home Secretary should have come and put the evidence for that to the House? Can the Minister confirm that it was the intention of his Department to make this announcement by written ministerial statement on Monday, which would not have allowed any debate?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the reserve powers. The significant change is that instead of having something on the statute book to be used without any parliamentary scrutiny, we propose that Parliament should be able to act quickly, because we can imagine circumstances in which quick action is needed, while not leaving these onerous and draconian powers on the statute book. That seems to be a significant step forward towards proper balance and to giving Parliament more power over the process, which I am sure that he would welcome.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not proper border control an essential part of a review to deal with terrorism? It is no good building a police state at home if we allow pretty much anyone, be they friend or foe, to wander into the country. Will the Minister consider stronger measures?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, having strong and secure borders is one of the essential elements in our fight against international terrorism, and that, as he knows, is why one of the Government’s priorities is to make our borders more secure. We have been making significant progress on that over the past nine months.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister should ask the Secretary of State for Education to include the history of civil liberties in his new national curriculum so that people can be reminded that it was a Conservative Cabinet that introduced internment without trial for UK citizens.

As the Minister knows, there were arrests and charges in Cardiff before Christmas relating to terrorist activities. Does he understand that my constituents would welcome the retention, which I think he has announced, of the possibility to extend detention to 28 days, albeit by a different method? Had that been necessary for public protection in the case to which I have referred, that would have been the right thing to do. Can he confirm that he is retaining 28-day detention as a possibility, albeit after a parliamentary procedure?

[Damian Green]

As I have explained, a draft Bill will be available so that Parliament can act if it needs to in a particular emergency. With regard to the arrests made before Christmas, it is important to look at what has happened. Since July 2007, no one has had to be held for more than 14 days, despite the many terrorist actions and the planned actions that, happily, have been stopped by the good actions of the police and security forces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as someone who considers these matters carefully, will welcome the change we are making today and that the shadow Home Secretary can do likewise at some stage.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will the outcome of the review ensure that we go back to first principles: namely, that the task of security and intelligence should not be confused with the role of the criminal justice system, and that to conflate the two and warp the principles of criminal justice would be to fall into the sort of error that the previous Government fell into?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is precisely because we live in dangerous times and need to consider carefully what powers we have to fight terrorism that we should be all the more careful not to erode the principles of criminal justice and civil liberties for which this House has always stood.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I strongly support the reduction of detention without charge from 28 days to 14 days. Would the Minister confirm that there is no one currently in custody who will have to be released by Wednesday because their detention period has gone beyond 14 days?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any individual cases on the Floor of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that this is not a venue where one should discuss individual police activity.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Although I support the reduction to 14 days, Her Majesty’s Government are not treating Parliament properly on this issue. The Home Secretary will be in the House on Monday to take Home Office questions, so presumably it would be perfectly possible for her to make a statement then. The Order Paper does not list any statement on the issue for Wednesday.

[Damian Green]

The Order Paper for Wednesday is yet to be produced, so I am not entirely sure about the force of my hon. Friend’s statement. As he says, those who are eager to question the Home Secretary will have the chance to do so on Monday anyway, so I am sure that we can return to the issue.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Recently, the Leader of the Opposition defended many of the decisions made by the previous Government, of which he was a member, and now we hear from the shadow Home Secretary that he questions the decision about 28-day detention. Does the Minister agree that there are some worrying splits in Her Majesty’s official Opposition on the vital issues of civil liberties and national security?

[Damian Green]

That may well be true, but I genuinely hope that the Opposition can bring themselves to a position in which they can balance security and civil liberties appropriately. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary have admitted that Labour got the balance between security and civil liberties wrong. I look forward to the day when they can turn those fine words into some sort of concrete action and support the Government when we take measured and sensible steps, such as those we are taking today.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.

There remains a severe and sustained terrorist threat to the UK and its interests abroad. The Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise this threat. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan—the TTP—to the list of 46 international terrorist organisations that are listed under schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the ninth proscription order amending schedule 2 to that Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism—that includes the unlawful glorification of terrorism—or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may, at her discretion, proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, she takes into account a number of factors, which were announced to Parliament during the passage of the Terrorism Bill in 2000.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It is not on the particular organisation that I want to intervene, but as I understand it, the debate is restricted to that organisation. Can the Minister tell us whether he has any plans to review any other organisations that are on the list, such as those representing the Kurdish and Tamil communities, as a way of promoting political dialogue and discourse to bring about peaceful resolutions to conflict, rather than people resorting to violence?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He will understand that, for obvious reasons, it is not the Government’s policy, and never has been the policy under any Government, to discuss whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. It would clearly be foolish for any Minister to give running commentaries on what is going on with individual organisations, so I do not propose to start now.

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

My hon. Friend said that this was the ninth in a series of proscriptions. Bearing in mind some of the reservations that were expressed at the time that the original legislation was enacted, can he reassure the House that there has been no sign of any previously proscribed organisations seeking to get round the proscription by such devices as changing their names?

[Damian Green]

Indeed, that is one of the activities that concerns Ministers and it is one of the things that has happened in the past. Organisations have sought to reappear under different names and have been re-proscribed. We are extremely aware of the very serious problem to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I take the Minister back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)? I do not think my hon. Friend was challenging the subject matter before the House. He was raising the issue of the process. The Act under which the proscriptions are laid before the House is 10 years old. Is the Minister satisfied that the way in which proscription is challenged is robust and will give organisations the opportunity to put their case to the tribunal? That is the point being made, not a challenge to the subject matter.

[Damian Green]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. As he knows, all proscribed organisations are reviewed on an annual basis by a cross-Government group that assists the Home Secretary to come to decisions on these matters. Each case is carefully considered, taking into account all the detail as time passes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point that organisations can change over time. There is an appeal mechanism not just to the Home Secretary, but beyond the Home Secretary to an independent committee, so I am confident that organisations can present a case that they have changed. The system and the Act allow for that.

Proscription is a tough power, as is clear from the various interventions, but it is necessary. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. Proscription means that it is a criminal offence for a person to belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, as well as intelligence material, legal advice, and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Decisions on proscription are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is also right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that the TTP is currently concerned in terrorism. Although hon. Members will, I hope, appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, I am able to summarise. The TTP is a prolific terrorist organisation that has committed a large number of mass-casualty attacks in Pakistan. It has announced various objectives and demands, such as the enforcement of sharia, resistance against the Pakistani army and the removal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. Examples of recent attacks include a suicide car bomb attack outside a courthouse in Mingora in March 2009 that killed 14 people and injured 130. Another attack on a police station in Lakki Marwat in September 2010 killed 17 people. Although the majority of attacks have been against military and Government targets, the TTP is also known to target religious events. In September 2010, a suicide attack on a Shi’a rally killed 50 people.

The group has also claimed responsibility for attacks on western targets. For example, in June 2010 an attack on a NATO convoy just outside Islamabad killed seven people and destroyed 50 vehicles. In April 2010, an attack on the US consulate in Peshawar killed at least six. The TTP has also threatened to attack the west and was implicated in the failed Times square car bomb attack last May.

Proscription will align the UK with the emerging international consensus against this murderous organisation. The TTP is already designated by the United States and proscribed in Pakistan. The proscription of the TTP will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and show our condemnation of the terrorist attacks the group continues to carry out in Pakistan. Proscribing the TTP will enable the police to carry out disruptive action more effectively against any supporters in the UK.

I should make it clear to hon. Members that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism. The TTP is not representative of Pakistani or wider Muslim communities in the UK. The organisation has carried out a large number of attacks in Pakistan resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties. It is clear that these actions appal the vast majority of British Muslims.

As a final point, I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Will he confirm that the Government are looking, as they have said in the past, at proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the political wing of Hezbollah, which still operates in the United Kingdom?

[Damian Green]

I can only repeat to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). For obvious reasons, it is not this Government’s, nor was it the previous Government’s, policy to discuss whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. He will be aware that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation about which we have real concerns, and I can confirm that its activities are kept under review. But as I say, it would be unwise to promote a running commentary on any individual organisation.

Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, has an appeal mechanism, as I was saying to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. They can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed, and if the application is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal that is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions. A special advocate can be appointed to represent the interests of the applicant in closed sessions of the commission. I hope that gives some reassurance to those who were concerned about that.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

With respect to any running commentary from the Home Office, my recollection is that we gave something approaching a commitment, at least in opposition, that Hizb ut-Tahrir was an organisation that we wished to proscribe. I understand that there may be difficulties, but it is reasonable to press the Minister for a clearer understanding of the process with regard to this organisation.

[Damian Green]

With respect to my hon. Friend, I really do not think that it is sensible in such sensitive matters for Ministers to give running commentaries at the Dispatch Box on whether organisations might be about to be proscribed. That applies to any organisation of any kind and background, for obvious reasons that I think he will recognise. That would not be a sensible course of action. There is ample evidence to suggest that the TTP is concerned in terrorism.

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

Given what the Minister has just said, is it his view that the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, made a mistake when he said that he would ban Hizb ut-Tahrir?

[Damian Green]

No, it is not. The Prime Minister had, and has, concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, as I hope did previous Prime Ministers, and as I hope does the shadow Home Secretary. As I have just said, its activities are kept under review.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

No, because the hon. Lady has already intervened and is about to speak. [Interruption.] I regret that Opposition Front Benchers regard the matter as humorous. Many people have been killed by the TTP, which is what the House is debating this evening. There are clearly serious issues about how this country attacks terrorism and defends itself against terrorists, so it is not the time for Opposition Front Benchers to regard something as amusing. There is ample evidence to suggest that the TTP is concerned in terrorism, and I believe that it is right to add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I hope that Members on both sides of the House, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, will support the Government in that action, which is designed to promote the safety of the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and felicitations.

I am grateful to the House for the many important points raised and, in particular, for the tone of the debate on the key issue of the process. Clearly, the Government are exercising very serious powers, so it needs to be done carefully and kept under proper review. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I very much share their feelings about that.

I should gently say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) that I am genuinely bemused by her point about the timeliness of the briefing given to the shadow Home Secretary. I understand that he asked for a briefing on Privy Council terms early this afternoon and received it later this afternoon. I genuinely do not know how much faster the Government could have been expected to react to that request, so I am puzzled by the point she made.

The hon. Lady asked a number of important questions, some of which were about the criteria and the process. Those legitimate questions were echoed by other hon. Members, not least by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). There seems to be a slight misunderstanding involving the absolute nature of proscription for ever, because this arrangement is not like that. I think it will help all those who asked the questions if I simply go through what has to happen under the Terrorism Act 2000 for a body to be proscribed.

The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes

“that it is concerned in terrorism.”

What “concerned in terrorism” means under the Act is that an organisation

“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism”—

that includes “unlawful glorification”—

“or

(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

If that statutory test is met, the Secretary of State will take into account other factors when deciding whether or not to proscribe. Those criteria are: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the UK; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

Most importantly, the Home Secretary comes to this decision after having received advice from a cross-departmental group. That group reviews the proscription of all proscribed organisations on a rolling 12-month basis, so there is a permanent rolling programme of checking which groups are proscribed and whether it is appropriate to continue with the proscription. That seems to me to be a proper process, because I take the points made by hon. Members on both sides about how groups can change and how, in all these areas of this world, it is of course in the interests of the British Government and the British people not only to combat terrorism—that is clearly important—but to try to foster a democratic dialogue so that troubled countries can move into the democratic ambit.

I wish to answer some of the other detailed questions, in so far as I can. I was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood and by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington about TTP’s activities and presence in the UK. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot comment on intelligence matters and details, but I can say that the TTP aspires to mount attacks in the west, as was demonstrated by its involvement in the failed Times square car bomb attack, and TTP leaders have publicly threatened the UK in the past. The group also threatens this country by targeting our interests and allied interests overseas: for instance, the group claimed responsibility for a suicide bomb attack on the United Nations World Food Programme office in Islamabad in October 2009, which killed five people.

The hon. Lady rightly asked what the UK Government are doing to help to stabilise Pakistan. We actively engage the Government of Pakistan to implement political reform in the tribal areas. In addition, through the conflict prevention fund, the Foreign Office is spending £3.65 million a year on reducing the governance and security vacuum that evidently exists in that part of the world, improving Afghan-Pakistan relations and co-operation, and reducing insecurity in Balochistan. So we are playing a very active role.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am still not quite clear about one aspect. Surely the banning of an organisation in this country is carried out because there is reason to suspect that it is going to try to be active in this country. It is not simply a matter of trying to perform a terrorist act, which would be a crime in any case, but of trying to function in this country. Is there any evidence that either this group or its sympathisers are currently active in this country? There are of course all sorts of terrorist groups around the world that are not active in this country which we do not seek to add them to our own proscribed list.

[Damian Green]

If I were to answer my hon. Friend in detail, I would reveal intelligence information. I am sure that he, with his distinguished background in defence, would not want me to do that. I would refer him to the list of criteria I mentioned, which includes attacks on British citizens and British interests, along with those of our allies around the world. I think it would be beneficial if he studied those criteria carefully.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked about the review. I hope she is reassured not just by what I said about the rolling 12-month review programme, but by the fact that there is an appeal mechanism—first to the Home Secretary and then to an independent committee. The legislation allows for that. She asked whether the discretionary criteria are still appropriate, and we believe that they are. Counter-terrorism policy is, of course, kept permanently under review. She asked about the time scale; she will be aware that the Home Secretary is currently reviewing the most sensitive and controversial counter-terrorism and security powers and measures. It would be particularly inappropriate to speculate on the outcome of the review, as we are going to announce the findings shortly. I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured by that.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised a particular case. I take his point, but say simply in response that the Government have a wide range of counter-terrorism tools at their disposal, including asset freezing, exclusion and so forth. It would obviously be improper for me to comment on an individual case.

[Chris Bryant]

Would the Minister be prepared to meet me about this particular case to talk through what might be done regarding the people who murdered Sergei Magnitsky?

[Damian Green]

I would be happy to do so, although the hon. Gentleman might prefer to meet the Minister of State with responsibility for security and counter-terrorism. If he wants to meet me, however, it is always a pleasure. I would be happy to do so, as I said.

One of the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Islington North was that proscription does not work, but dialogue does. Of course we all want to move towards dialogue, but proscription does send out a strong message that we do not tolerate terrorism, and it deters terrorist groups from operating here. It should in no way prevent peaceful dialogue. The hon. Gentleman also made a point about the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Tamil community in this country and elsewhere can express ideas it feels strongly about without supporting the LTTE.

Having heard what I thought was a good debate, I strongly believe, as I think every hon. Member does, that the TTP should be added to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I emphasise once more that the TTP has carried out a large number of mass casualty attacks within Pakistan against the Pakistani military and Government and against civilian targets. The number of the group’s victims runs into the hundreds. It is important that we make the UK a hostile place for such terrorists and that we show our condemnation of this organisation’s activities. The TTP has also attacked western interests within Pakistan and has stated its intention to carry out attacks in the west—a threat given credence by the attempted attack in Times square. It is now right to align the UK with the emerging international consensus condemning this group and its activities. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to,

Ordered,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.

Oral Answer (Correction)

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in some of the information referred to in my answer to an oral question from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) on 6 December 2010, Official Report, column 17.

The response quoted an email sent by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), which stated that “Mrs Namir Rad ... was not given only 24 hours’ notice” of her impending change of accommodation. It has since come to light that the content of his email was incorrect. Mrs Rad was, on this occasion, given less than 24 hours’ notice of the requirement to move by the accommodation provider, Y-People. Y-People has since carried out an internal investigation and the error occurred because the organisation provided inaccurate information to the UK Border Agency. Y-People has implemented controls to prevent this reoccurring and also to provide increased assurance of the accuracy of the information to the UK Border Agency.

The regional senior managers of the UK Border Agency have also implemented measures to ensure that no moves take place in Glasgow without their direct knowledge and approval and that no one will be asked to move at such short notice.

EURODAC Regulation

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government have decided to opt in to the EURODAC regulation. The regulation meets the criteria set out in the coalition agreement with regard to EU justice and home affairs measures.

The draft regulation will govern the operation of the EURODAC fingerprint database, which collects the fingerprints of asylum seekers, and certain illegal entrants to the EU, in order to help member states to determine who is responsible under the Dublin regulation for dealing with an asylum claim. The Government are committed to the Dublin system, of which EURODAC is an essential part, as it helps tackle the problem of people abusing asylum systems across Europe by making multiple claims in different EU member states.

The Government will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

Changes to the Immigration Rules

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am today laying before the House a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules pertaining to tier 1 and tier 2 of the points-based system. Copies of which will be available from the Vote Office.

On 28 June the Home Secretary announced in the House of Commons that the Government would introduce an interim limit on economic migration in anticipation of the introduction of a permanent limit in April 2011. This limit applied to out-of-country main applicants to tier 1 (general) between 19 July 2010 and April 2011, and numbers entering through this route would be equal to those entering in the equivalent period for 2009-10. The limit also applied to the number of migrants who can be offered jobs by sponsor employers through tier 2 (general). This route was to be reduced in the interim period by 1,300 migrants, the equivalent of a 5% reduction across the relevant routes of tiers 1 and 2.

The first of the changes in the statement of changes to the Immigration Rules will close the tier 1 (general) category of the Immigration Rules to persons applying from outside the United Kingdom. I am taking this step as a result of the volume of applications that have been received since 19 July 2010, the date I set the interim limit on tier 1 general.

The second of these changes, specifying the level of the tier 2 (general) interim limit in the Immigration Rules, is being made to take account of the divisional court judgment of 17 December 2010 in the cases brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the English Community Care Association. The divisional court determined that in order for the Government’s interim limit policy to have legal effect the level of the limit should be specified in the Immigration Rules, as opposed to UK Border Agency guidance.

The statement of changes remedies the matter. The interim limit on tier 2 (general) will apply from 21 December 2010 until 5 April 2011. The level of the limit is 10,832 and will apply to the number of certificates of sponsorship available to licensed tier 2 (general) sponsors. The changes will take effect immediately to ensure that employers and other users of the UK’s immigration system have certainty about its operation. I would welcome the opportunity to debate these immigration rules changes should Members choose to pray against the statement of changes.

The Home Secretary has been granted a certificate to appeal; either directly to the Supreme Court if it grants permission or, if not, to the Court of Appeal.

Tier 1 (general) will be closed to out-of-country applications because of the number of applications that have been received since 19 July 2010. The route is not being closed in response to the divisional court’s decision.

The statement of changes to the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament on 28 June 2010 was constructed to provide for the application of interim limits on the number of applications for entry clearance granted under the tier 1 (general) category. Under the Immigration Rules as amended by the changes made on 19 July, applications over and above this upper interim limit would be rolled over for consideration in a subsequent grant period. However, as the Home Secretary announced to Parliament on 23 November, the Government have decided tier 1 (general) route will not continue in its current form and will be refocused as a route aimed at entrepreneurs, investors and the exceptionally talented. This means that there will be no additional allocation of places under the tier 1 (general) category under which rolled-over applications could be considered once the current interim limit is reached.

We should not continue to accept applications under the existing route if they cannot be granted once the current interim limit is reached. We expect, taking into account current trends in applications and refusal rates, the interim limit to be reached imminently. The statement of changes to the Immigration Rules therefore removes existing provision for the granting of entry clearance in the tier 1 (general) category.

I regret that, given the difficulty in anticipating the date on which the interim limit would be reached, it has not been possible to observe the usual convention of laying such a statement of changes before Parliament 21 days in advance of its entry into force. I also wish to clarify that the numerical limit applied to tier 1 applications under the interim limit is 5,100 and not 5,400 as the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has previously been informed. The latter figure was the limit that would have applied if interim limits had commenced on 1 July 2010, whereas in fact they commenced on 19 July 2010.

This change is effective from 23 December and applications for entry clearance as a tier 1 (general) migrant made on or after that date will not be accepted. Applications for entry clearance as a tier 1 (general) migrant made before that date will still be considered against the existing Immigration Rules. These changes do not apply to those who have existing leave in the tier 1 (general) category and require an extension of stay, nor do they apply to those presently in the United Kingdom in another category of stay and are applying for a variation of leave as a tier 1 (general) migrant.

As noted above, tier 1 of the points-based system will be redesigned to make enhanced provision for entrepreneurs and investors and to incorporate new provisions for the exceptionally talented. This will ensure that tier 1 continues to offer a route for those who are able to make the greatest economic contribution to the United Kingdom. These changes will be introduced in April next year and I will announce the detail of these new arrangements to Parliament in due course.

Temporary Immigration Cap

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on Friday’s High Court decision on the temporary immigration cap.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

In June, when the Government announced that we would consult on how to implement a permanent limit on economic migrants, we also said that we would impose an interim limit until the permanent one took effect. This was to avoid a surge of applications in anticipation of the permanent limit.

The interim limit was given effect through changes to the immigration rules that were laid before Parliament, and on which an oral statement was made. On Friday we received the judgment that the changes announced provide an insufficient legal basis for the operation of the interim limit. The judgment was based on a technical procedural point known as Pankina grounds. The Court decided that this meant that more detail about the manner in which the limit is set, including its level, should have been included in the immigration rule changes laid before Parliament.

I would like to make it clear that the judgment of the Court was concerned solely with the technicalities of how the interim limits were introduced. It was in no way critical of, or prejudicial to, the Government’s policy of applying a limit to economic migration to the United Kingdom, either permanently or on an interim basis. The policy objective of a limit in migration has not been called into question, and I am now considering what steps are required to reapply an interim limit consistent with the findings of the Court. Tomorrow I will be laying changes to the immigration rules that will set out the details that the Court required. This will enable us to reinstate the interim limits on a clear legal basis.

The House will be interested to know that tomorrow I will also be laying changes to the rules to close applications under the tier 1 general route from outside the United Kingdom immediately, as the original level specified on this tier has been reached. I can reassure the House that the policy of using these limits as part of our overall policy of reducing net migration is unchanged.

[Ed Balls]

On 28 June the Home Secretary herself came to the House to announce, without consultation, an immediate and temporary cap on non-EU migration. Details of the cap were then posted on the Home Office website, but not presented to Parliament. On Friday the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary’s actions were, in fact, illegal. Lord Justice Sullivan said:

“There can be no doubt that she”—

the Home Secretary—

“was attempting to sidestep provisions for parliamentary scrutiny…and her attempt was for that reason unlawful.”

As a result, the Government’s much-heralded cap—deeply unpopular with business—does not today exist. As Lord Justice Sullivan said,

“no interim limits were lawfully published…by the secretary of state…there is not, and never has been, a limit on the number of applicants who may be admitted”.

In the light of this chaos, it is surprising that the Home Secretary has not chosen to come to the House to answer for her actions, so let me ask the Minister for Immigration two sets of questions.

First, on the consequences of the error, can the Minister tell the House what the status is of those who applied under the illegal cap but were rejected? Will their applications now be granted retrospectively? Can the Minister tell the House how many more migrants he expects to enter the UK because of the failure to implement the cap? In the light of that, is it still the Government’s target to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015, as the Prime Minister pledged before the election, or is this mistake one reason why the Home Secretary is trying to water the target down to just an “aim”?

Secondly, on how we got into this mess in the first place, did the Minister and the Home Secretary ask for and receive legal advice before the summer about the legality of the temporary cap and the rushed way in which they were introducing it? Is it correct that he and the Home Secretary were warned by officials and lawyers that there was a risk of legal challenge if Parliament was bypassed in that way? If he and the Home Secretary did disregard legal advice, did they have the support of senior Home Office officials in so doing? Finally, will the Minister now agree to lay before Parliament all the legal advice on which the decision to proceed was based, to dispel the impression that he and the Home Secretary have acted in a reckless and chaotic manner, and to show that she has nothing to hide?

[Damian Green]

There were, I think, one or two substantive questions in the midst of that bluster. On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, about why the Home Secretary is not here, it seems perfectly reasonable that if a question is asked about immigration, the Immigration Minister should answer it. He will also be aware that there is a serious counter-terror operation going on today. I would suggest that he and other Opposition Front Benchers who are attempting to bluster their way through this should recognise that fact.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a substantive question about the status of those who applied, but whose applications were not granted. The answer is that, as he is aware, the judgment was handed down on Friday; however, as he does not seem to be aware, the written judgment will not be available until January. Until the Home Office receives that written judgment, it is obviously impossible for us to decide whether to appeal against Friday’s judgment. All the questions that he asked about that are, therefore, simply inoperative until we see the written judgment. I am happy to confirm that, as the Home Secretary has said, it is still our target to bring immigration down from its uncontrolled, unsustainable level under the previous Government. As for the idea of publishing all legal advice given to Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a not a practice that was ever followed by the Government of whom he was a member. [Interruption.]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s sedentary heckling, I am happy to assure him that the announcement that the Home Secretary made on 28 June was changed as a result of the Pankina judgment, but clearly all legal judgments are open to interpretation. What I will set out in a written statement tomorrow will absolutely clear up the legal issues and address the narrow technical points made by the judge, and will mean that the interim limits can proceed on a completely legal basis. I hope that the House is reassured by that.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What is very clear is that the policy is not being challenged. Has the Minister had any discussions with other Departments, such as the Cabinet Office, about what lessons can be learned about how the process has to be followed, and what consultation needs to be carried out?

[Damian Green]

That is a perfectly valid question. We are in constant discussions with the Cabinet Office. There are, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, many court cases involving immigration issues. The lesson that I draw is that more and more should be put in the immigration rules and not simply in the guidance notes. We have already started to adopt that as a policy, and will do so in the future.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I assure the Immigration Minister that, whatever the courts decide, there is huge support in the country, including in Labour constituencies, for the policy that the coalition Government are pursuing? Of course, if he were able to bring those measures within the law that would be an advantage, but voters want to see the numbers coming down.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He shows a wisdom on this issue that is not available to the shadow Home Secretary, and he is right about what the public are asking—in Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour constituencies—about our policy of introducing a limit. The shadow Home Secretary has said:

“as many of us found in the election, our arguments on immigration were not good enough”,

and I have to say that they are still not good enough.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

How does the Minister think the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth, which borders my constituency, will react when they hear that the shadow Home Secretary opposes limiting economic migration?

[Damian Green]

I imagine that the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth—who have great knowledge of immigration, owing to the unfortunate activities of my predecessor in this job—will take the view that the Labour party is, as ever, attempting to mislead them completely on immigration, and that that is why it should not be trusted.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister please answer the question that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked him earlier? What is the status of those who applied under the illegal cap and were rejected, and will their applications now be granted? I draw to his attention the example of the international scientist who was unable to come to this country to take part in a cancer research project.

[Damian Green]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave the shadow Home Secretary, but I am quite happy to repeat it. The judgment was given on Friday but we do not have the written judgment yet, and we will not get it until January. It is clearly absurd to ask us to decide what to do about individual applications in advance of deciding whether to appeal against the judgment, and we cannot do that until we have the judgment in writing.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is a bit rich for the shadow Home Secretary to talk about chaos, given the parlous state of the immigration system that the new Government inherited?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good and valid point. The reason why we needed the interim limit was that we inherited an immigration system that was in complete chaos. We said at the election that we were going to introduce a permanent limit that would come into force next April. Between that point and next April there would have been an unimaginably large surge in applications if we had not imposed an interim limit. It is a perfectly sensible policy, and we will take steps tomorrow to ensure that it meets the Court’s requirements so that it can continue to do the essential job of bringing immigration numbers back down to a level with which this country can feel comfortable.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that, in paragraph 110 of the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report on the immigration cap, we warned that this might happen. It is not just this Government but successive Governments who have legislated on immigration without giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise what was happening. Can he give the House an assurance that the consultation that he is now undertaking on students and on the permanent cap will not be affected in any way by the judgment? Clearly, if there are lessons to be learned from the judgment, when he gets it, it will be important to extend that consultation period.

[Damian Green]

I absolutely can give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. I was grateful for the Select Committee’s report; as ever, it was extremely thoughtful and useful. The judgment has no effect at all on the permanent limit, and the lessons will certainly be learned. As he will have seen, our consultation on the permanent cap was a genuine consultation, and the policy that we announced at the end of it was welcomed by many business groups, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, that had expressed worries about it in advance. That shows that this Government’s consultations are genuine, that we listen to people and to Parliament, and that we change policies in sensible ways after those consultations.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

For the benefit of my constituents, will the Minister make clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the ruling, which is simply about process, will not deter the Government from their aim of reducing net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that complete assurance. As I said, the ruling is technical. We want to obey it as fast as possible, which is why we will change the rules tomorrow. I think that the only people in the House who do not want a reduction in immigration and a sustainable immigration system are those on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that this is not the first occasion on which Ministers have had difficulties with the courts? Can he also confirm that Ministers in his Department—he and the Home Secretary—received clear and unambiguous legal advice from their officials before they introduced this temporary measure?

[Damian Green]

Ministers in all Governments receive clear legal advice before any measure is introduced. The hon. Gentleman has been around for long enough to know that all Home Office Ministers have had issues with the courts. Indeed, that was happening even before he and I entered the House. I should love to stand here and say that it will never happen again, but I have been around for too long to say that.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with the shadow Home Secretary that Labour’s arguments on immigration during the general election campaign were not good enough?

[Damian Green]

I do agree with the shadow Home Secretary on that point. He has said many interesting things about immigration—facing both sides of the issue, as he frequently does. However, I think that the country has decided. People want immigration limits, they want immigration brought down, and they elected this Government to do precisely that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

As the Minister appears to be under some pressure from employers in the private sector and the academic and research institutions with regard to the operation of the cap, is it such a good idea to reimpose a temporary cap tomorrow, rather than letting the consultation run its course and then coming up with a more thoughtful answer early next year?

[Damian Green]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps understandably, confused about the nature of the consultation. The consultation was on the permanent limit. That consultation is now over, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement a few weeks ago which was, indeed, welcomed by business groups. We have laid to rest the legitimate concerns that business groups had about the operation of the permanent cap, which will now proceed—as was always intended—from April.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” survey has shown that for the last two years immigration has been the No. 1 issue. My constituents would congratulate the coalition Government on what has been their most popular measure, and would urge the Minister to continue the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend’s constituents say. They are representative of many people around the country in wanting this issue to be gripped, after 10 years of chaos. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing, and precisely what we will continue to do.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Unless I misheard him, which is perfectly possible, the Minister said that tier 1 was being closed with immediate effect because the cap had been reached. Does that include the two-year post-study visa? Will it too be closed immediately?

[Damian Green]

No. What is being closed is the tier 1 general visa for people from outside the United Kingdom. That was part of the interim cap, and that is what will be closed tomorrow. As the hon. Lady knows, from April we will completely recast tier 1 to make it a tier for exceptional people such as entrepreneurs and investors—the brightest and best people, whom the country needs and from whom we continue to benefit.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the immigration controls that he inherited from the last Government? Does he know that, according to the shadow Home Secretary, Labour “actually addressed” immigration—that, according to him,

“We’d put in place controls on immigration”?

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As he has helpfully reminded the House, the Minister is very experienced, and I know that he will want to relate his answer to the policy of the Government rather than that of the Opposition.

[Damian Green]

I shall be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. The Government’s policy is to operate an immigration cap, and to operate an interim cap on the way to a permanent cap as part of a much wider set of measures that will bring immigration down to sustainable levels. The only thing that I can say about the previous Government’s policies is that immigration was running at totally unsustainable levels, causing social tension and pressures throughout the country. I am surprised that the shadow Home Secretary did not take the opportunity to apologise for that.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Did the Minister consult the Attorney-General? Given that he has said he is going to reimpose the cap, can he now tell us what the status is of those who have applied during the period?

[Damian Green]

This is the third time I have been asked that question, and I will give the same answer for the third time. Until we get the details of the judgment we do not even know whether we will appeal against it, so until then it is impossible to discuss sensibly the status of those who applied and were turned down between July and now. [Interruption.] As I have said, Labour Members can keep asking that question, but they will keep getting the same, truthful, answer.

Passenger Name Record Agreements

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The coalition Government are firmly committed to protecting the security of their citizens and to restoring and protecting civil liberties.

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 (those data collected by carriers in the exercise of their business) for the purposes of combating terrorism and organised 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 where appropriate.

We are firmly committed to consistency in our approach to civil liberties and will seek to translate our domestic agenda to the EU level—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.

On 21 September the European Commission (EC) published a communication on the global approach to transfers of passenger name record (PNR) data to third countries (which proposed a set of common principles on sharing data with third countries) alongside a package of draft negotiating mandates for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States. In response to the Commission recommendations, on 18 October 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 negotiating mandates).

We fully recognise the importance of working with partners outside the EU, given that the threats we face are global in nature. Notably, we will continue to engage closely with the US on PNR and data protection; both of which are crucial to our ability to co-operate with the US on improving US and EU security. We will though ensure that the exchange of data with such partners remains subject to rigorous data protection safeguards.

After due consideration of the importance of civil liberties, data protection and security concerns, the Government have decided to opt in to negotiating mandates for three PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the US as they believe they will pave the way for EU-third country agreements that strike the right balance between civil liberties, data protection and security of the EU. As these mandates are currently restricted so as to preserve the EU negotiating position they are not therefore depositable within Parliament.

The Government will continue to work with the Scrutiny Committees when it considers whether to opt in to Council decisions to sign and conclude each third country agreement. I will also in due course update Parliament on the Government’s opt-in decisions at these later stages.

Immigration (Detention of Children)

Damian Green Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The UK has a long tradition of welcoming people from across the globe and we can be especially proud of our record in granting refuge to those who have been persecuted. When those people include families with children, we have a particular responsibility to ensure that we approach the task with compassion and humanity.

That is why one of this Government’s first acts was to commit to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. This Government believe that children should not be detained in our immigration system, but we must ensure that those with no right to be here leave the UK. This is a difficult issue—we need to balance the welfare of children and families with the need to maintain a robust and workable immigration system.

In June I set up a review of how we work with families in the immigration system. The Home Office launched a consultation which received over 340 responses from different organisations and members of the public. We also sought the views of interested parties through a working group co-chaired with the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, received recommendations from a further expert group convened by Citizens UK and examined how other countries manage family removals. We have also worked closely with the Department for Education as the lead Department for children and safeguarding in England and will continue to do so on implementation.

We have already begun to take action where we can. Since the beginning of June, fewer than 50 families have been held in immigration detention—compared to over 300 over the same period last year—and the average stay in detention has been reduced from 15 days to 4 days.

But we need to go further. With immediate effect no children will be detained at the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre.

We are now implementing a fundamentally new approach to the whole end-to-end process of working with families in the immigration system. This new system will strengthen families’ trust and confidence in the immigration system, maintain public confidence in the Government’s ability to control the UK’s borders and ensure that families with children are treated humanely and in a way that meets our international obligations and our statutory duties in relation to children’s safety and welfare.

Working in partnership with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we will continue to improve the quality of our asylum decision making through our asylum improvement project. We will develop best practice for working with families and will increase the specialist skills of our staff. Working with partners from local authorities, the voluntary sector and local communities, we will continue to test new arrangements for providing early access to legal advice and practical support and guidance to families.

In those cases where an application has been refused and all appeals have been exhausted, we will assist families in departing voluntarily, including with financial assistance where necessary. UK Border Agency staff will hold a dedicated family return conference with each family to help them understand the options available tor their return and prepare for it.

We will, of course, still require families to depart who have no right to stay here and who do not depart voluntarily. But rather than being detained, they will instead be given a minimum of two-weeks’ notice of their departure date while they remain in the community. This extended notification period—up from 72 hours at present—will ensure that the family can prepare properly for their return. Families will then be given the opportunity to check themselves in at the port of departure.

At this point families will have had every opportunity to comply and exercise some control over the timing and manner of their departure. They will have had the opportunity to challenge the decision that they must return in court, supported by legal aid and voluntary sector partners; they will have had the opportunity to discuss their options at family return conferences; and they will have had the possibility to leave voluntarily, with a financially supported return.

Where families still fail to co-operate, their case will be referred to a new independent family returns panel, which will ensure that the welfare of the children involved is fully considered in a tailored returns plan. The panel will be independently chaired and include experts on health and child safeguarding. Once the new process is implemented, the panel will be able to recommend using any existing mechanism or policy available to the department to manage returns, but specifically excluding detention in an immigration removal centre.

As a very last resort for those rare cases when families fail to co-operate with all other options, the panel will have the option to refer the family to a new type of accommodation for only the last 72 hours before departure.

This accommodation will not be an immigration removal centre. It will have a family-friendly environment, with an entirely different look and feel. The site will be secure but will respect family privacy and independence. We will be seeking third sector involvement in the running of the accommodation.

This accommodation, which will only be used for very short periods of time, will be for those families who have consistently refused to comply with the process and whom the independent panel advise need that level of oversight. Once there, families will be allowed to leave the premises with permission on a risk-assessed basis. We will allow children to have the opportunity to leave the premises subject to a clear and transparent risk and safeguarding assessment and suitable supervision arrangements. We will also ensure that there are suitable adults on site in Tinsley House from January to allow children to have the opportunity to leave the centre following a risk and safeguarding assessment by UK Border Agency. The panel will encourage accountability and transparency in the process by producing an annual report, which will include all cases referred to the new accommodation.

In addition to ensuring the removal of families with no right to stay here, we must maintain our ability to protect the border. Other countries have kept the ability to detain those arriving at the border for a short period and we will need this capability as well. We will retain Tinsley House at Gatwick for this purpose when necessary. Families detained trying to enter Britain illegally are usually returned on the next available flight and within 24 hours.

The process I have outlined balances the welfare of children and families with the need to maintain a robust immigration system which can remove people with no right to remain here.

As we put the new process into practice we will continue to learn and improve. We will work with communities, the voluntary sector, local authorities, the Department for Education, and families themselves to make the new process work. At the heart of our new approach will be the fundamental need to safeguard the welfare of children.

Further information on the review can be found on the UK Border Agency website and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

English Language Students (Entry Clearance)

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Under tier 4 of the points-based system, institutions are currently required to ensure their students have a prior knowledge of English at a minimum of B1 level on the common European framework of reference for languages. Competence in English language is a key indicator of a student’s ability and motivation to follow a course of study. In the consultation on the reform of the student immigration system, the Government therefore propose that minimum level for tier 4 is raised further to B2—an upper-intermediate level of competence.

I recognise these current arrangements, as well as those proposed, do not meet the special needs of the English language sector. These lower-level courses can be offered through the student visitor route. Leave under this route is limited to six months. The English language sector has represented to me that in some cases, they wish to offer courses of longer duration.

Therefore I have agreed to put in place a temporary measure that will allow English language students on a longer-duration course to be given leave to enter as student visitors for a period not exceeding 11 months.

To enter under this route for the extended period, English language students will need to obtain entry clearance at a British mission overseas in advance of travel, whether they are a visa national or non-visa national, and furnish evidence of the duration of the course. Other requirements, entitlements and restrictions will remain the same as the current student visitor visa. Students will not be entitled to work, sponsor dependants or switch into other routes including tier 4 of the points-based system. Students will have to satisfy the entry clearance officer that they genuinely intend to study, to leave the UK at the end of their studies and can support themselves during their stay. Full details of the route and how students can qualify will be published in guidance on the UK Border Agency website. Students will be able to apply from 10 January 2011.

This concession is intended to create flexibility to allow legitimate English language colleges to continue to offer opportunities to genuine students. I shall monitor closely the practical impact to ensure that it does not become a loophole, and take a decision on making it permanent in due course. English language students will continue to be able to study under tier 4 of the points-based system, as now, where they meet the requirements.