EU Readmission Agreement: Jordan

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The Government have decided not to opt in to a Council decision (12137/15) authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (hereafter referred to as Jordan) on readmission.

EURAs ensure reciprocal procedures for the identification, documentation and return of persons illegally entering or remaining in EU member states. We decide whether to participate in EURAs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the priority we attach to the country concerned in terms of numbers of immigration returns and the degree to which we enjoy a good bilateral relationship with that country.

Jordan is not an immigration returns priority for the UK (there were only four enforced returns from January to September 2015), and our returns process is excellent; Jordan is a country to which we return on EU letters (this is easier because we do not need to obtain a travel document if we have strong supporting evidence of nationality). We would not enjoy an operational advantage if we were to change our bilateral arrangements for conducting returns to Jordan.

[HCWS681]

European Agenda on Security

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate and I hope I am able to assist the Committee in its scrutiny of these important documents.

The subject matter of the debate could not be more relevant to the current challenges that we and our European partners face. The dreadful recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels underline that in the starkest way possible, and I am sure the Committee will join me in expressing our determination to overcome these challenges. The Government are clear that we need to work closely with our European partners to ensure that all our law enforcement agencies have the right tools and mechanisms to do their jobs and protect all our citizens.

It is against that backdrop that we must consider the Commission communication, “The European Agenda on Security” and the Council’s internal security strategy. While the Government are clear that security is primarily a matter for individual member states, we are also clear that there are areas in which the European Union can provide genuine added value by harnessing the benefits of joint working, particularly in relation to operational co-operation and information sharing. For example, the UK co-operates with law enforcement authorities in all EU member states through Europol.

As set out in our explanatory memorandum, the communication aims to detail how the Commission believes the EU can bring added value to support member states in ensuring internal security. It outlines the need to “work better together” before calling for stronger EU action in three areas: better information exchange, increased operational co-operation and supporting action including training, funding, research and innovation. The communication also identifies three main priorities for European security for the coming five years: tackling terrorism and preventing radicalisation, disrupting organised crime and fighting cybercrime.

The Government welcome the focus throughout the communication on the implementation of existing measures and on strengthening co-operation. As the Committee is aware, we are also broadly supportive of the key themes identified in the communication. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has indicated, much has happened in the sphere of European security since the publication of the communication last May, but we believe it represented a sensible contribution to the debate and are confident that the Commission is fully seized of the need to make rapid progress in this area.

Before I outline our current key objectives in enhancing security in the European context, I should make clear the relationship between the Commission’s communication and the Council’s internal security strategy, the ISS. In June 2015, the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed conclusions that renew the ISS for the next five years. The renewed ISS is owned by and will be implemented by the Council, reflecting the Council’s primacy in this field. While the Council’s conclusions welcome the Commission’s communication—the agenda on security—they do not endorse the communication wholesale. Rather, they are clear that the renewed ISS consists of the two relevant sets of Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusions, based on the broad principles identified in the communication: tackling terrorism and preventing radicalisation, disrupting organised crime and fighting cybercrime—principles that we support.

The conclusions also invite the Council’s committee on internal security—COSI—to lead on developing an operational implementation plan and to monitor its progress. The Government fully support the role of COSI in taking forward the implementation of the new ISS, which further protects the Council’s remit to set the political direction in the field of justice and home affairs.

The Government are determined to tackle the immediate and pressing security threats that we face. Working with our European partners is critical if we are to be successful. We want to see action taken by Europe to address the threat from terrorism as a result of the situation in Syria and Iraq. We need to counter the Daesh brand and remove online terrorist and extremist propaganda to prevent further recruitment.

A key issue on which urgent progress is required is enhancing information sharing with our European partners. Effective information sharing is our first line of defence in a world of increasingly mobile threats. We are making good progress, and I am pleased to note that the European Parliament agreed the passenger name records directive last week. The Home Secretary and I have always been clear about the importance of PNR and last week’s vote represents a pivotal action in the ongoing fight against terrorism and serious crime. The processing of PNR information is a proven way to identify previously unknown individuals who pose a threat to the safety of the public here and abroad. At the same time, the directive clearly takes account of operational needs, the protection of personal data and individuals’ fundamental rights. We will now begin implementing the directive, establishing our network of interoperable passenger information units—we have the national border targeting centre here in the UK—and working with our European partners to target travel related to terrorism and organised crime.

But there is much more to do. In particular, we need to ensure the systematic and consistent use of EU criminality information, such as criminal conviction data, which are currently available through the European criminal records information system. Thanks to the second-generation Schengen information system, sometimes known as SIS II, information about people wanted under European arrest warrants is now available at the border. We now need to do the same for criminal convictions data to allow routine checks to be made against those data. We also need to ensure that all countries are entering foreign fighter data systematically on to SIS II.

On firearms, we are working hard to agree an effective directive. We are pressing for a ban on the most dangerous semi-automatic weapons across the EU to protect our citizens, but legislation alone is not enough. We are also working to develop better intelligence on the threat posed by firearms, so that we are better able to intercept them before they get into the hands of organised criminals and terrorists. We need to gather that intelligence effectively, share it and act on it.

Continuing to strengthen global aviation security is a further priority for action. We are building capability through multilateral support of priority third countries and are keen to co-ordinate activity with partners to maximise our collective efforts.

Finally, I stress the importance that the Government place on delivering effective de-radicalisation and disengagement programmes, building on existing best practice. We are working with our European partners to increase our efforts and upgrade our capability to respond to and outpace extremist propaganda used to radicalise individuals online, ensuring a robust response.

The Government will continue to play a key role in driving the implementation of the internal security strategy. We are clear that working with other countries as part of the European Union is the best way to ensure the security of the British public and that together we can tackle these threats, leaving dangerous criminals and terrorists with nowhere to hide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank you for your guidance on the protocol of the Committee. Will the Minister provide some information about how the British Government were involved in drafting “The European Agenda on Security”?

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, the agenda is a Commission document, but as I indicated in my opening remarks, we see it as being led by the Council. These issues were debated at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council and they continue to be debated; we have a further extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council later this week. Through that mechanism, issues of security, what the right processes are and how we work together were addressed; the UK made interventions at Council meetings; and the internal security strategy—the Council-led document that I referred to—was created. Obviously, COSI, which is now implementing the strategy, reports back to the Council.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Taking it to the next step, will he provide clarity on the steps that the Government will take to implement the agenda once it is adopted and what plans the UK has to help tackle common EU security threats?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, the internal security strategy, which was renewed by member states in June of last year, sets out a clear agenda. It contains much of what is in the Commission’s communication, although the Council very much leads on it: the strategy is being implemented by the Council and that implementation is being led by COSI. We welcome that, as it ensures that member states are clearly in the driving seat of the agenda’s implementation and will get regular feedback on it. As has been indicated, a Europol counter-terrorism centre was established in January of this year, in response to a call from the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers at Council on 20 November. That new centre, which acts as a platform for member states to increase information sharing, is a good example of how the agenda is being implemented.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Ashford drew attention to the fact that temporary internal border controls have been erected in a number of EU countries inside the Schengen area. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the breakdown of Schengen and those temporary internal border controls are likely to remain permanently?

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, the UK is not part of Schengen and therefore the actions that are being taken by individual EU member states in concordance with the arrangements underpinning Schengen are a matter for them. The UK’s focus is on seeing a strong external Schengen border and ensuring that, although we are outside Schengen, we support other EU member states through the mechanisms of Frontex and other bodies. We will continue to work with other member states to assist them in securing the external EU border, given the direct relevance of that to our own security.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Going beyond that, does the Minister agree that it would actually be sensible for countries inside Schengen to impose permanent border controls? That would frustrate the movement of terrorists and serious criminals across borders and make the job of the police and whoever much easier.

[James Brokenshire]

That is a matter for the EU member states that are part of Schengen. Our focus is on better communication of criminal record information. Indeed, I commented on the second-generation Schengen information system. We must ensure that data are put on that system so we can benefit from them at our border and have better intelligence and information on people who may wish to come to the UK. The Government have sought to underline that practical co-operation to get better data sharing and, in so doing, enhance our own domestic security.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. Fortunately, we are not in Schengen and we take our borders seriously—but perhaps not seriously enough. There have been reports this week that people enter Britain clandestinely via beaches using rubber dinghies across the North sea. Does the Minister not think that we ought to have stronger border controls and a bigger border force to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government take their border security responsibilities seriously. We check 100% of scheduled passengers arriving at the border. Every year, millions of passengers pass through the border in that way. That is why I made the point about having better data at the border to assist those checks through our partnerships and co-operation with other EU member states. In respect of the general maritime sector, we have invested in intelligence and a field intelligence officers network, which has resulted in the successful interdiction of suspect vessels, disruption of people smugglers and significant seizures of class A drugs. We must work with our European partners as well. The action that the French, Dutch or Belgian Governments may take in stopping vessels leaving their shores is a powerful way of ensuring our own domestic security and underlines the need for good, practical co-operation.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Looking at the immediate future, has the Minister considered the implications of Brexit for the UK’s security and our ability to tackle heinous crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to recognise that national security is a member state competence. In other words, the lead responsibility for determining a country’s national security policy rightly lies with that member state. We guard that very clearly, but it is also important to recognise that EU membership gives UK police forces and law enforcement authorities automatic access to a broad range of tools and databases that help combat transnational crime. Those include Europol; the Prüm Council decisions on fingerprint and DNA exchange—when fully operational, those will allow DNA exchanges in 15 minutes, which simply is not possible through other mechanisms—Eurojust, the EU’s judicial co-operation unit, in which we participate; the European Criminal Records Information Sharing System; data on passenger name records; the second-generation Schengen information system; and, of course, the European arrest warrant.

That combination of mechanisms that is available to law enforcement authorities would be difficult to replicate. Those mechanisms would all need to be reassessed and negotiated, and alternative arrangements would need to be put in place. That would be challenging. We clearly benefit from those structures at the moment in guarding our domestic security and confronting transnational crime, which does not respect borders, and we therefore need to continue to work closely with our European partners and use the most effective mechanisms to protect our citizens.

[Sarah Champion]

This is my final question. The right hon. Member for Ashford highlighted the fact that the Commission document was drafted before the Paris terror attack in November 2015 and the events that followed in Brussels. Have the Government given further consideration to whether any additional steps are now needed?

[James Brokenshire]

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I should say that it is always the Government’s intention to schedule debates in a timely fashion, although I regret and acknowledge that that was not possible in this case. We continue to take debate recommendations seriously, although I think that we all recognise that there have been opportunities to debate counter-terrorism and security through oral statements on the Floor of the House and other debates. There have been opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the approach that the UK takes and the context of the broader European security agenda.

I say in direct response to the hon. Lady’s questions that we keep these matters under close review. We hold ongoing discussions with our European partners. Following the attacks in Paris and Brussels, we stepped up operational arrangements at the border and we continue to consider with European partners how best to strengthen things further. I touched on work that we want to take forward in Europe on firearms. I have also highlighted work that we continue to press on criminal record information sharing and encouraging other member states to put additional data into ECRIS and the second-generation Schengen information system to benefit the domestic security of the UK and all the other European countries. Europol’s ongoing work on taking down propaganda from Daesh and other terrorist organisations effectively mirrors at EU level the work that we do through the counter-terrorism internet referral unit.

We continue to advance practical steps. Clearly, the approval of the passenger name records directive is another important milestone and highlights the need for collaboration, co-operation and continuing to debate, discuss and work with our European partners. We must recognise that member states lead on national security—that is a member state competence—but, equally, that we gain strength from good co-operation.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allocated for questions. I call the Minister to move the motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8293/15, a Commission Communication: The European Agenda on Security, and its relationship to the Renewed Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners in the area of EU internal security, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.—(James Brokenshire.)

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank you, Mr Turner, and the Committee for the broad support offered for the agenda this afternoon.

It is right that we continue to co-operate practically and collaborate with our European partners, as ultimately that is in the UK’s best interest, recognising that terrorists and organised criminals do not respect borders of whatever kind. Therefore, we are better protected and better assured of national security by thinking and planning carefully with our European colleagues, as well as by harnessing the benefits we enjoy through existing relationships—through the “Five Eyes” partnerships with our traditional colleagues—and the strength that gives us. We have the best of both worlds by having those relationships, together with the combination of the work we do at EU level.

It is right that this Government have placed considerable emphasis on strengthening our borders. We introduced 100% checks on scheduled passengers, which was not something that happened before we came into government. That has been a focus for this Government, albeit at that time under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, who did considerable work to ensure that we strengthened our border. I pay tribute to him and others for the work that took place.

I say to the hon. Member for Luton North that we have ambitious plans for taking forward, for example, increasing automation of passenger controls—implementing new technology that will make processes quicker and more secure and changes to working practices, and promoting other services that support all of that, but equally constantly assessing the changing nature of the threat that we face. We do that with our European partners, while clearly having strong assessment of our domestic border arrangements. Also, arrangements with the Government of France and our juxtaposed controls in northern France absolutely aide our own domestic security and strengthen and underpin the close co-operation that has been very important at times—for example, during the migration crisis, which we are obviously seeking to confront.

This is something we keep under review and it is something we take seriously in relation to the external Schengen border. It is right that we see the benefit of pushing out our border much more, which is why data such as advanced passenger information and passenger name records are, equally, an important part of that. Through, for example, the introduction of e-gates, which are much better at detecting things such as proper documentation and at how the photo can be matched to a passport, there are new ways in which we look at that—as well as with things such as biometric residence permits for those who are outside of the EU. So I do recognise the continuing challenges, but that is very much on the Government’s agenda, both domestically and as part of the broader agenda within the EU and the internal security strategy, which we have touched on in this sitting.

I thank you, Mr Turner, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues—that relationship between the UK and the EU, which I think benefits this country enormously, those mechanisms that support all of us and how we need to continue that dialogue, discussion and co-operation with our EU partners to ensure that our domestic security is better protected at a time of continuing threat and continuing risk.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8293/15, a Commission Communication: The European Agenda on Security, and its relationship to the Renewed Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners in the area of EU internal security, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.

Unaccompanied Children

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

This debate has been marked by passionate and compassionate contributions. The Members who contributed did so with a genuine desire to inform the debate, based on their own experiences. Many of them have travelled out to areas affected by the migration crisis and to the refugee camps. This has therefore been a very well informed debate, and the Government will continue to reflect on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who always speak with a genuine desire to make a difference on these extraordinarily difficult issues. The Government must act appropriately to make the biggest difference that we can on the challenging issue of vulnerable children who have been affected by conflict and are fleeing persecution.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) not just on securing the debate but on his continued focus on these issues. I very much appreciate the conversations we have had over many months—indeed, over many years—on these themes. He focused principally on what happens in the UK, an issue that he feels keenly, although many contributors strayed more widely. We will continue to reflect on the points that he and others made this morning.

In the time available, I will struggle to do justice to this very good debate, but I will address a number of the points that have been made. I echo a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer): it is right that we have a sense of compassion, but we have to act with head and heart to do the right thing in an extraordinarily difficult situation. It is worth reflecting on the fact that up to 90% of asylum seekers pay a criminal gang to reach Europe. We therefore have to be careful not to do anything to encourage vulnerable individuals to put their lives in the hands of criminals seeking to exploit migrants for profit. I know that things can get twisted in their presentation, but none of us wants more children being exploited or losing their lives after being pushed out to sea in the Mediterranean. We must prevent that appalling tragedy.

The UK has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it, including children. The Government take our responsibility for the welfare of children seriously. The crisis in Syria and events in the middle east, north Africa and beyond have led to an unprecedented number of migrants and asylum seekers, including children and families, arriving in Europe. Some of those children have been separated from their families and, as we have heard, have gone on to reach the UK via northern France. It is absolutely right that Britain fulfils its moral duty to help refugees. The Government take our responsibility on asylum cases involving children very seriously.

As we have heard, last year there was a 56% increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK, which placed significant pressure on some local authority children’s services. It is important to understand that nearly two thirds of those children are aged 16 or 17 upon arrival.

From the points that have been made, I know that Members are aware of the pressure faced by Kent County Council, which is currently caring for nearly 900 unaccompanied children, 300 of whom have had to be placed in other local authority areas. I have previously put on the record my gratitude for the way in which Kent and other local authorities such as Croydon responded to the pressures, but I have also been clear that a national response is needed to ensure that all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children get the support they need and are appropriately safeguarded. The current situation is not in the best interests of either the children or those councils. That is why a voluntary transfer scheme was put in place last summer, and additional funding has been made available to local authorities that take on the legal responsibility from Kent County Council for caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

However, it is clear that we need to go further to promote a fair and equitable distribution of cases across the country in a way that protects the best interests of those children. Government officials continue to work with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, the devolved Administrations, local government organisations and a range of charities and non-governmental organisations to put in place a longer-term, more sustainable transfer scheme that will assist not only Kent but other local authorities caring for high numbers of unaccompanied children.

I believe that a regional approach to the transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is the best way to support local authorities, which are legally responsible for caring for those children, but that will work only if local authorities are funded appropriately. I know that that is a concern for many. The Home Office provides funding for the care of UASCs, and last week I confirmed that all existing rates, including the rate offered to local authorities willing to accept the transfer of unaccompanied children from Kent—as outlined in the joint letter from the Home Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Communities and Local Government Secretary last November—will continue until a new transfer scheme is introduced. I hope that local authorities will support the transfer scheme and that it will remain voluntary. However, we are keen to avoid a repeat of the situation in Kent last summer, which is why we included provisions in the new Immigration Bill to underpin the voluntary transfer scheme, and, if necessary, to enforce it.

Comments have been made about advocacy services. All unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are entitled to legal aid throughout their asylum application. It is right that they are supported throughout their application. I am aware that there have been some instances in which children have been unable to access advocacy services in a timely manner, which has been particularly problematic in areas with a high concentration of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My officials continue to work with the Legal Aid Agency to ensure that such problems are resolved as quickly as possible to progress cases in a timely manner. It is imperative that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have access to legal advice as soon as possible. Equally, I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education on the issue of fostering.

On the issue of independent child trafficking advocates, the Government are committed to supporting trafficked children. When children are found to have been trafficked, their safety and welfare must be addressed as a priority. In January 2014, the Government announced proposals to trial specialist independent advocates for trafficked children. That trial formally ended on 8 September 2015, and the Government report on the child trafficking advocates scheme was published on 17 December 2015. We are continuing to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders to determine how best to support trafficked children, and we are considering the use of independent child trafficking advocates. We will update Parliament in due course, but I recognise some of the benefits to supporting children that were highlighted.

It is not true that the Home Office does nothing in relation to asylum places before the age of 17 and a half. The Home Office works with the Refugee Council to ensure that children can access legal support, and each child is given a statement of evidence to help prepare their case. The Home Office decides straightforward cases within six months.

Hon. Members touched on a number of other issues, but I want to talk about the call for the Government to take more action on issue of resettlement. I intend to follow through on the statement that I made at the end of January, and I will make a clearer statement to Parliament in the coming days. I recognise the call for the Government to take more action. The UK has been working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on this issue, and we will do more. I acknowledge the call for more information. I am not able to give it this morning, but the Government intend to reflect carefully on the advice we received from the UNHCR, and we will come forward with more information in due course.

I am conscious that we are rapidly running out of time, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for the fact that I have not left him much for his right of reply, but I have sought to reflect on the issues raised. If I have further thoughts to give, I will write to him. I very much welcome today’s debate, which has helped to inform this very important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

6. What support her Department is providing for local authority provision for unaccompanied children seeking asylum.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The Home Office provides financial support to local authorities by meeting reasonable additional costs for those local authorities taking on responsibility for the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Immigration Bill will underpin arrangements to secure more equitable dispersal between local authorities.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but given the number of cases where people over the age of 18 are pretending to be children, what can local authorities do to ensure that their limited resources are being best directed to very vulnerable children?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I also thank those in Northamptonshire for the work they are doing to deal with the pressures they have experienced and for the way in which they have approached this through the discussions and round-table meetings that have taken place. Clear age-assessment tests are undertaken to ensure that support is provided to those who require it and not to those who do not. Let me add that I will be writing to all local authorities this week with an update on progress on the national transfer scheme to aid the more equitable dispersal.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

20. Can the Minister say how much money from the overseas budget has been used to help local authorities to resettle asylum seekers?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman is asking not about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children but a broader question about the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. We have set out the different funding mechanisms available to those who are resettled and some of that is fundable through overseas development aid. That is how we are ensuring that appropriate support and welcome are given to the people arriving.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I think the Minister would agree that we can perform our duty as a country only if all areas take up their responsibility, so it is good to hear his answer. May I ask him about education support? Vulnerable children should not lose their chance of a future, so how will local authorities with experience of helping asylum-seeker children support those with less experience of educating those children?

[James Brokenshire]

We have had discussions with the Department for Education and the Local Government Association about the voluntary dispersal arrangements we want to see, underpinned by the Immigration Bill currently in the other place. We are continuing the dialogue on precisely how elements of that are implemented and on how we can learn from the expertise of authorities that have had greater involvement in these matters.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

24. During the recess, Scottish National party MPs visited the Calais and Dunkirk refugee camps and witnessed unaccompanied children being forced to share bed space with unrelated adults. That is clearly a troubling and serious matter. Does the Minister think the Government are doing enough to support those children? Surely it is time to step up to the plate and do more.

[James Brokenshire]

We are working closely with the French Government. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees said in answer to a previous question, we have had a secondee working in the Ministry of the Interior in France to speed up the process in relation to children identified as having links to family here in the UK. Equally, the French Government are putting greater support in through a charity to raise awareness and identify children better to give them the help they require.

[Mr Speaker]

It is good to see the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) back in his place.

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

7. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the effect of changes to immigration rules on recruitment of overseas workers.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The Home Office works closely, at ministerial and official levels, with interested Departments on all significant changes to migration policy. The reforms we have announced have been collectively agreed. May I too welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place?

[Mike Gapes]

May I thank all colleagues who sent me messages during my involuntary absence? I’m back.

Will the Minister explain how it is that his Department is proposing a £35,000 salary threshold, which will have a detrimental impact in many areas where we have shortage occupations? Can he explain why the initial priority list of jobs did not include NHS nurses? I was treated by nurses from all over the world, including some from European Union countries, and I know that in London there will be a major recruitment problem. Already, we cannot provide enough nurses for our NHS and, if we take away recruitment opportunities from NHS trusts in London and elsewhere, we will have major shortages.

[James Brokenshire]

It is great to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place, and clearly fighting fit.

In essence, the £35,000 threshold applies to gaining settlement, allowing people to extend their time in the UK. We took considered advice from the Migration Advisory Committee at the time it was set, back in 2011, and employers have had five years to prepare for the change. Occupations on the shortage occupation list, including nursing and other shortage skills, are excluded from the requirement. We have carefully considered the independent advice from the MAC on that important matter.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Has the Home Office assessed the impact of the changes on the Scottish economy? Is it not the case that the new arbitrary target, combined with the abolition of the post-study work visa, prevents Scotland from attracting and retaining the brightest and best the world has to offer? Why have this Government prioritised narrow political interests over measures to grow our economy?

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got it completely wrong. The Government have made it clear that the UK remains open for business. I would gently say to her that we take advice from the expert Migration Advisory Committee, which has advised against different salary thresholds in UK countries and regions. Our thresholds are based on UK-wide data, and salaries in Scotland are slightly higher than the UK average. Advancing the point that she makes might lead to higher salary thresholds in Scotland.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of police and crime commissioners in reducing levels of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

T3. Last week, 18-year-old Mohammed Hussain, a Kurdish refugee, died underneath a lorry as he attempted to flee violence and be reunited with his family in Manchester. The tragic story of Mohammed highlights the dangerous routes that many refugees are forced to take. When will the Government open up family visa opportunities to British citizens and settled residents so that we can prevent deaths like that of Mohammed from happening again?

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the appalling risks that some people have taken to get through the security and other steps that have been put in place. Our very clear message to those people is that they should claim asylum in France. On the issue of resettlement, we are certainly making the process clearer and working with the Red Cross and others on the guidance provided.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

T5. Has the Home Office team had time to reflect on the extraordinary National Union of Teachers motion that condemned the Prevent duty? Do Ministers agree that we all have a responsibility to do all we can to prevent young people from engaging in terrorism and extremism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

T7. What success have the Government had in recent months in deporting overstayers who have been working here illegally?

[James Brokenshire]

I underline the important work in confronting crimes linked to those working illegally. In 2015, more than 38,000 people were removed or deported from the UK, including a 28% increase in voluntary returns. That highlights the fact that people realise that it is so much tougher to get work here.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

What recent discussions have Ministers had with chief constables about the growing menace of scrambler bikes being ridden recklessly on our roads, with the potential to cause great accidents, usually by young men wearing masks and without number plates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Anyone from Malawi who wants to visit the UK has to apply online with a credit card. Given how few people in Malawi have access to electricity, let alone the internet or banking facilities, what steps is the Home Office taking to make sure that people who have a legitimate request can apply?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue with me previously, and I am happy to continue to discuss it with him and with the all-party group. Clearly, agency and other mechanisms are available, but we will continue to ensure that we have a high-quality visa service.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

T9. It is right for the police to be given more powers in relation to the use of Tasers, stop-and-search and the Investigatory Powers Bill, but with greater powers should surely come greater responsibility. Therefore, will the Home Secretary confirm to the House that proper safeguards will remain in place to ensure that the police continue to have the support of the general public?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Two weeks ago, when four of my colleagues and I were in Calais, the French authorities tear-gassed the Calais camp simply because a protest was going on outside it. Does the Home Secretary approve of such measures, and if not—if she agrees with me that measures should be proportionate to the situation and that refugees must be treated humanely—will she contact her French counterpart and express the concerns of this Parliament?

[James Brokenshire]

I was in Calais last week having discussions with the French authorities about those issues, and the very clear message was that those who are there should claim asylum. That is the best and most effective way for them to get the help that they need, and that is the clear message that needs to come from this House.

Tier 2 Workers

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I am today announcing reforms to Tier 2, the migration route for those undertaking skilled work in the UK, in response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of Tier 2, and its separate review of whether nurses should remain on the shortage occupation list.

For too long we have had a shortage of workers in certain roles, and in the past, it has been too easy for employers to recruit overseas. Last May, the Prime Minister set out our ambition to reform our immigration and labour market rules, and to reduce the demand for skilled migrant labour. The Government subsequently commissioned the independent MAC to advise on reducing economic migration from outside Europe. The MAC was asked to look at restricting skilled work visas to genuine skills shortages and highly specialist experts, raising Tier 2 salary thresholds to stop businesses using foreign workers to undercut wages, and a new immigration skills charge to invest in funding for training resident workers.

The MAC published their report on 19 January. It sets out a balanced series of proposals that aim to strike a balance between reducing reliance on non-EEA skilled workers while also supporting growth and productivity. The Government intend to accept the majority of the MAC’s recommendations.

We will increase the Tier 2 minimum salary threshold to £30,000 for experienced workers. This change will be phased in, with the minimum threshold increased to £25,000 in autumn 2016 and to £30,000 in April 2017. The minimum threshold for new entrants will remain at £20,800.

Reflecting ongoing public sector pay restraint and specific recruitment challenges in these occupations, we shall exempt nurses, medical radiographers, paramedics and secondary school teachers in mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science and Mandarin from the new salary threshold. Where the occupation is not on the shortage occupation list, we shall also give extra weighting to these occupations in the monthly allocation of the Tier 2 (General) limit. Both measures will apply until July 2019. In line with the MAC’s recommendations, nurses will remain on the shortage occupation list, but employers will need to carry out a resident labour market test before recruiting a non-EEA nurse.

Employers will continue to be able to recruit non-EEA graduates of UK universities without first testing the resident labour market and without being subject to the annual limit on Tier 2 (General) places, which will remain at 20,700 places per year. Additionally, we shall give extra weighting within the Tier 2 (General) limit to businesses sponsoring overseas graduates, and will allow graduates to switch roles within a company once they have secured a permanent job at the end of their training programme. These changes will take effect from autumn 2016.

From April 2017, there will be extra weighting within the Tier 2 (General) limit where the allocation of places is associated with the relocation of a high-value business to the UK or, potentially, supports an inward investment. We will also waive the resident labour market test for these applications.

We will simplify and streamline the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) provisions in line with our international trade obligations to provide a route for senior managers and specialists. All intra-company transferees will be required to qualify under a single visa category with a minimum salary threshold of £41,500. The exception will be the Graduate Trainee category, where we shall reduce the current salary threshold from £24,800 to £23,000, and increase the number of trainees that an employer may bring to the UK from five to 20.

There will be a transitional period until April 2017 to allow those affected to plan for the changes. In autumn 2016, we will close the Skills Transfer category to new applications and increase the minimum salary threshold for the Short Term category to £30,000. From April 2017, we will close the Short Term category to new applications.

From autumn 2016, all intra-company transferees will be required to pay the immigration health surcharge. We will review the extent to which allowances may be counted as salary to ensure we have appropriate safeguards in place against undercutting of the resident labour market and consider how to take forward the MAC’s proposal for a review of skills in the IT sector.

To provide some further flexibility within the streamlined intra-company transfer category, we shall lower the minimum salary threshold for intra-company transferees working in the UK for between five and nine years from £155,300 to £120,000. We will also remove the one year experience requirement for all applications where the worker is paid over £73,900. These changes will take effect from April 2017.

There will be no change to the work rights of dependants of Tier 2 migrants.

The MAC strongly supported the introduction of the immigration skills charge to incentivise employers to reduce their reliance on migrant workers and to invest in training and up-skilling UK workers. The charge will be levied on Tier 2 employers at a rate of £1,000 per certificate of sponsorship per year. A reduced rate of £364 will apply to small and charitable sponsors, as defined by Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations. PhD level occupations, the Intra Company Transfer Graduate Trainee category, and those switching from a Tier 4 student visa to a Tier 2 visa will be exempt.

The Government intend to have completed implementation of these measures by April 2017. As part of the implementation process, we also intend to simplify the immigration rules and guidance for skilled workers coming to the United Kingdom, to make the system clearer and more user-friendly for employers and applicants.

[HCWS660]

Changes in Immigration Rules

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules.

A new rule is being added to the general grounds for refusal rules (with consequential changes to armed forces, family and private life, and visitor provisions), to provide a new discretionary power to refuse applications on the basis of litigation debt. Each year, the Home Office is awarded considerable litigation costs by the immigration and asylum chamber of the tribunal and the courts. A number of applicants do not pay these costs. At present such litigation debts are not taken into account when considering applications to be granted entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain. The new rule provides a power to refuse such applications if the applicant has not paid a litigation debt, in order to encourage payment of such debts. It is right that people who are ordered to pay costs to the Home Office should do so.

The threshold is also being reduced from £1,000 to £500 at which foreign nationals who incur NHS debt can be refused entry clearance or further leave to enter or remain in the UK. These changes are aimed at preventing the abuse of our valuable public services.

There are a number of changes to visitor rules, which will:

allow Kuwaiti citizens to benefit from the electronic visa waiver and for holders of Indonesian diplomatic passports to travel visa free to the UK as a visitor

update the permit free festival list (which allows visitors to perform at listed festivals and receive payment) for 2016-17

remove the mandatory entry clearance refusal for holders of 'non-national' documents, which do not establish a nationality, owing to the holder’s status, but which the UK is otherwise prepared to accept as they are recognised as valid for travel in all other respects

simplify the journey for those non-EU citizens who usually do not require a visa for the UK, but whose passport has been lost or stolen and are therefore returning home on an emergency travel document.

Updates are made to the definition of ‘public funds', to include payments made by local authorities and devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund.

The changes insert appendix SN into the immigration rules. This specifies how notices that applications are invalid or void and the outcomes of administrative review applications will be served. The new rules set out unified provisions for service of the notice types that it covers.

The statement also makes changes to the immigration rules on skilled and highly skilled work routes, students, family and private life, and administrative review, and the changes to the rules concerning overseas domestic workers set out in my statement of 7 March 2016.

Combating Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

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

As the Government’s explanatory memorandum of 17 December last year sets out, this is a European Commission proposal for a directive that would replace the 2002 framework decision on combating terrorism. The UK opted out of the 2002 framework decision in December 2014 as part of our block opt-out under protocol 36. We did not opt back in as we did not wish to be bound by EU minimum standards legislation in relation to counter-terrorism. The new directive would be a minimum standards measure intended to strengthen the international response to the threat from terrorism, and in particular would achieve a more comprehensive and consistent approach between EU member states to the criminalisation of foreign fighters and other forms of support to terrorist groups.

The proposed directive builds on existing international agreements in this area and sets out a broad range of provisions that EU member states would be required to incorporate in their domestic legislation. That includes a requirement that member states are capable of prosecuting various specified terrorist acts, as well as incitement or provocation of those acts and attempts to commit them. Such acts include those that may form part of a terrorist attack or terrorist fighting, such as kidnapping and hostage taking, hijacking, attacks on individuals, releasing harmful substances, and offences relating to explosives and nuclear or chemical weapons. They also include acts preparatory to or in support of terrorism, such as recruitment, travel or training for the purposes of terrorism, dissemination of terrorist propaganda, and provision of material support for terrorist groups, including financial support.

The proposed directive broadly requires that member states take extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to those acts. While its focus is on establishing minimum standards for terrorism-related criminal offences, the proposed directive also includes measures relating to victims of terrorism, and safeguards for fundamental rights and freedoms. In this latter respect, the proposed directive makes it clear that member states should implement and enforce its provisions in a way that is proportionate and compatible with human rights.

The UK is seen internationally as a leader in the field of counter-terrorism and, reflecting this, our domestic legislation is already largely compliant with the measures in the proposed directive. We have a broad, effective and proportionate range of criminal offences covering all the terrorist acts specified in the proposed directive. We have robust and fair judicial processes, which can prosecute terrorists effectively and which provide strong protections for the rights of individuals. Our terrorism legislation is overseen by an independent reviewer who provides a robust challenge to ensure that it is both proportionate and effective, and we take extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to a range of offences where we consider it necessary, ensuring that those who engage in terrorist activities overseas are not beyond the reach of the law when they return to this country.

In relation to the UK offences of encouragement of terrorism under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, and of dissemination of terrorist publications under section 2 of that Act, we have identified a need to extend our territorial jurisdiction to comply fully with the proposed directive. The Government rightly take a cautious approach to extending the territorial jurisdiction of our criminal law beyond what is necessary, and we are clear that any further extension should be on the basis of operational need. In this case, we have not identified such an operational need and, accordingly, have no plans to amend our domestic legislation in this way.

The UK supports the aims and measures of the directive and recognises the importance of international collaborative efforts to combat the threat from terrorism and from foreign fighters. The UK has participated fully in negotiations with our international partners on the content of the directive, while in parallel the Government have been considering whether to opt into the directive in accordance with protocol 21 to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. We have approached this decision with an open mind and have taken it on its own merits.

In reaching our decision, we have taken into account the factors outlined in the explanatory memorandum. The Government have concluded that opting in would not be likely to make UK citizens safer, given that our domestic legislation is already largely compliant with the directive’s measures, and we do not consider that there is an operational need for the minor changes that would be required fully to comply. Our legislation is already fully compliant with the existing key international standards in this area: UN Security Council resolution 2178; the Council of Europe’s “Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism”; and the 2005 convention itself.

Further, we considered whether we were willing to participate in an exercise of EU competence in relation to counter-terrorism. The UK has previously exercised its opt-out under protocol 36. We concluded that we are not prepared to do so, as we do not wish to be bound by an exercise of EU competence that could limit our future ability to act independently in this area. Following from that, we concluded that it would be unacceptable to grant the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over the matters contained in the proposed directive in relation to the UK.

Set against that, we considered the importance of a strong, collaborative EU-level response to the threat from terrorism, particularly following the recent attacks in Paris. Such a response is vital, and UK police and intelligence agencies have been working closely in support of their European partners following the tragic events in Paris. However, our view is that the UK can play that international role without needing to participate in minimum-standards EU legislation of this kind. Therefore, on balance, the Government decided not to opt into the proposed directive, either now or post-adoption.

[The Chair]

We now have approximately 52 minutes for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that questions should be brief and not speeches? There is an opportunity to make speeches in the debate that will follow the question section. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

An important question that I raised in my introductory remarks is: why did the Government choose once again to refer this matter to Committee, rather than have a debate on the Floor of the House, as requested by the European Scrutiny Committee? This is a matter of great importance and deserves to be discussed in a much more public forum than a Committee.

[James Brokenshire]

There is always an issue with the scheduling of such debates. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his opening comments, the Government recognise the need for these issues to be debated in a timely fashion before the opt-in decision is taken. I hope this debate provides an opportunity for Members to question me and debate this important issue and the EU’s relationship with the UK with respect to counter-terrorism matters.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is weird to come to a debate and not know what the Government are going to say before I sit down. Normally, it is very different. May I press the Minister further? Why has it taken the Government so long to make a decision? Despite being involved in the negotiations that led to this directive and despite supporting its aims, they seem to have prevaricated endlessly. We are days away from the deadline on the decision, so I do not agree that this is a timely debate. Given the Government’s stance, which we have just discovered, we should have had proper notification and a proper debate.

Were the delay and the opposition, which the Minister just outlined, caused by the Minister for Security—I see that he is not in his place—who is opposed to the Home Secretary’s and the Government’s position on EU co-operation on security policy? What further evidence can the Government provide on the security implications of not opting in? Specifically, have the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism or the Joint Intelligence Committee been asked to consider this directive? Have they provided any advice? Will the Government publish a summary of the security implications of not opting in? Given that the Government have decided not to opt in, will the Minister agree to refer that decision to the Intelligence and Security Committee? Unlike Select Committees, referrals to that Committee must be made by the Government, not other parliamentary Committees.

The Minister for Security’s letter of 4 February outlined two changes to domestic legislation that would be required if we were to comply with the directive. First, we would need to amend section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to extend the provision in section 2 to enable the offence of the dissemination of terrorist publications to be prosecuted in the UK, even if the offence is committed outside the UK. Secondly, legal aid would need to be provided to victims of terrorism who make civil claims. What practical issues did the Minister encounter on those fairly simple changes, and is that why the Government are opposed in principle to making the changes? Surely the Government are not opposed to the legislation because we would need to extend legal aid to victims of terrorism. It would be dreadful if that were the case.

[James Brokenshire]

There are a few questions to respond to. On the hon. Lady’s general point about the nature of this debate, I refer her to the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the various factors for consideration, and to the letter that we sent the European Scrutiny Committee in response to its report, for which we are very grateful. It sets out our logic and thinking on the points that the report made about, for example, extraterritorial jurisdiction and legal aid.

The fundamental point, which I alluded to in my opening speech, is that this is a minimum standards-type directive. We decided that it is not appropriate to stay within the 2002 framework decision, which this directive replaces, because we already comply with it. We felt that we did not need to adopt it because, again, it was a minimum standards-type requirement. We are fully compliant with the 2002 framework decision. Therefore, in our judgment, this measure does not impact on matters of operational requirement. This is something that we have considered very carefully. On the hon. Lady’s point about referral to other Committees, this matter has been considered carefully by the European Scrutiny Committee, which published a report to which the Government replied in the form of the Security Minister’s letter.

On the timing, the Government are often criticised for setting out up front our view about whether to opt in or out of particular measures. It is argued that that limits scrutiny because we have already set our minds in a particular direction. Therefore, there is normally a period of several weeks to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to assess the evidence and produce a report, which it has done, before the Government make a publicly stated commitment about whether to opt in or out. We are often told that stating our position too far in advance undermines scrutiny, but the hon. Lady said that not doing so causes confusion. It does not; it is about respecting scrutiny and the appropriate process, which the European Scrutiny Committee has gone through.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have a few remarks that I will make when we get to the debate stage, but in the light of hon. Members’ comments—particularly those of the hon. Member for Luton North—I would like to press the Government further on their decision not to refer this matter for a full debate in the House. The Minister said that the Government made a balanced decision. If it was a balanced decision, there must have been counter-arguments, but we have not heard what they are.

[Roger Mullin]

Okay. What counter-arguments were pressed and why were they discounted? Also, the Minister indicated that the UK was a leader in counter-terrorism. If that is the case, why did the Minister indicate in a debate in October that no information was being gathered on matters such as the use of children as suicide bombers?

[James Brokenshire]

I underline the fact that the UK is a leader in counter-terrorism. We gain various benefits from our relationship with our European partners as well as from our long-established relationship with other international partners. We are able to work together closely to confront the threat from terrorism that we all face. We deal with the overall level of threats and we disrupt various actions. Arrests and prosecutions continue in respect of those intent on doing us harm. I must reassert that.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the papers before the Committee in respect of the consideration that the Government have given to this measure. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum that was issued by my right hon. Friend the Security Minister on 17 December sets out very clearly the issues relating to this matter and the relevant considerations. Ultimately, the Government have determined, as they have with the framework decision, that this is a minimum standards directive, and we are satisfied that there are no operational gaps or issues of concern. We have weighed up the issue of national security, the ultimate member state competency, and that will always be a priority. That was one of the elements emphasised in the papers arising from the renegotiation, and that has been reaffirmed.

The papers before the Committee clearly set out the Government’s consideration of the matter. I hope I have clarified the minimum standards, our assessment with operational partners, and the need to create further requirements. We have considered the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is one of the key questions, and we remain satisfied that the balance we have struck and the conclusions we have reached are that it is not appropriate to extend sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 Act in an extraterritorial way. We considered that issue in our debates on the Serious Crime Act 2015, which amended the 2006 Act to extend jurisdiction in relation to the offences of preparing for terrorism under section 5, and further extended the scope of jurisdiction in relation to training for terrorism under section 6. This was necessary to ensure UK compliance with UN Security Council resolution 2178. It helpfully filled a gap in our ability to prosecute suspected terrorists, particularly those who travel to Syria or other theatres of jihad.

Following consultation with partners, we did not identify an operational gap in relation to section 1 and 2 offences that would necessitate the taking and extending of extraterritorial jurisdiction for those offences. The section 5 offence of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorism is broad and effective. In practice, it can generally be used to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, may I congratulate the Government, which is unusual in matters of this kind, because it is such good news to hear that they are not opting into these arrangements? As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I totally endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Luton North about this debate needing to take place on the Floor of the House, whether it is an opt-in or opt-out decision.

[Sir William Cash]

I ask the Minister if he will accept my congratulations on this matter and explain to me, as Chairman of that Committee, why he thinks this measure should not be considered on the Floor of the House. Lastly, how definitive is the Government’s opt-in decision? Do the Government intend to review their decision once the outcome of the negotiations is known?

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s presence this afternoon. He underlines his own Committee’s scrutiny of and focus on these measures, which I appreciate and welcome. Indeed, I have given evidence to his Committee, and it rightly holds Government to account on these matters.

My hon. Friend asked whether we will somehow reopen consideration of this matter post the EU referendum. It is not the Government’s intention to do so. As I have indicated, we did not opt back into the 2002 framework decision that this directive will replace. Because this directive is minimum standards-related, and because of the issues I have highlighted—for example, member state competency, national security and the role that the directive might give to the Court of Justice of the European Union—it is our clear view as a Government that we should not opt into this measure, whether that is now or in future, post-adoption. I hope that that clarity is helpful to the Chair of the Select Committee and to other right hon. and hon. Members.

The Government take such scrutiny seriously. Where the European Scrutiny Committee recommends that there should be a debate on a particular paper or dossier, we should do so, but there is always a question of parliamentary time and the nature of debates available to us. Therefore, on the opt-in decision, we felt that we could grant and respond positively to the need for a debate. That debate is in this format rather than on the Floor of the House, but that should not in any way limit our consideration of these serious matters. This is an important measure, and in this Committee we are considering the relevant directive and the Government’s decision that we should not opt into the measure. I welcome the scrutiny that this Committee is able to provide.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I take with a pinch of salt the Minister’s suggestion that time restrictions meant the measure could not be discussed on the Floor of the House. Time and again, business finishes short and we go home early, but that is not my question. My question is this: what conclusions did the Government draw on the implications for the UK of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and on the impact of participation in the proposed directive on the UK’s ability to act in its own right in negotiations on terrorism-related matters in international organisations such as the UN and the Council of Europe?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, we have considered this matter in the context of the UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Under the previous legislation considered by the House, we decided to give extraterritorial jurisdiction to certain measures in the 2006 Act. This matter was certainly considered carefully at that time. Obviously, this is a new measure, but our judgment remains that there is no need to extend our territorial jurisdiction for the issues outlined.

On the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, we have obviously considered the measure against the backdrop of national security being a member state competency that we have upheld. Regarding the renegotiation, the legally binding decision supports the UK in reiterating its sovereignty in relation to matters of national security. Our new settlement includes a legal confirmation that the UK’s national security is the sole responsibility of the UK Government and helps us to ensure that we can exercise our sovereign responsibility for national security without interference from the EU, while retaining the freedom to collaborate closely with our EU counterparts where it is right to take collective action to tackle the threats we face. The decision makes it clear that EU institutions will fully respect member states’ national security responsibilities. The text is a signpost to institutions such as the Court to act in a particular way. As the Court confirmed in the Rottmann case, it is required to take the provisions into account when interpreting the treaties in future, which gives our decision force before the Court.

We have considered the matter carefully. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it was reflected on in terms of whether to opt in or out over and above the points that I have made about the directive being one of minimum standards. That affirms the fact that we can benefit from collaborating and having operational relationships with EU partners. Indeed, I can point to many issues in respect of Europol and other mechanisms that add real weight to our ability to protect UK citizens. Nevertheless, the judgment on this measure is that we should not be part of the directive itself, because we gain the operational benefit in any event, without being bound by the directive and all that that might bring in terms of ECJ jurisdiction.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Personally, I support the view of the European Scrutiny Committee and support the Government’s decision on this matter. I will make a few more comments on that when we come to make a decision. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the rights of victims. Victim Support has made representations to the European Scrutiny Committee; I assume that it has made them to the Government as well. As the Government are minded not to opt into the proposed directive, is the Minister willing to commit to introducing comparable rights for victims of terrorism into UK domestic legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

We already have in place measures to provide compensation for victims of terrorism. For example, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 provides powers for compensation schemes for blameless victims who have sustained criminal injuries, including as a result of terrorism. Victims of violent crime, including terrorism, have been eligible to apply for criminal injuries compensation since the inception of such a scheme for Scotland, England and Wales in 1964. The victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme came into force in 2012, following the introduction of powers for such a scheme in the Crime and Security Act 2010. Before the establishment of that scheme, there was no compensation scheme for victims of overseas terrorism, aside from an ex gratia scheme also introduced in the same year. I underline the support and compensation arrangements that have existed.

On the broader issues relating to victims, the UK previously transposed the EU victims directive into our domestic legislation. Because of that, taken together with other statutory provisions, we are compliant with most of the measures for victims in the proposed directive. However, article 22 of the proposed directive, which provides that all victims of terrorism should receive free legal advice in a broad range of circumstances, might not be fully compatible with the current legal aid scheme in England and Wales because legal aid is means-tested and not always free. Under the Government’s proposed residency test, civil legal aid will normally be available only to those currently lawfully resident in the UK who have previously lived in the UK for 12 continuous months. The scope of the legal aid scheme does not generally encompass all civil proceedings—for example, damages claims, which the directive appears to envisage should be included. It is therefore possible that the scope of the existing legal aid scheme would need to be expanded to comply.

Legal aid is obviously paid for by the taxpayer and means-testing is a long-standing feature of the civil legal aid scheme. The Government believe that in principle, for individuals with a strong connection to the UK to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme, that is the appropriate way to structure it. That is why we intend to introduce a residence test for most types of cases funded by civil legal aid, as a fair and appropriate way to demonstrate that connection. We judge that the legal aid arrangements are fair, just and appropriate and that we have mechanisms rightfully in place to enable victims to seek compensation. Those schemes are available.

We consider the matter carefully through all the debates and in the light of the horrendous circumstances that many hon. Members have had to face up to in the wake of terrorist incidents. Many of us will have met families who have been seriously affected by the loss of loved ones, or people directly affected by lifelong injuries. The Government consider the matter carefully and have arrangements that respect the victims’ rights and ensure that compensation can be available.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Wes Streeting, but I will take that, Mr Bailey; what a promotion!

The Minister says that, based on his analysis of the operational need, there is no necessity for the UK to opt in. On that basis, will he undertake to publish the analysis and, in particular, the elements of the proposals that go beyond the requirements of international and existing UK law, to satisfy hon. Members, in the absence of a debate on the Floor of the House, that the decision is correct?

[James Brokenshire]

We are having this debate here this afternoon, and I have already explained our consideration of the matters; and the letter from my right hon. Friend the Security Minister in response to the report of the Committee sets the matter out very carefully. Obviously, we continue to keep the matters under review, and I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the debates on the Serious Crime Act 2015, when issues of extra territoriality were considered; that was precisely to do with assessments by our operational partners of how value could be added and how there could be a benefit.

There has been a great deal of consideration and the House has reflected closely on issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction. There is an assessment that we make on whether alternative offences are available—particularly the offence of preparing for terrorism, under section 5 of the 2006 Act, which is quite wide-ranging in its scope. Significant numbers of charges and prosecutions have been brought under it, and we judge that it is an appropriate way to see that action is taken against those preparing acts of terrorism, and we work with our operational partners to see that that happens.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have one more question on legal aid. Some of us strongly deprecate the Government’s cuts in legal aid, and their impact on many people in different walks of life, with different cases. Is there a possibility—the Minister touched on this—that legal aid might be differentially applied or provided to individuals, depending on where they live in the United Kingdom, such as in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales? The Minister has talked about England and Wales, but not about Scotland or Northern Ireland.

[James Brokenshire]

To clarify and be absolutely clear, I said the UK. I meant the sense of having a connection to the UK and was explaining why we intend to look at a residence test for most types of cases funded by civil legal aid, in respect of a connection with the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I will. Thank you, Mr Bailey. I am sorry.

[James Brokenshire]

Our consideration of the matter is on the basis of not being subject to a minimum standards directive. The hon. Lady could make the same arguments on the 2002 framework directive, which we decided not to opt into because of the comprehensive range of counter-terrorism powers that we have in place. I reject her characterisation.

The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism is part of the Home Office. We at the Home Office have reflected on the measure as part of the cross-governmental consideration of whether to opt into the matter. We have determined across the Government that opting in is not appropriate because of the counter-terrorism legislation that I have already outlined to the hon. Lady, the potential jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the implications of that, and the member state competency over national security, which is a fundamental issue on which the Government will not give way. We have underpinned and underlined that in the renegotiation. That is the consideration we have given. We set out the various issues clearly in the explanatory memorandum and in the response given by the Security Minister to the Committee’s report.

[The Chair]

If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to debate the motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 14926/15, a Proposal for a Directive on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA; endorses the Government’s decision not to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners and strengthen the international response to the threat from terrorism, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.—(James Brokenshire.)

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. As we have heard, this comes at a time when the UK faces a serious and continued threat from Islamist extremist violence, which is probably more acute today that it has ever been. Daesh is targeting our way of life, spreading fear and terror, and it wants to exploit the internet, both to radicalise and recruit the vulnerable and to incite and direct extremists to carry out attacks outside Syria and other areas of conflict. Indeed, we face the continuing threat from al-Qaeda and groups linked to it, which seek to challenge and threaten our very way of life.

These are weighty and serious issues, and any Government consider them in that context. Having had the privilege of serving as Security Minister for four years, during which time we saw the growth of this activity, I feel the weight of those responsibilities in my current role on border security and as Immigration Minister, which is why I am disappointed by some of the contributions we have heard this afternoon and by the characterisation of the approach taken by the Government, who take issues of national security absolutely to heart. That is our first and foremost consideration when making decisions on these and other matters.

I want to be absolutely explicit that nothing in this decision impedes practical co-operation with our European partners. Indeed, when I look at what the Government have done to support Europol and strengthen its capabilities in combating internet radicalisation, and the steps we have taken in opting into the second generation Schengen information system to better share information on suspected terrorists, organised criminals and those subject to European arrest warrants, I see how that absolutely has been in the best interests of the UK. That work will continue, which is why close collaboration and co-operation with our European partners and others will absolutely remain a core part of this Government’s activities in seeking to confront and combat those who would seek to harm UK citizens or perpetrate acts of terrorism against them, or indeed any citizens, whether in this county, in Europe or elsewhere around the globe.

There have been some questions about what information can be supplied to this Committee. Let me be clear that we do not comment on operational priorities or the capabilities of our security and intelligence agencies, and for good reason: so that we do not assist those who would seek to conduct acts of terrorism against citizens of this country. Such information, if provided, is likely to be of interest to them, so we provide protection around matters of intelligence. Although various points have been raised about our assessments in relation to these matters, I am afraid that I am not able to go into those operational priorities in Committee. However, I can assure the Committee of the level and extent of analysis that is conducted by our security and intelligence agencies of those who would wish to conduct terrorist acts against UK citizens or against UK interests wherever they may be. I certainly recognise the need to keep those matters under close and careful scrutiny.

I need not remind the Committee of the threat that we and our international partners face from terrorism. We continue to keep our legislation under continuous review to ensure that it is as robust as possible to effectively tackle the threat. We therefore recognise that we have a role to play in sharing our expertise and in supporting our international partners both in the EU and elsewhere. At the operational level, UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies work very closely with international partners to protect the public here and overseas. That includes seeking the support of partners where appropriate in tackling threats to the UK, providing partners with support to tackle threats they face at home and co-operating to tackle threats to the wider international community, such as those posed by Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Day-to-day operational co-operation is vital to modern terrorism investigations and is a routine feature of such investigations, which have an international dimension.

At the structural level, the UK Government and agencies work with international counterparts to build their capacity to tackle terrorism themselves, while promoting the rule of law and respect for human rights. At the level of co-operation through supranational organisations such as the EU or UN, the UK plays a full and active role, and I hope it will continue to do so. We participated fully, along with the other Council of Europe member states, in negotiating the text of the Council of Europe additional protocol to the 2005 convention on the prevention of terrorism, which we exercised our national competence to sign in October 2015. Our legislation is also fully compliant with UN Security Council resolution 2178 on tackling foreign fighters.

I want to highlight why we have determined that this matter should be rejected. Rather than a rejection of the content of the proposed directive or of the principle of international co-operation, at the heart of the Government’s decision not to opt in is our fundamental approach to questions of subsidiarity, EU competence and national sovereignty. We do not agree that an EU minimum standards measure of this kind is necessary for sovereign Parliaments, which best understand what is necessary and appropriate in their own national contexts, to be able to protect their citizens.

Furthermore, we have consistently been clear that it would not be in the national interest to do anything that could bind us to an exercise of EU competence on this matter, that could limit our future ability to act independently in this area of national security, or that could grant the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction over the matters contained in the proposed directive in relation to the UK. We judge that these outcomes would be likely to hinder rather than assist our ability to protect the British public.

Given this position, and given that the UK has developed legislation that is specific to the serious threat that we face and that meets or exceeds the proposed directive in almost all respects, we have concluded that it would not be in the national interest to opt into the proposed directive either now or post-adoption.

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the difficulty in dealing with terrorists in the context of human rights and the charter of fundamental rights, I am sure that the Minister recognises that there are and have been enormous difficulties in relation to the deportation of terrorists, caused by the fact that the wide range of the charter, for example, can create difficulties in dealing with matters of public security within a domestic framework.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend tempts me down a broader path in relation to the European convention on human rights and other related matters. As the Minister most closely involved in the direct negotiations on the treaty that led to the deportation of Abu Qatada, I understand very clearly the international legal aspects, but that is perhaps for another day. I emphasise the consideration that we have given to this directive. In our judgment, opting in does not add to our capabilities and does not in any way impede co-operation with our EU partners. We judge it is in the national interest and in the best interests of protecting the security of our citizens.

Question put.

Overseas Domestic Workers

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I am today setting out the Government’s response to the key recommendations of the independent review of the overseas domestic worker (ODW) visa, which was undertaken by James Ewins QC and published on 17 December 2015.

The Government acknowledge the vulnerability of ODWs to abuse and exploitation, and have already taken a number of steps both to reform entry requirements to guard against it, and put measures in place to protect the position of ODWs who experience such abuse once they are here. Mr Ewins’ review was commissioned in order to improve our understanding of whether existing arrangements are effective and what more can be done to ensure that abuse can be identified; support provided to victims; and perpetrators dealt with. Such evidence remains elusive due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable data.

The first of the review’s key recommendations is that the Government should relax the “employer tie”, allowing ODWs to change employers and be granted an additional two years’ stay for that purpose. The Government’s primary aim is to ensure that where abuse and exploitation takes place, it is brought to light so that victims can be supported and action taken against perpetrators. The National Referral Mechanism (NRM) has been put in place for this purpose and, as with any other victims of slavery our aim must be to be create an environment in which ODWs who are victims of abuse are encouraged to report the abuse and to access support.

The Government’s concern is that if ODWs were able to change employers and significantly prolong their stay, irrespective of whether they have reported this abuse and whether there is evidence that such abuse has taken place, they may be less likely to report abuse. This may perpetuate a revolving door of abuse in which perpetrators remain unidentified and free to bring other domestic workers to the United Kingdom with impunity.

The Government do, however, acknowledge the case which has been put forward for providing ODWs with an immediate escape route from abuse. On the basis of advice from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner we have therefore come to the view that there should be two distinct elements to our approach to the employer tie. First, we will provide those admitted as ODWs with the ability to take alternative employment as a domestic worker with a different employer during the six month period for which they are originally admitted. This ability to take alternative employment will not depend on whether or not they have been found to be the victim of abuse.

Second, we will go further and amend the provisions of the immigration rules introduced in October of last year to increase the period for which an extension of stay will be granted to an ODW who has been the subject of a positive conclusive grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism from six months to two years. This is in addition to the existing provisions under which discretionary leave may be granted to those, for example, assisting the police with their enquiries or pursuing a compensation claim.

These measures will build on the steps that the Government have already taken, under section 53 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, to ensure that ODWs who are potential victims of abuse are protected from immigration enforcement action. In the absence of reliable quantitative evidence on the prevalence of abuse, we think these measures will strike the right balance between offering ODWs every opportunity to escape abuse while ensuring that those who report such abuse have greater certainty as to their status. The Government will implement these measures through changes to the immigration rules at the earliest opportunity and we will keep them under review as further data on the issue emerges over time.

In addition, the Government are in full agreement with the review’s second key recommendation that more should be done to ensure that both ODWs and their employers are provided with information on their respective rights and obligations, and to provide ODWs with access to a neutral space in which they can be given advice and an opportunity to alert someone to their situation if they need to. We believe that empowering victims of hidden crimes like modern slavery is fundamental to bringing them into the light and ending the cycle of exploitation. The Government will therefore implement the review’s proposals for the introduction of information, advice and support meetings for ODWs who are in the UK, hosted by an organisation independent of the Home Office. We are considering further whether the requirement to attend the meetings should apply sooner than the 42 days period suggested by the review. As the report has recommended, the cost of providing these meetings will be recovered through an increase in visa fees.

We also accept the broad thrust of the review’s recommendations in respect of entry clearance procedures, and will consider whether we should go further in taking a proactive approach to ensuring that information and messages concerning entitlements and obligations are understood before a visa is issued.

We also want to tighten the obligations of employers of ODWs and ensure that these are rigorously enforced. We therefore intend to go further than the review has proposed to ensure employers’ compliance with their obligations. We will introduce a requirement that any employer wishing to sponsor the entry of an ODW must first register with UK Visas and Immigration for this purpose. Registration will be conditional on the employer agreeing that they will allow their employees to attend the aforementioned information meetings; will comply with employment law; and will co-operate with any workplace-based compliance checks undertaken by UK Visas and Immigration. Any employer who fails to comply with these obligations could then be considered for removal from the register, thus losing the right to sponsor the entry of other ODWs in the future. These measures will send out a clear message to employers of ODWs that the United Kingdom will not tolerate abuse and that we will take action against employers who abuse their workers.

We intend that measures to give ODWs working in private households additional protection should also apply to those employed in diplomatic households. The right to change employers will apply to ODWs who have been admitted to work in a diplomatic setting, as will the requirement to attend information, advice and support meetings. In addition, we already require that the entry of such domestic workers must be sponsored by the relevant mission. UK Visas and Immigration may seek from that mission a waiver of the diplomat’s immunity if it wishes to undertake checks on, for example, the diplomat’s compliance with UK employment law.

We will also ensure, as the review has recommended, that where a mission sponsors a private servant of a diplomat under Tier 5 of the Points Based System, one of its sponsorship obligations should be to ensure that the relevant diplomat receives written information about their obligations as employers and confirms they have read and understood it.

It is not, however, clear that requiring that the relationship of employment be with the mission rather than the diplomat—as the review recommends—would make a material difference to our ability to check compliance, as the mission itself would enjoy state immunity. It is also possible that requiring such staff to be employed by the mission would cause the worker to be treated as service staff for the purposes of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, making them exempt from UK immigration control, which would in turn reduce the checks that could be applied before the worker entered the UK.

Mr Ewins has in his report made other recommendations concerning, for example, access to legal assistance and the operation of National Minimum Wage requirements. The Government are considering these points and will make clear their position in due course.

The Government will continue to keep their policies concerning the admission of ODWs under review. We have, in this connection, noted Mr Ewins’ comments concerning the lack of robust evidence about the movements of such workers and the incidence of abuse. The Government’s expectation is that the implementation of the measures set out in this statement as well as the data that will become available from exit checks and the operation of the National Referral Mechanism will shed more light on the issue and the effectiveness of the extensive package of measures that are in place to protect victims.

[HCWS583]

Child Refugees: Calais

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on child refugees in Calais.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Last Thursday, a judge in France ruled that the authorities in Calais could proceed with clearing the tents and makeshift accommodation from the southern section of the migrant camp located there. Over recent weeks the authorities, working with non-governmental organisations, have ensured that the migrants affected by the clearances, which have begun today, were aware of the alternative accommodation that the French state had made available. For women and children, that means the specialist accommodation for about 400 people in and around the Jules Ferry centre, or the protected accommodation elsewhere in the region. For others, this means the recently erected heated containers that can house 1,500 people.

The French Government have also, with the support of UK funding, established more than 100 welcome centres elsewhere in France where migrants in Calais can find a bed, meals and information about their options. To be clear, no individual needs to remain in the camps in Calais and Dunkirk. The decision to clear part of the camp in Calais is of course a matter for the French Government. The joint declaration signed in August last year committed the UK and France to a package of work to improve physical security at the ports, to co-ordinate the law enforcement response, to tackle the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and to reduce the number of migrants in Calais.

Both Governments retain a strong focus on protecting those vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation, and have put in place a programme to identify and help potential victims in the camps around Calais. The UK is playing a leading role in tackling people smuggling, increasing joint intelligence work with the French to target the callous gangs that exploit human beings for their own gain.

The UK shares the French Government’s objective of increasing the number of individuals who take up the offer of safe and fully equipped accommodation away from Calais so that they can engage with the French immigration system, including by lodging an asylum claim. It is important to stress that anyone who does not want to live in the makeshift camps in Calais has the option of engaging with the French authorities, who will provide accommodation and support. That is particularly important for unaccompanied children. When an asylum claim is lodged by a child with close family connections in the UK, both Governments are committed to ensuring that such a case is prioritised, but it is vital that the child engages with the French authorities as quickly as possible. That is the best way to ensure that these vulnerable children receive the protection and support they need and the quickest way to reunite them with any close family members in the UK.

The UK is committed to safeguarding the welfare of unaccompanied children and we take our responsibilities seriously. No one should live in the conditions we have seen in the camps around Calais. The French Government have made huge efforts to provide suitable, alternative accommodation for all those who need it, and have made it clear that migrants in Calais in need of protection should claim asylum in France.

[Yvette Cooper]

This morning the French authorities started to move people out of the southern part of the Calais refugee camp, in theory into container shelters and reception centres elsewhere. The charities say that there is not enough alternative accommodation and around 2,300 people have nowhere to go. That includes many from Syria and Afghanistan, and over 400 children and teenagers with no one to look after them, such as the 12-year-old boy I met from Afghanistan with a huge scar across his face, which had happened when his home was attacked.

Unaccompanied children are not allowed into the new container shelters and the Jules Ferry centre for women and children is full. The tents and volunteer support network are about to be bulldozed and there is no safeguarding plan in place at all. There is a massive reality gap between what the Minister said and what is happening on the ground. Save the Children warns that things are extremely chaotic and this is making

“an appalling situation for children even worse.”

This is dangerous. The Minister well knows that there is a serious risk that those children will now just disappear into the hands of traffickers, criminal gangs or prostitution—another 400 children on top of the 10,000 who Europol says have already disappeared in Europe.

Some of those children have their closest family here in the UK. Citizens UK estimates that there are up to 150 such children. That is why they are there, rather than heading to Germany or Sweden, and the Government say they agree that child refugees should be reunited with their family. They also agree that if their closest family is in the UK, they should be able to apply here for asylum, and have promised funding to help that happen. A court case confirms that relatives in Britain should be able to look after children while they apply, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has offered to process cases and speed things up, but that is not happening for the kids in Calais. Even if they manage to apply, their cases are taking nine months. They do not have nine months—their remaining tents are being bulldozed now.

So will the Minister make urgent representations to the French Government to provide immediate safeguarding support for children and young people, and not to remove their accommodation until there is somewhere safer for them to go? Will he accept the offer from the UNHCR to help process applications and set up a fast system to reunite children with family who are here? Finally, will he agree to Lord Dubs’ amendment to help child refugees?

The Minister has talked a good game on stopping trafficking and modern slavery, and he is right to be appalled at the criminal gangs, but this is where it gets real. The Minister has the power now to stop the trafficking of hundreds of children on our doorstop. Will he do it?

[James Brokenshire]

We do take our responsibilities seriously, as I indicated in the statement that I made to the House. On the level of alternative accommodation, I mentioned the welcome centres that are available around other parts of France, which now number more than 100. Around 2,500 people have left those camps to go to the reception centres. I stress the importance of getting asylum claims into the system in France.

The right hon. Lady highlights, rightly, the interests of children in and around the camps. We are obviously aware of the containerised accommodation adjacent to the Calais camp. Priority, we understand, is being given to women, children and other vulnerable migrants. This is in addition to the 400 places in heated tents already available for women and children.

In response to the right hon. Lady’s point about close family members, I can tell her that we remain committed to our obligations under Dublin III. The UK and France are running a joint communication centre at the camp, which informs individuals of their rights to claim asylum in France and gives them information on family reunification.

Equally, to assist in the handling of such cases, the UK and France have established a senior-level standing committee and agreed single points of contact with respective Dublin units, and the UK is about to second an asylum expert to the French administration to facilitate the improvement of all stages of the process of identifying, protecting and transferring any relevant cases to the UK.

The right hon. Lady referred to a period of nine months, but it should take nowhere near that amount of time. We remain committed to seeing an efficient and effective process for what we judge to be a small number of cases that might have that direct connection to the UK. She will also be aware of the broader family reunification provisions, over and above Dublin, that would allow children to be reunited with their parents, with direct applications not only from France, but from elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, from the region, where there is that direct link. The Government have also committed an additional £10 million through the Department for International Development to support better reunification and to assist children in transit in Europe, but we are very cautious not to make an already difficult situation even worse.

Therefore, the emphasis is on giving practical support to the French Government, who are leading in this regard, and providing expert support. Equally, there is the support that we are giving in Greece, Italy and countries in the region so that such children are more easily identified and helped at the earliest opportunity.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right that the best way to protect the maximum number of vulnerable children is by minimising the number who are taken to live in squalor in the camps outside Calais in an attempt to make a dangerous and illegal crossing to this country, and the way to do that is by maintaining our close co-operation with the French authorities and doing what we can to strengthen the Dublin convention. Does he agree that the worst thing this country could do is anything that would disrupt our close relationship with the French authorities on this matter?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We have established a very close working relationship between the UK and French Governments, and between the Home Secretary and Bernard Cazeneuve. There are regular meetings at that level and at operational level, highlighting the exchange of expertise to which I have already referred. My right hon. Friend is right; we will need to maintain that sort of support in the months and years ahead.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for raising this issue. The Opposition have repeatedly raised the plight of the 26,000 or so unaccompanied children in Europe, who are in desperate need of protection. I listened to what the Minister said this afternoon, and I have listened to what he has said before, but there is, as my right hon. Friend has said, a reality gap here.

I have been to see the camps in Calais and Dunkirk for myself. The squalor is hard to describe, and it is worse in Dunkirk than it is in Calais. There are 300 or so unaccompanied children in Calais, and they are not there by choice. In Dunkirk the conditions are such that the volunteers—there are only eight of them—are so busy trying to keep people safe and provide them with somewhere to sleep that they cannot even count the number of unaccompanied children. There is no process on the ground for these children, there is no meaningful advice for them and the reunification rules are not working. That is the reality on the ground. We have to start from that position. That was all borne out by the judgment of the upper tribunal in January.

The situation is now urgent because of the action that has been taken today. I urge the Minister to look at the issue again and consider what practical support can be given in the next 24 hours to these desperate children, who until now have not had the support they need.

[James Brokenshire]

The joint declaration signed between the UK and French Governments last August actually provides for the direct financial support that we are giving to the French Government to provide the centres outside the immediate area of Calais. Indeed, as I have already highlighted, there is the Jules Ferry centre, and there is the work we are doing on a regular basis to identify and highlight the appropriate support that is there. I stress again: there is no need for people to be in those conditions. There are services—[Interruption.] There are facilities and services away from the camps that are available to support people. We take our responsibilities seriously, which is why—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) keeps interjecting from the Opposition Front Bench. We are working closely with the French Government to see that there are experts in place, and I have already indicted that an additional person is going out next week to see that there are procedures in place so that there will be efficient and effective reunification for what I judge to be a small number of cases. However, support and alternative accommodation are available in France, and I would urge people to take up those choices.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am glad the Government put a high priority on reuniting children with their parents, or orphans with close relatives—that is the best answer. However, is it not the case that the European Council’s conclusions at its last meeting were very clear: the best way to help is to prevent these things from happening in future, by ensuring that the EU enforces its border controls when people first enter the EU and provides safeguarding and support for those who need it when they first enter the EU, rather than putting them through the ordeal of a long journey across the whole of its territory?

[James Brokenshire]

It is also about ensuring that there is support in and around the region to prevent people from going out in boats, putting children’s lives at risk. That is why the work done at the London conference, in providing additional education to ensure there is a sense of positive hope, was absolutely the right thing to do. That was backed up by our £2.3 billion commitment to aid and assistance in and around the region. My right hon. Friend is right about ensuring that the hotspots initiative is in place to see that help and support are given at the first opportunity, and that is what the Government are committed to doing.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Does the Minister not understand that France’s Dublin procedures for unaccompanied children are just not fit for purpose and that it takes up to a year even for take charge requests to be issued? In that light, should we not be welcoming, rather than challenging, the recent tribunal decision in ZAT to shortcut the admission of three children from the horrendous Calais camps so that they can join their families here? As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested, should we not be looking to welcome the other 100 or so Calais children identified by Citizens UK as having family in the UK, so that they, too, can be reunited with their loved ones? Just how much public money has been spent on litigation in this case in an attempt to prevent refugee children in Calais from reaching their families here? Would not that money be far better spent on ensuring that Dublin III processes are fit for purpose and on safeguarding those children?

[James Brokenshire]

The most appropriate thing to do is to see that those young children receive help and support at the earliest opportunity, which is why I emphasise again the need to see that asylum claims are made quickly in the French system. The Dublin III arrangements can operate effectively; indeed, senior French representatives have told us they see no reason why appropriate claims cannot be completed within a period of two months. There are clear processes and procedures that should be adopted, and we urge everyone to get behind them and make them work effectively.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

As other hon. Members have said, the conditions in the camps are awful, and action did need to be taken by the French Government—as long as it is not heavy-handed. However, when I spoke to migrants there, they were very wary of the French Government and French officials. I welcome the fact that the Government are working so collaboratively with the French, but will my right hon. Friend advise us what outreach the Government are doing to encourage people to apply for asylum through the French system, so that they can come here legally if they have a right to do so?

[James Brokenshire]

The number of asylum claims made in and around the area of Calais over the recent year or so is about 2,800, and there has been a significant increase, which we support and encourage. We have people who go into the camps to deliver and make very clear the message about the need to make claims quickly so that assistance can be provided.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

On our visit to The Hague last week, the Home Affairs Committee was told that 90% of migrants who enter the European Union had been able to do so because of criminal gangs. Will the Minister tell the House how many people have been prosecuted by individual countries as a result of that smuggling? The long-term solution is the proper operation of the hotspots that have been created in Italy and in Greece, and, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, the tracking of children before they have to make the long journey to Calais. The short-term solution is for the Minister to ring his opposite number in France to see whether a more humanitarian approach can be arrived at, because this is the fault of the French Government, who have been warned about Calais and have done nothing about it.

[James Brokenshire]

I think that is an unfair criticism. The French Government have taken significant steps to provide alternative accommodation and to see that there is information so that people are able to make their asylum claims effectively. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point about the role of organised crime. The figure of about 90% that he highlighted has been confirmed by Europol, so the work we are doing with our organised immigration crime taskforce is absolutely right. By getting intelligence to Europol, we are taking action against gangs that, frankly, do not care whether these young people live or die.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have a great deal of time for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Will my right hon. Friend outline the UNHCR’s role in Calais?

[James Brokenshire]

We are working closely with the UNHCR in relation to the resettlement programme, particularly through work in-region to see how unaccompanied children could potentially come to this country. The UNHCR is monitoring the situation in and around northern France but, as far as I am aware, has no formal remit.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister is aware that for 12 years we have had juxtaposed immigration controls in the northern ports of France. How does he think one official will be able quickly to determine the asylum claims to be refugees here in Britain of the 50 children identified by respectable charities as having family in the UK? One person cannot do that job.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Lady should be aware that there is not just one person but a senior-level connection between officials in both Governments, so broader teams are working on these exchanges. If there is information to support a claim highlighting a close family connection under the Dublin III regulation, we will stand by our obligations.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the considerable efforts that the Government have made to keep children and families together close to places where many of the refugees come from, such as Syria. However, if 300 minors were living in a squalid camp in Dover, they would be taken into care and given a place of safety, and there would be an investigation into the adults responsible for getting them there, so why is that not happening in France?

[James Brokenshire]

I cannot comment on the operations of the French Government, but I can say that we stand ready to support them in joint efforts to see that children and other refugees are appropriately housed and supported. We are providing funding to identify vulnerable children and ensure that the necessary facilities are there. We have given and will continue to give the French Government that support.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, if these were British children, the test that would have to be applied to the Government’s actions would be that of the best interests of the child. The Minister is describing colluding with the French Government in a process that will push these children into the hands of people traffickers. Is he really saying that we apply such a different standard to the children of refugees compared with our own?

[James Brokenshire]

I utterly reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion. The joint working that our enforcement agencies are engaged in in confronting the people traffickers, going after the gangs and seeing that there is not such exploitation is part of the joint agreement that was signed last August. We are supporting the French Government to identify the vulnerable and see that they are given support, and we will continue to do so.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that children and young people who have a legitimate claim to be in the UK because of having close family relatives here will not be disadvantaged by starting their asylum claim in France? Although he has made it clear that there is not currently any formal process for the UNHCR to be involved in processing such claims, will he consider that for the future?

[James Brokenshire]

I can certainly say that if there are children who qualify under the Dublin regulation—in other words, if they have close family here—we will stand by our obligations. We will ensure that they are processed efficiently and effectively, which is precisely why we are taking the action we are with the French Government.

My hon. Friend highlights the issue of the UNHCR’s role. There is a clear process, and we are working to ensure that it operates. As I have said, we believe that it can be made to operate efficiently and effectively, and we will work with the French Government to achieve that.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I must be mishearing, because the Minister seems to be implying that it is the responsibility of children to declare themselves to the relevant authorities. That cannot be correct—it is our responsibility here to make sure that children are cared for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the UNHCR has offered to set up a fast process for us. The Minister has implied, but not yet said, that he has told it no, so will he be specific and say whether he has told it yes or no?

[James Brokenshire]

French non-governmental organisations operate in the camps to help identify unaccompanied children and to help them to register with the authorities so that they can be properly looked after. That is the right approach, and it is precisely what the French Government seek to do. There is a process between the French Government and the asylum system, and that is the way in which assistance can be given. I strongly urge everyone to get behind that process, to ensure that children in need receive the care they require.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The fact that there are many unaccompanied children wandering across Europe without any effective means of support is the biggest stain on how the European Union is operating its border and asylum policy. Will the Minister confirm that many thousands more children would be in such an awful plight were it not for the fact that this Government are providing such a huge amount of aid to Syria and neighbouring countries so that other children do not make this perilous journey?

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely support what my hon. Friend says about the impact that aid assistance is having on the region. There is a sense of support, hope and opportunity for young people to get the education they need and to be well looked after. Equally, we will continue to work with other European partners on the entry points into the EU, to ensure that the people who have made journeys are processed and that children with claims of settlement are reunited with their parents.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May I politely say to the Minister, and through him to his French counterpart, that this response is just not good enough? The real danger for children is now, during the demolition and dispersal of the camps in Calais and Dunkirk, when they are at real risk of being picked up by the gangs responsible for child sexual exploitation and people trafficking. Will the Minister get on with putting in place a proper and coherent registration system so that children can be picked up by the relevant authorities and looked after as they should be?

[James Brokenshire]

My understanding is that the French Government are approaching this work on a phased basis. Places of worship and schools will not be subject to the clearance as a consequence of the court ruling, and the French authorities are focused on areas with unoccupied tents and are encouraging migrants who remain to move to the new accommodation in Calais or elsewhere in France. On children in need of support, I underline again the need to ensure that claims are made, and the NGOs are going in there and helping to identify children in need of help.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The Minister will remember the evidence given by the Mayor of Calais to the Home Affairs Committee and what she has said in public, which is that the majority of those in the camps have been informed that they need to claim asylum in France, but they do not want to do so because they want to come to the UK. Does he agree that it is incumbent on the French Government and the Calais authorities to ensure that children, who cannot make asylum applications on their own, are assisted in doing so, and that adults are informed again that they must claim asylum in France, which is a safe country?

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Again, I underline the fact that there are French NGOs operating in the camp to identify unaccompanied children and ensure that claims can be made.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that for unaccompanied children with family connections claiming asylum in France, the process should take two months. How long do the UK Government say the asylum process should take for children with family connections in the United Kingdom, and what practical steps is he going to take to ensure that that is achieved?

[James Brokenshire]

In respect of asylum processing and deciding whether to uphold claims, we in this country have done a great deal to ensure that claims are properly assessed and that straightforward claims are dealt with within six months. The Government have done a great deal of hard work to introduce that effectiveness into the system, and that has been recognised in the recent independent inspector’s report.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that we and the French Government should make efforts to encourage people to seek assistance in France from the authorities, rather than living in squalor, vulnerable to criminal gangs? Does he also agree that we must make sure that we have strong security at our borders, so that people realise that it is not worth putting their lives in the hands of people traffickers, because they will end up losing their lives, as so many have done?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend knows from his constituency interests the work that the Government have done to secure the port area around Calais and the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles. We keep that security under review in a joint group with the French Government. He makes the powerful and important point that asylum claims should be made at the earliest opportunity so that help and assistance can be given at the earliest opportunity.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The press are reporting this afternoon that riot police are using tear gas and water cannon to support the destruction of the “jungle” camp. I do not know whether that is what the Minister meant by the French authorities engaging with young people and encouraging them to move on. Given that there is plenty of money to provide fencing, and bilateral co-operation with the French, why can he not simply get together with his French counterpart, identify the young people who have a legal right to come to the UK and get them over here immediately?

[James Brokenshire]

It is a clear question of people claiming asylum, and children are being supported by the work of the NGOs that the French Government have put in place precisely for that purpose. We have taken a consistent joint approach, building on the agreement of last August, to support the French Government in their work to ensure that those in need of help get it.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Everyone has concerns for vulnerable children in the camps in Calais. When children have identified that they have relatives in the UK, how many of those relatives the UK Government are preventing from travelling to France to be reunited with the children? Why does he think refugees would rather be in the UK than in France?

[James Brokenshire]

These issues are often complex. The factor at the forefront of our minds is always what is in the best interests of the child. When we receive applications under Dublin or under family reunification, we always have to assess what is in the best interests of the child and whether the parents or other close family members can support the child. We give that focus to every case.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Exactly a week ago, I asked the Prime Minister for an assurance that the United Kingdom Government’s response to the refugee crisis would be driven entirely by humanitarian need and not influenced in any way by considerations of the impact that it might have on the referendum that is likely to happen at the end of June. The Prime Minister was either unable or unwilling to give such a general assurance last week. Will the Immigration Minister please give that assurance, at least in relation to these most desperate and vulnerable young people?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that the hon. Gentleman can see from the Government’s actions that we take our responsibilities very seriously. With the funding that we have committed not just in and around Syria but in Europe, and with the additional £10 million fund that the Department for International Development is operating to ensure that children in transit who are in need of help, counselling or other support can receive it, that is precisely what we will do.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Has the Minister had any discussions with his French counterpart to find out the reasons why the migrants in Calais did not claim asylum in the other safe countries that they travelled through before arriving in France?

[James Brokenshire]

The reasons are often quite complex. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee highlighted the role of people traffickers and smugglers, as well as those who sell false hope through a whole host of different means and networks, including social media. Other reasons may relate to the existing diaspora communities and the whole issue of language. Through the actions on which we are supporting the French Government, and indeed those that we are taking ourselves in the camps, we are giving the clear message that people should claim asylum in France.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I say to the Minister in all earnestness that there is precious little evidence of UK expertise on the ground in any of the camps. He was wrong in what he said about Christian places of worship, because one was wiped out by the French authorities just a few weeks ago. What advice would he give to the likes of the Caritas Social Action Network, Citizens UK and civil society organisations, as well as elected Members and anyone trying to help individuals who have the right of leave to remain in the UK or who have a close family connection, about how they can continue to give such help?

[James Brokenshire]

I would say to anyone in that situation that they should claim asylum in France, which will ensure that there is a direct connection and that we can make the system work. I stress that the fact that different messages are being given does not help the situation. In respect of the whole issue of the clearance of the camps, I understand that the court specifically ruled that it should go ahead with the exception of places of worship and schools. The French Government should therefore adopt that approach in the actions they are taking.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Before I entered this place, I worked as counsel on hundreds of asylum and trafficking cases. A core principle of the Dublin regulations is that the first country of entry should take responsibility for the claimant, which imports fairness and equity into the system. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House of his commitment to that principle, and confirm that to discard it without legal basis would be undemocratic and illegitimate?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits and the strength of the Dublin arrangements. We believe that they should be upheld, not undermined. They include the core principle that those who make a claim should do so in the first safe country in which they arrive. Equally, the principle of family reunification for close family members operates under Dublin III, and the Government stand by that principle.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I recently met constituents from St Stephen’s church in Worcester who have been to the camp in Dunkirk. They describe the situation for children as appalling. There is very poor sanitation, and with men-only kitchens, there is a danger that children and the women looking after them are missing out on food. I completely agree with the Minister that everyone in the camps should claim asylum in France, but where that does not happen over a long period, what more can we do to reach out and get that information to the most vulnerable? How can we make sure that the humanitarian assistance that reaches the camps reaches the most vulnerable in the camps?

[James Brokenshire]

I again underline the specific facilities there, such as the 400 places for women and children, and the 1,500 places in the new containerised area. We are giving support at 102 centres away from the Calais area to which people can go to receive support, which will ensure that they can make their case. On the specific element of vulnerability, we are supporting the French Government and ensuring that the NGOs are in the camps. Equally, our own officers are going into the camps to reiterate the message that help and support can be given, and that the way to get it is to claim asylum. In that way, we can ensure that assistance is given as early as possible.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016.

The immigration health charge was introduced in April last year by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 and is paid by non-European economic area temporary migrants who apply for a visa for more than six months or who apply to extend their stay in the UK. The charge, which is set at the rate of £200 per annum per migrant and at a discounted rate of £150 per annum for students, ensures that migrants, unless they are subject to an exemption, contribute to the national health service in a manner in line with their immigration status.

The full amount of the charge, covering the entire period of stay, is collected by the Home Office up-front as part of the immigration application process. If an application is refused, rejected or withdrawn, the charge is refunded. Those who pay the charge receive NHS care in the same way as a permanent resident, subject to the same clinical need and waiting times, for as long as their leave remains still valid. That means that they only pay charges that a UK resident would also pay, such as dentistry charges and prescription charges in England.

In the first six months since its introduction, the immigration health charge collected more than £100 million in income for the NHS. The Government estimate that the charge could raise as much as £1.7 billion at present value over 10 years. That represents an important source of new income for the NHS—income that is shared between the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett, and spent as they see fit. Exemptions from the requirement to pay the charge are listed in schedule 2 of the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. Those include exemptions for visitors, certain vulnerable groups and nationals of Australia and New Zealand.

That leads us to the purpose of today’s debate. This order amends the 2015 order by removing the exemption from paying the charge that applies to Australian and New Zealand nationals, by reducing the amount of the charge payable by youth mobility scheme migrants from £200 to £150 per annum and by making a minor and technical change to update the references in the 2015 order to the part of the immigration rules that relates to visitors.

The UK, Australia and New Zealand all face the challenges of increasing healthcare costs and the management of migration flows. We regularly discuss these challenges with Australia and New Zealand and have held consultations with them on the health charge since 2013. In December, the Secretary of State for Health confirmed with his Australian and New Zealand counterparts our intention to apply the health charge to nationals of these two countries.

We greatly value our close relationship with Australia and New Zealand and remain committed to strengthening the relationship between our countries. For that reason, we are retaining our reciprocal healthcare agreements with Australia and New Zealand. These agreements provide that short-term visitors to the UK from Australia and New Zealand are entitled to some NHS treatment free of charge. In turn, that is reciprocated when our citizens visit there.

The health charge is compatible with the terms of these agreements, as the agreements do not apply to the longer-term, temporary migrants from these countries who fall within the surcharge’s scope. It is also important to emphasise that the terms on which Australian and New Zealand nationals may use the NHS remain generous. The health charge is set well below the average per capita cost to the NHS of treating temporary migrants and below the rate that migrants might expect to pay for health insurance in competitive countries.

Visitors, such as tourists, from Australia and New Zealand will not pay the health charge and will continue to benefit from the reciprocal health agreements that we hold with those countries. In 2014, nearly 70% of the total number of Australian and New Zealand nationals who came to the UK did so as visitors. This group will continue to receive free-of-charge NHS care for health conditions that arise during their stay and which require immediate or prompt attention.

In addition to healthcare provided under the terms of our reciprocal healthcare agreements, we do not charge Australian and New Zealand nationals, or indeed any migrant, for the use of NHS primary care services, such as GP or nurse consultations, or for treatment in an accident and emergency department. The NHS also provides free-of-charge care to those with certain infectious diseases and, in England, to victims of certain types of violence.

During discussions with the Australian and New Zealand Governments, it was agreed to reduce the health charge that applies to the tier 5 youth mobility scheme from £200 to £150, in recognition of the close and important links between our countries. The scheme is a cultural exchange programme that allows young people aged 18 to 30 from participating countries and territories to experience life in the UK for up to two years, during which time they can work and study.

Australians and New Zealanders have benefited from a one-year exemption from the immigration health charge, while all other temporary non-EEA nationals have had to pay it since April 2015. It is now right and fair that those nationals also contribute to the extensive and high quality range of NHS services available to them during their stay, in line with their temporary immigration status. We estimate that by applying the health charge to Australian and New Zealand nationals—taking into account the lower charge for youth mobility scheme applicants—an additional £41 million could be raised for the NHS in present value over five years in 2016-17 prices. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand were fully consulted on the introduction of the charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated in my opening comments, in the first six months since its introduction, the immigration health surcharge raised more than £100 million in income for the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is important to make that point, and we will report on the first year’s income, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras asked me to do.

I also want highlight the fact that a comprehensive study of migrant use of the NHS in England commissioned by the Department of Health found that the total cost of visitors and temporary visitors accessing NHS services in England alone was estimated to be up to £2 billion a year, with around £950 million spent on temporary migrants, such as students and workers, from whom no charge had been recoverable previously.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Am I not right in thinking that that is the Prederi report, which states that those are the best estimates, but that accuracy is by no means assured because of uncertainty about the numbers of people and their behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

These are always estimates, but we judge that to be a reasonable estimate on which to base our policy. That was the basis on which the House legislated for the creation of both the immigration health surcharge and the previous order. In our analysis, non-EEA temporary migrants—workers and families—here for longer than 12 months had a weighted average cost to the NHS of a little more than £800 a head and a total estimated gross cost of more than £500 million a year. The figures for non-EEA students, for any length of stay, were just over £700 and about £430 million respectively.

The Government believe that those subject to immigration control should have a form of access to public services that reflects their immigration status. The previous order brought migrant access to the NHS into line with existing policy on access to benefits and social housing. It is a migrant’s immigration status, not their tax contributions, that governs their access to those services. We believe that the levy is appropriate and reasonable, and recognises the contribution that temporary migrants make to the wider economy.

Questions were asked about reciprocity, and in particular the reciprocal healthcare agreements with Australia and New Zealand. There is no intention to discontinue those agreements. They are more than 30 years old, however, and all three Governments concur that the time is right to review them and ensure that they are appropriate to the contemporary needs of our travelling citizens. The Department of Health has therefore entered into discussion with Australia and New Zealand on the scope of the agreements. The Government have no intention of discontinuing the agreements, but Ministers and officials in the Department of Health are looking at them.

Reciprocal healthcare agreements provide for a national of one country on a short, temporary stay in another country to receive free treatment. The agreement with Australia provides for a resident of one country who is visiting temporarily in the other, without becoming an ordinary resident, to be provided with free immediate medical treatment. However, all our Governments highly recommend the possession of adequate travel insurance because the agreements do not cover all treatment needs. In particular, they do not cover the costs of a medical evacuation.

What happens to our citizens going to Australia or New Zealand is a matter for consideration. Australia already levies a health charge for certain categories of visa applicant, including older migrants applying to become permanent residents and those with existing healthcare needs. In addition, students are required to have health insurance. In New Zealand, there is a consultation fee for anyone accessing GP care, and all foreign fee-paying students applying to study there are required to hold acceptable medical and travel insurance. Most visa applicants to the two countries are also required to meet minimum health standards, and in some cases they must undergo a medical examination. A visa may be refused if a migrant has a health condition that is likely to result in significant healthcare and community service costs.

It might be considered that this measure makes it harder for Australians and New Zealanders to come here, but I have already indicated that visitors would remain unaffected as a consequence of the reciprocal arrangements. Some 97% of Australian and New Zealand nationals who apply for a UK visa are successful. We continue to place great value on our links with both countries and remain committed to strengthening our relationship with them. However, we operate in a wider context, which includes the challenges of healthcare costs and managing migration flows. I find it interesting that the Scottish National party appears to be turning its face against additional funding for the NHS in Scotland. That is obviously the SNP’s prerogative, but we judge that this measure is appropriate, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put.