UK Border Agency

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 9 November 2012 the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published its eighth report of the Session 2012-13 “The Work of the UK Border Agency (April-June 2012)”. I am today publishing by Command Paper the Government’s response to that report and to accompany that response would like to set out some of the measures that this Government are taking to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency.

This Government are bringing immigration back under control. The latest net migration statistics show another significant fall in net migration—down almost a third since June 2010—and visa statistics indicate that this trend is set to continue. The UK Border Agency is playing an important role in ensuring our reforms are having an impact in all the right places.

The agency has already shown signs of significant improvement. It has maintained and improved its performance against service standards in its international and visa operations and launched priority services in over 30 countries. Last year it closed the historic “controlled archives” of asylum and migration cases and helped to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic games by collecting over 15,000 biometric details in advance.

However there is further work to be done.

To improve processing times agency staff have been redeployed to front-line caseworking duties and additional employment agency staff recruited to deal with outstanding work. These measures are already making inroads and I expect the agency to be operating within service standards across most workstreams by the spring of 2013.

The agency is building on the success of its dedicated MP account managers to continue to improve and develop its services. Every MP will have a named contact for their queries. We will continue to expand the use of email and telephone to provide a more timely and responsive service. MP account managers will also continue to alert MPs about rules and procedure changes that might impact their constituents.

We are also driving enforcement activity: the agency removes around 40,000 people every year, including up to 5,000 foreign national offenders, and continues to focus on developing innovative approaches; a joint UKBA and Metropolitan Police Service operation is successfully using new methods to identify and remove foreign national offenders in London.

I am confident that these measures represent the start of a period of further improvement that will leave the UK Border Agency on the sure footing necessary to continue to deliver a safe and efficient immigration system.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for giving me an opportunity to set out the Government’s thinking. As she was speaking, I was thinking through a number of responses, and I hope I can also respond to the multiple instalment story from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who finally got it all out, I think.

Let me first set out a bit of background to put this matter in context. As part of our general reform of the immigration system across all the routes coming to the United Kingdom, we undertook a major overhaul of the family routes. There were three aims: to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, to promote integration, and to tackle abuse. The hon. Member for Bristol East’s focus has been on the financial requirement, which is the minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor a partner of non-European economic area nationality to settle in the UK, with higher levels for those who also sponsor dependent non-EEA national children.

The point of the requirement is to prevent burdens from falling on the taxpayer and to promote successful integration. To put the story round the other way and to throw it back at the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), people can come here to establish their family lives, but we ask that they should not expect the taxpayer to fund that.

The hon. Lady raised the point about no recourse to public funds, which has always been in place, and suggested that was a sufficient protection for the taxpayer. The problem with that is twofold. First, under the immigration rules only some things the taxpayer funds are classed as public funds. The things that are not considered as public funds are NHS costs, social care, contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit, maternity allowance, retirement pension and statutory maternity pay. A range of funds, therefore, are not excluded under the no recourse to public funds measure. If someone comes to the UK under no recourse to public funds, we would still have to provide health care to them, therefore, which may well be a burden on the taxpayer.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Most of the benefits to which the Minister has referred are contribution-based, and therefore are not relevant. On health care, however, I think most of our constituents would be quite happy if there were a requirement looking at some way of paying for health care, because part of the point of this is that there are lots of cases where people will have enough money on any system, but not on this rule.

[Mr Harper]

Let me come back to that. The specific cases that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bristol East raised can I think be dealt with elsewhere in the immigration rules; that comes back to the point about representations.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It seems to me wrong that if someone is earning a modest income, their partner or child cannot access the NHS, but if they are wealthy, they can. Surely that goes completely against what the NHS is meant to be about. The Minister is saying that there is a different rule for people who earn more, meaning that their partners can get NHS treatment.

[Mr Harper]

No, the hon. Lady misunderstands me, which I am sure is my fault for not explaining the situation. The point is that if someone comes here and we say they have no recourse to public funds, they do have access to the NHS. I think the hon. Lady was arguing that because someone on a modest income who brings their family member here could not access public funds, that would not place a burden on the taxpayer. My point was that if, for example, that person needed to access the NHS, they could, and of course that burden would fall on the taxpayer, even though the income-earner’s contribution to the Exchequer may be very modest.

The other, wider, issue concerns the way our welfare system works. The presence of the partner may of course increase the benefits that the British national is entitled to. Although the migrant might not be entitled to housing benefit, for example, their presence may well increase the amount that the UK citizen is able to claim. That may give rise to a genuine issue about how our welfare system works—that is another debate—but given how it works, it is not quite as simple as saying that because there is no recourse to public funds there is no burden on the taxpayer from their presence.

I want to say something about a change relating to integration, albeit briefly as it does not fall within the category of finance. We think English language skills are very important, which is why, from October, we are increasing the level of English language skills we expect. That is partly to give those who come here the best possible chance of integrating—participating in the workplace and being part of the community.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Minister is making a really important point. People are welcome, providing they can contribute to the society they are joining. That is surely good for them, too. Does the Minister agree that the central point regarding language and income is that they feel comfortable, involved and included?

[Mr Harper]

I do, and that goes back to the central point of the debate.

I was about to give a little background to how we arrived at the particular sums of money involved, because that is helpful—

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to making sure that in every country, applicants who are trying to come here to join a spouse can actually get the qualifications he is going to require of them?

[Mr Harper]

My understanding is that people are able to do that. I can tell from the way the hon. Lady is looking at me that there is a point behind her question, so if she will do me the courtesy of dropping me a line, I will examine the argument she is making and get back to her, rather than diverting the debate away from its central point.

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

At the risk of diverting the debate for just a fraction longer, I worry a bit about this language test. I come from a third-generation immigrant family, and my grandfather to the end of his life spoke English haltingly and with a thick foreign accent. What mattered was that he was able to undertake a productive trade, and that his children and grandchildren were not cosseted by being taught in the language of the country they had left, but were properly educated in the language of the country they had joined. To have too stringent a language test is to look at the problem the wrong way round.

[Mr Harper]

I was listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I will reflect on it. I thank him for making that point.

Let me say a little more about the financial changes—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving on to that point, because residents in my constituency are surprised that the limit of £18,000 is so low, given that we hear concerns about the benefits cap of £26,000. I am delighted that he is going to explain why the limit is £18,000—of course, it is more for people with children.

[Mr Harper]

The previous requirement, which I think has been alluded to, was that applicants had to be “adequately maintained”. The courts generally interpreted that to mean income equivalent to the level of income support for a British family of that size, which was about £5,500 a year for a couple at that time. Our view was that that level of income was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance that UK sponsors and their migrant partners could support themselves and their children over the long term.

The previous regime also required quite a complex assessment, both for applicants and caseworkers, of current and prospective employment income and other financial means. It made decision making difficult, as was highlighted by the independent chief inspector’s report of 24 January on the processing of applications under the old rules for spouses and partners. Again, that was partly why we wanted a financial requirement that was clear and transparent; applicants would know where they stood, and we could make clear and timely decisions.

The minimum income threshold is £18,600 a year, with a higher amount with those sponsoring dependent children—it is £22,400 for those sponsoring one child and an extra £2,400 for each further child. We based that on the expert advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It gave us a range of figures and that was at the low end. Its figures went up to about £25,000, a level at which someone would be making a net contribution to the Exchequer. The £18,600 level we settled on is broadly the income at which a couple, once settled here, cannot access income-related benefits. It is not an exact match, but it was as close as we can get. Our approach broadly says, “If they are here earning that amount of money, they are going to be able to stand on their own two feet and not expect the taxpayer to support them.”

[Kate Green]

I understand the logic the Minister is outlining, but when benefits are assessed for a household they are assessed on a household basis. So this approach does not appear to address the point that has been made about ignoring the income of the incoming spouse.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, which I am coming on to address. In most cases—this comes back to the point about representations—including one of the cases the hon. Member for Bristol East raised and the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), there is often an alternative way, through the immigration rules, of someone getting to the United Kingdom. So the reason we do not take into account—

[Kerry McCarthy]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me just develop the point, because either I will answer it satisfactorily or I will not and the hon. Lady will then be able pick up the point she thinks I have not answered adequately, rather than getting in first. I will make two points. First, we do not take into account the previous income of the migrant partner when they apply for entry clearance mainly because what someone happened to be earning elsewhere is no guarantee of their finding work here. However, in the case she highlighted of the female British citizen with a South African husband and in the case that the hon. Member for Slough mentioned of the skilled science teacher, although the partner may not be able to get entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a spouse, they would of course be able to apply under our tier 2 skilled working visa to come to the United Kingdom. They could then get entry clearance on that basis and once here in work, earning an income, they would be able to switch into the family route. They could then show that they could earn that level of income and that would then be taken into account. So people who would be able to come here to work in a skilled job could come here under an alternative route and once they have established the fact of earning that level of income, they would be able to change their status under the spouse route, with the appropriate route to settlement. So certainly the South African husband could follow that route and it would work for him.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My understanding is that he would be able to do that only if his job could not be filled by a UK person. He is a computer programmer and, obviously, there are a lot of those in this country already, so he would not meet the criteria: no employer would say that the skills they required could be met only by him and not by anyone else. He has worked in the UK for six years under a work permit and it was unfortunate that the couple left the UK for a short time and the rules changed while they were out of the country. Had they not done so, they would have been able to go down the route that the Minister suggested.

[Mr Harper]

Under the tier 2 rule, it has to be a skilled job and they have to undergo a resident labour market test. So if he has a particular employer in mind, the rules may be a little more inflexible in the sense that he may not be able to say a specific employer, but if he has skills to offer, there are many occupations in which there is a shortage of people. If it is an occupation on the shortage occupation list, the employer is not required to undergo a resident labour market test. There are therefore opportunities in certain cases for someone to come here.

The hon. Member for Slough highlighted the issue of savings. Despite the fact that I managed to throw together some maths A-levels, that was a long time ago so I will not try to do the maths in my head. Savings can be used to make up the difference. We look at the amount of savings above £16,000, which is the threshold that is generally disregarded for income-related benefits. If someone holds savings for the period that they are hoping to come to the United Kingdom, which would be 30 months, the savings count as long as the applicants have them under their control for at least six months.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Even if they are self-employed?

[Mr Harper]

I believe that the answer is yes. If inspiration does not strike me before the end of the debate to confirm that, I will write to her.

In the immigration rules laid today, we have made some changes to the evidential requirements. For example, we had cases in which people were in receipt of tax-free stipends from universities. The net amount was below £18,600 and the rules were previously unclear about whether people could gross it up. I had a couple of cases raised with me and I thought it self-evident that people should be able to gross it up. So we have made it clear that that is indeed the case.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that plenty of companies in this country regularly secure permits to bring talented people to fulfil specific roles? So, it happens now and we are proud to welcome talent into our country to fill those roles.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. If people have married or are with a partner, they are looking at a particular route. It is worth saying, and her intervention highlights this, that there are alternative routes for people under the immigration rules for some of these difficult cases.

[Neil Carmichael]

May I go back to the qualification period, for both savings and income? Why did the Government choose six months?

[Mr Harper]

It was to ensure that people could not abuse the system by holding the money for only a day or two, making the application, succeeding and then giving the money back. It is to make sure that the money is genuinely under someone’s control and available to them rather than their borrowing money that belongs to someone else for a short period. We felt that six months met that requirement without being overly burdensome and putting unreasonable requirements on individuals.

Perhaps I will follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Slough if she speaks to me about the specific case. Inspiration has told me that the savings do not count in that way with self-employed people. If she has a specific case, which it looks like she has, perhaps she will draw that to my attention and I will look at it and see whether I think the rules are sufficient to deal with it.

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

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

The House proceeded to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am on the verge of sending somebody to see where the Serjeant at Arms has gone. Has this got anything to do with Comic Relief by any chance? It is that time of year.

[Mr Harper]

Comic Relief is tomorrow.

Immigration Rules

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules as set out below.

Minor changes will be made to the general visitor rules to guard against abuse by those whose repeat visits amount to de facto residence.

New provisions are being made in the tier 1 (graduate entrepreneur) route, which we introduced last year. The category is being expanded to include additional places for talented MBA graduates from UK higher education institutions (HEIs) and to accommodate UK Trade and Investment’s elite global graduate entrepreneur scheme, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his autumn statement and will target the brightest and best entrepreneurs from overseas HEIs.

Changes are being made to the tier 1 (exceptional talent) route, for world leaders in science, engineering, humanities and the arts. These changes split the application process so that applicants will no longer have to pay the full fee up front, or have their passports held by the UK Border Agency while a designated competent body is considering whether to endorse them.

Changes are being made to tier 2, the route for skilled migrant workers with a job offer from a licensed employer. These changes further improve flexibility for intra-company transferees and for employers carrying out the resident labour market test. They also update the shortage occupation list, codes of practice for employers, overall salary thresholds and minimum appropriate salary rates for individual occupations, following reviews by the Migration Advisory Committee. I have also made changes that will remove the need to continually lay further rules changes to renew the tier 2 (general) limit. This means that the limit will continue to be set at 20,700 places per year unless further rule changes are made to amend it. We have previously confirmed that the current limit will remain in place until April 2014.

Changes are being made to tier 4, recently announced by the Home Secretary, that will extend the opportunities for talented graduates to stay and work after their studies. All completing PhD students will be allowed to stay in the UK for one year beyond the end of the course to find skilled work or to set up as an entrepreneur.

The provisions in tier 5 for temporary workers coming to the UK under the relevant commitments in certain international trade agreements to which the UK is a party are being updated.

The changes will delete temporary immigration rules which facilitated the entry and stay of certain Olympic and Paralympic participants and personnel during the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The rules ceased to have effect on 9 November 2012.

Minor changes are being made to the immigration rules on long residence and on work-related settlement, including clarifying the treatment of time spent working; in business or self-employment; or other economic activity in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Minor changes and clarifications are being made to the immigration rules relating to family and private life, mainly reflecting feedback from legal practitioners and UK Border Agency caseworkers on the operation of the new rules.

The changes also include the removal of the now obsolete provision in the immigration rules for parents and siblings of EEA national children who exercise free movement rights in the UK as self-sufficient persons, following the amendment of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 to create provision for such persons which is compliant with European and domestic case law. This provision gave effect to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Chen (C200/02).

In the subsequent case of M (Chen parents: source of rights) Ivory Coast [2010], the upper tribunal found that “Chen” carers persons have a right of residence under European law. This determination effectively prevented the UK Border Agency continuing to require Chen carers to apply for leave under the immigration rules, because section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 says that a person who has “an enforceable Community right” shall not require leave to enter or remain in the UK.

Amendments were made to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (“the regulations”) on 16 July 2012 to recognise a right of residence for persons with a derivative right of residence on the basis of Chen and to create provision for such persons to be issued with documentation confirming this right under the regulations. This provision rendered paragraphs 257C-E of the immigration rules obsolete, as all applications for a document confirming a right of residence on the basis of Chen are now assessed under the regulations.

Changes will be made to safeguard against an offender returning to the UK lawfully but in breach of a conditional caution. It replicates the effect of paragraph 320(7B)(vii) of the general grounds for refusal.

A new protection route is being introduced recognising stateless persons who are unable to leave the UK. According to article 1(1) of the 1954 UN convention an individual is stateless if they are not considered to be a national of any state under the operation of its law.

This new route has been formulated in line with the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons in co-operation with UNHCR and Asylum Aid. It is limited in its scope and requires applicants to demonstrate that they are stateless and cannot leave the UK.

Changes are being made to ensure the requirements necessary for granting discretionary leave to unaccompanied asylum seeking children are within the immigration rules.

Finally, there are also a number of minor technical changes, corrections and updates to lists contained in the immigration rules. Details of these are set out in the explanatory memorandum laid today to accompany the changes.

Operation Jasmine (Care Home Abuse)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this debate on an important issue, and I agree with his concluding remarks. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for waiving the sub judice rules so that I can set out some details that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with, but which it would be helpful to get in the public record.

The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in this issue because one of the care homes covered by the investigation was in his constituency. He and other hon. Members will know about family members of those who were neglected, or those who sadly died, who will be affected and will be concerned about what happened. I am sure that his interest, and the interest of other Opposition Members, will keep this issue at the forefront, to ensure that we learn lessons from it.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Marilyn Jenkins’s mother was in the Brithdir home and died. She is unaware whether her mother was properly treated or not. Will she ever be able to get answers to that question?

[Mr Harper]

I should have said that hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, will know of such cases, too. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked whether the prosecuting authorities would meet family members. That seems sensible. I have had experience of cases in the criminal justice system, in which—even if the outcome was not everything that people wanted—understanding what happened and having the facts, and understanding the thinking, at least gave people a sense that a proper process had been followed.

In my hon. Friend’s constituent’s case, and I suspect in that of many other families, even if they may not be happy with the outcome because the prosecutor has not been able to proceed with the case, it is important to know what happened to their family member and whether they were properly treated. Although that may not give them satisfaction, at least they may understand what happened and can ensure that they and other people learn the lessons, so that it does not happen again.

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no place in our society for anyone who abuses anyone for whom they are supposed to be caring, whether a child, a vulnerable adult, or any other member of the community. We should always be vigilant about dealing with that.

Operation Jasmine was a long and difficult case for all those concerned, with 103 alleged victims, 63 of whom have subsequently died. That must be incredibly distressing for their families. I thought that it would probably help, given the hon. Gentleman’s questions, if I gave the House some facts about the operation and the outcome of the police investigation, which commenced in 2005.

[Paul Flynn]

In March 2000, a ten-minute rule Bill was introduced, seeking better control of neuroleptic drugs in residential homes. Some homes did not use the drugs at all, but in other homes 100% of residents were on those drugs, which meant that they often lived shorter lives and died in misery and confusion. Has there been any improvement since 2000?

[Mr Harper]

I am not familiar, apart from in general terms, with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend with responsibility for care standards. I am sure that the relevant Minister in the Welsh Government will also hear of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The investigation commenced in 2005, when an elderly resident at Bryngwyn Mountleigh nursing home was admitted to the Royal Gwent hospital, where she then died. Partner agencies brought to Gwent police’s attention significant potential failings at Brithdir nursing home, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Both homes were owned by Dr Prana Das. Following the investigation into this incident at Bryngwyn, further investigation by Gwent police identified a series of deaths at the home that required further thorough investigation, with the police identifying a further 11 cases where elements of neglectful care may have been linked to the deaths of those residents.

Initial work at Brithdir nursing home identified 23 further cases of concern where allegations of neglect had been investigated. The operation eventually investigated allegations of abuse at two further care homes. Gwent police took this very seriously—I think that that was the general sense of the contributions from Opposition Members—and allocated a dedicated police lawyer and Crown Prosecution Service counsel early on in their investigation. I think that they sensed how significant it was going to be.

As the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said, it was a thorough police investigation, involving 75 police officers, more than 4,000 statements, more than 10,000 exhibits and 12.5 tonnes of documentation. The Home Office provided special grant support for the police authority in Gwent, so that the costs of this investigation did not fall entirely on the police authority and cause detriment to wider policing in Gwent. That was right and proper.

There were three convictions against care home staff in 2008 for wilful neglect. The investigation then continued with further charges being sought against the main defendant, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect. However, in February 2010 interim advice from CPS was that the cases had not reached the threshold required for criminal prosecution. The investigations were then completed. Further CPS advice to Gwent constabulary in February and June 2011 was that the threshold for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect had not been met in any of those cases.

I understand that the chief constable, not being satisfied with that advice, met the Director of Public Prosecutions to challenge the advice that he had received. The DPP reiterated the advice that, despite the thorough investigation, the case simply had not reached the threshold for reasonable prosecutions, given the difficulties of proving wilful neglect.

Hon. Members will be aware, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that the case was then taken forward as a joint investigation with the Health and Safety Executive. The decision was taken by the HSE to prosecute Dr Das, his company Puretruce Health Care Ltd and its chief executive, Mr Paul Black, in relation to neglect and fraud at two care homes, Brithdir and The Beeches in Blaenavon. The trial was set for January this year, but on 9 September 2012 Dr Das was badly assaulted in his home in an unrelated incident of aggravated burglary and has remained in hospital ever since, suffering from permanent brain damage. As the hon. Gentleman said, on 1 March Judge Neil Bidder, based on medical evidence that he had received, ordered that all charges relating to Das, Black and the company lie on file. If Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, which I understand from the medical evidence is unlikely, the trial could continue.

I cannot remember whether the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) or the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is sitting next to him, mentioned this, but the judge also ruled that Paul Black, the co-defendant, should not stand trial because it was not deemed appropriate to try him alone. I can understand, of course, that the fact the prosecution could not continue leaves families with a real sense that justice has not been done, but given that the judge decided the defendant is not in fit condition to stand trial, it is not obvious that there is an alternative prosecution scenario.

The judge also decided that, in the absence of the primary defendant, Dr Das, the company could not be tried either, because it is not possible for the company to have a fair trial given that the main individual controlling the company is not able to respond. The positive thing is that the charges lie on file, so if Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, family members may be reassured that the case will continue, although, as I have said, the medical evidence is that that is very unlikely.

One of the questions that underlies what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said is whether something like this could happen again. Important issues arise on whether we have proper arrangements to protect vulnerable adults from those who might seek to abuse and exploit them.

[Wayne David]

I heard what the Minister said about the evidence remaining on the table, as it were, but does he not accept my point that we need some sort of time scale? In theory, the evidence that has been accumulated could remain on the table indefinitely without there ever being an inquiry because it might not allow consent to be given for such an inquiry.

[Mr Harper]

I was just about to come on to the question of an inquiry. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) alluded to there being another factor in the case, because, obviously, some of these issues are for the UK Government and some of the issues on health and social care are for the Welsh Government.

If either Government decided that a public inquiry would be the right thing, they would need to think through whether the charges remaining on file were a roadblock and whether, therefore, steps needed to be taken. They would also need to consider the balance in terms of the interests of justice and openness.

At the moment it is important that lessons are learned, and I will set out what I think some of those lessons are. If we are to have a public inquiry, we need to think through the objective of that inquiry and what it is that we would learn that we do not already know. Given the exhaustive nature of the police investigation, and without doing some further thinking, I am not clear whether the answer to that question is that we would learn something from having a public inquiry.

Clearly, if it turned out that the fact the charges are lying on file and are pending is a roadblock, and if either Government wanted to have some sort of public inquiry, we would need to come back to that and the various agencies would need to think about the right solution. Without that being on the table, the fact that the charges are on file means that people can be reassured that there is no sense that someone could get away with it if they were ever in a position to stand trial. The fact is that the evidence is there, the charges are there and it would be possible for a prosecution to proceed if the defendant were ever in a position to be able to stand trial in a way a judge determined to be fair.

I have six minutes left, so I will try to address some of the other issues. As a result of the operation, 42 individuals were referred for consideration under the Care Standards Act 2000, which introduced a duty on care providers to refer care workers who have been dismissed or suspended or otherwise left their employment for misconduct that harmed a vulnerable adult or placed a vulnerable adult at risk of harm to the protection of vulnerable adults scheme. In October 2009, all cases under that scheme were referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which has since been replaced by the new Disclosure and Barring Service. That is a mechanism for ensuring that any care worker who does not perform at the level they should is unable to work with vulnerable children or vulnerable adults in the future.

More widely, the Government are completely committed to protecting vulnerable members of the community. Work is under way, as part of a Department of Health-led, cross-Government effort on safeguarding vulnerable adults, to legislate to put safeguarding adults boards on a stronger statutory footing to ensure that they are better equipped to prevent abuse and to respond when it occurs.

Given the role of the Welsh Government, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen suggested, I have taken the trouble to understand some of the issues they were dealing with. I know they have maintained close contact with Gwent police throughout the police operation, and I know they have taken account of lessons from the operation in developing their own policies and legislation in this area. The Welsh Government have introduced new statutory guidance on managing escalating concerns within care homes. They funded a dignity in care programme to improve practice, and I understand that, later in the year, they will publish a White Paper on the regulation and inspection of social care. The Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales has also modernised its approach to inspection and regulation to give a stronger voice to care home residents and their families.

Protecting vulnerable adults from abuse is clearly a core part of the police’s safeguarding and public protection responsibilities. The Association of Chief Police Officers recognises the importance of working together with statutory agencies, local authorities and their safeguarding partners.

ACPO has reviewed the overall learning from Winterbourne View, another very serious case in which adults with learning disabilities were treated incredibly badly. The one direct recommendation relating to the police was on the early identification of trends and patterns of abuse, the lessons from which will be disseminated nationally across England and Wales through training and practice.

[Wayne David]

Given that Gwent police has already said it is more than happy to co-operate with the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales on an immediate inquiry, does the Minister agree that that would be a positive step forwards?

[Mr Harper]

I will go away and look at that. From everything they have done, the police come out of this very well. The investigation was very thorough, and everyone seems to think they did the work that was required. The College of Policing has a public protection learning project that brings together a range of public protection disciplines, including adults at risk, and it will consider the training materials used by police forces across England and Wales.

What the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said at the end of his remarks is absolutely true. Protecting vulnerable members of our society is an absolute priority. This has been a difficult and disturbing case, and it has been very lengthy for everyone involved. The charges lie on file, and the case has happened.

From what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire have said, it sounds as if some work may be needed to ensure that all the families involved are properly briefed about what happened to each and every one of their relatives so that they fully understand the situation.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the DPP and the CPS meeting the families, and I will raise that with the DPP through the Attorney-General—I cannot think of any reason why such meetings could not happen—and report back to the hon. Gentleman.

If there are lessons from the case, they clearly need to be learned. It is right that all parties, including the UK Government and the Welsh Government, should consider what they can do. I know the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will continue to pursue the matter to ensure that whatever lessons can be learned are learned and that we are never here again with a similar case. I hope what I have said has helped the hon. Gentleman in what he has been trying to establish today, and I am sure this will not be the last time he raises the issue either in Westminster Hall or in Parliament more widely.

Carriers' Liability Consultation

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Border security is vital for the UK. While it is right that the Government are in the lead on this, carriers and the transport sector as a whole have an important role to play. We are therefore strengthening our partnership with this sector on a broad range of border security issues. We are today launching a consultation on a package of proposals around the liability of carriers for bringing undocumented passengers to the UK. This consultation is an important part of this partnership process.

The cost to the UK of undocumented passengers can be high as many go on to claim asylum. There can also be a security risk as individuals wishing to come here for organised crime or terrorism purposes may view this as a potential method of entry. The policy objective of the proposals is to reduce the number of passengers arriving in the UK without proper documentation, and to do this by working in partnership with carriers.

The consultation document includes two key proposals. The first is to increase the level of the carriers’ liability charge from £2,000 per undocumented passenger to £7,000. While this is a significant increase, the charge level has been at £2,000 for more than 20 years and no longer reflects the costs and risks involved. The second is to introduce a new approved route incentives scheme for carriers. This includes a number of charge waivers if the carrier is engaging effectively with us on border security issues, including document checking and data submission.

The consultation will last for four weeks and is targeted at airline and ferry companies, industry representative bodies and passenger groups. The consultation document is available on the Home Office website and we have also placed copies in the Library of the House.

Document Fraud (Specialist Printing Equipment)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I am today launching a four-week public consultation on proposals to prevent the supply of highly specialist printing equipment to fraudsters who then use that equipment to produce false documents.

These proposals have been developed following a rising trend in illegal document factories which buy specialist printing equipment to produce counterfeits of credit cards and Government-issued documents, including passports and driving licences. This trend is contributing to the £2.7 billion cost of identity crime to the United Kingdom each year and helps criminals to enter the country illegally, to commit benefit fraud and to evade criminal records checks.

The proposals would make it a criminal offence to supply highly specialist printing equipment to fraudsters, whether deliberately or without carrying out reasonable checks. The Government have held discussions with the specialist printing industry and the police, both of which originally requested that we address this issue. We are now seeking wider views which will enable us to evaluate the evidence and the impact on the industry to help shape potential proposals for legislation.

The detailed consultation questions can be found on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/printing-consultation/.

Skilled Migrant Workers (Codes of Practice)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Friday 1st March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Home Office is today announcing changes to the codes of practice for skilled migrant workers from outside the European economic area.

The codes of practice provide important information to migrant workers and their sponsoring employers. They set out which occupations are skilled to the necessary level to qualify for tier 2 of the points-based system, minimum appropriate rates of pay, and how employers should carry out a resident labour market test to determine whether suitable settled workers are available before they offer a job to a migrant worker.

Last year, the Government commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the codes of practice. The MAC published a detailed report on 17 October 2012. Today we are setting out the Government’s response to the MAC’s recommendations. In general we have accepted the MAC’s recommendations, although there are some additional details which have resulted from developing the proposals. Taken as a whole, the changes are intended to update the system and make it more user-friendly, rather than significantly change the policy.

On lists of skilled occupations, as advised by the MAC, we are updating the codes of practice from the old SOC 2000 classification system to the new SOC 2010 system. Transitional arrangements will ensure that no migrant worker is unable to continue working in their current job as a result of the reclassification.

On minimum salary requirements, we are updating the minimum appropriate rates for each occupation in line with the MAC’s recommendations and to reflect changes in pay for settled workers. We have accepted the MAC’s recommendation that the minimum should generally be set at the 25th percentile of wages in that occupation. We are introducing alternative rates for new entrants. These will be set at the 10th percentile of wages in each occupation. After three years the new entrant—usually these will be those aged 25 or under—will have to be paid at the experienced worker rate. In addition, we are updating the minimum pay thresholds which exist across tier 2 (regardless of occupation) in line with wage inflation for settled workers.

On the resident labour market test, we are, in line with the MAC’s recommendations, simplifying the current rules to give employers more freedom to advertise in the media they think are most likely to be successful for their sector. This will mean settled workers looking for jobs in that sector will be better targeted and will have more opportunities to apply for skilled jobs. We will still require most jobs to be advertised via a Jobcentre Plus online service (or JobCentre Online, for jobs based in Northern Ireland), but we will keep this requirement under review.

The changes will be implemented on 6 April and we will lay changes to the immigration rules nearer the time to bring them into effect. The Home Office is publishing a statement of intent today, in order to give employers and applicants as much time as possible to review the changes we are making and prepare for them coming into effect. I am placing a copy of the statement of intent in the Library of the House.

Immigration Concession for Syrian Nationals

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am today announcing the renewal of concessions to the immigration rules for Syrian nationals lawfully in the UK.

In the light of the ongoing violent conflict in Syria it has been decided that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) should continue to operate some discretion to enable Syrians legally in the UK to extend their stay here.

Syrians in the UK with valid leave (or leave which has expired within the last 28 days) in specified visa categories will continue to be able to apply to extend their stay in that visa category, or switch into a different specified category from within the UK (with some restrictions) rather than being required to return home first. Those applying will still need to meet the requirements of the relevant visa category, pay the appropriate fee, and adhere to the normal conditions of that category—no access to public funds, for example. If a required document is not accessible due to the civil unrest in Syria UKBA may apply its discretion and the requirement to provide that document may be waived where appropriate.

These concessions will remain in force for one year from today. The Government continue to monitor the situation in Syria closely in order to ensure our response is appropriate and that any emerging risks are addressed.

I am placing a copy of the authorisation for this concession in the Library of the House.

Asylum Support (Children and Young People)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said that, under section 4, people cannot buy condoms.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Yes they can.

[Chris Bryant]

That is perhaps a point for the Minister. I want to say to some religious organisations that it is time they understood the reality of the modern world and abandoned their views about procreation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing this debate. As she said, she and I met to discuss the report put together by her group of parliamentary colleagues, and I had the chance, both before and after that meeting, to consider it carefully. It will certainly go into the Government’s review specifically on asylum support rates. I thank her for her work and for the evidence. Two of the Members who took part in that work—the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin)—are here today. In the time available, I will deal with both her points and those made by other Members who spoke or intervened.

Let me first deal with the financial support. One point made by the hon. Lady today, and one of the key points in her report, is that the amount of money given to both asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers is very low and does not meet families’ essential living needs. It is worth setting out for the House exactly what is available. The legal test is whether it meets people’s essential needs, which are food, toiletries and clothing. A family of four receiving section 95 support, which is that given to those who have an asylum application that has not yet been decided, would get £178 a week to cover those essential costs. A family on section 4 support, which is where a decision has been made and they do not have a right to remain in the country, get £151 a week. It is worth remembering that they have furnished housing with no bills to pay. I accept that it is not generous, but I do not think it is ungenerous. It is lower than the income support equivalents, but people who are in asylum support accommodation do not have to pay any utility bills, buy furniture or meet some of the other costs associated with running a household.

The hon. Lady touched on the relationship between the section 95 support and income support levels, which is worth mentioning. For children, the rates are much higher than the 70% she talked about. For children, the rates range between 81% and 89% of the income support levels. It is true that the rates are less generous for adults. If we look at how we compare with other European countries on families—and therefore on children—we are rather more generous than most of our equivalent European neighbours.

[Sarah Teather]

The Minister will perhaps recognise that the rates vary according to the children’s age and tail off significantly at 16, where it would be expected that those children would be in full-time education, especially given the Government’s own policy to encourage everybody to be in education beyond 16. I have discussed the German constitutional court case with him in private. I do not know whether he has had a chance to look at it, but I am happy to send him the details. The support rates there were deemed to be inadequate to meet a family’s basic humane needs. It is difficult to compare our asylum support rates with those of other European countries, because they partly depend on how long someone is on them. It is worth noting that one of our neighbours has had to review its asylum support rates.

[Mr Harper]

I accept that point. It is worth making the point on the German case that our rates for families are rather more generous than the German rates. The hon. Lady is right that there was a court challenge and the Germans have had to make their rates more generous. Ours are significantly more generous. The point she makes about 16 and 17-year-olds is correct, but it is still worth noting that her report and, I think, others have referred to the rates being at least 70% of the income support rate. That is still the case for young people of 16 and 17, where it is 71%. It does fall below that for adults. She will be aware—she and I have discussed this—that we are in the process of reviewing the asylum support rates to confirm that they meet essential living needs. The initial work that we have done suggests that they do, but that work is under way. When we have completed it, we will make an announcement in due course.

The hon. Lady and others, particularly the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, referred to individuals who have higher living costs, especially those with disabilities or complicated medical problems, who might need particular extra care or equipment. The correct way that they are supposed to be supported is through local authorities using their powers and duties under both the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 2004 to provide that extra support. It sounds like the hon. Gentleman has encountered some cases in his surgeries with constituents, and there were also some in the evidence given to the panel producing the report, where that does not always happen. Obviously I am happy to look at specific cases, so that we can ensure that local authorities are following up on their legal obligations.

Once people have made an asylum claim, if that claim is accepted and they are given refugee status and are permitted to stay in the UK, they have access to the full range of public services and benefits on the same basis as a British citizen. There are some issues about the transition from asylum support to those mainstream benefits, and the UK Border Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions are looking at those to see whether we can smooth that move from asylum support to mainstream benefits for those who are granted refugee status.

It is worth mentioning at this point the speed of decision making, which is important both from a human perspective and to ensure that people do not use the asylum system as a method of economic migration. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant): both our parties have been clear when in government that there is a distinction between providing refuge for people fleeing persecution and for people who move, perfectly understandably, for economic reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) alluded to that. We now make 50% of asylum decisions within 30 days and 63% are made within a year, and we continue to apply pressure to maintain that progress.

Several hon. Members talked about whether asylum seekers should be able to work. Our view is that they should not be able to, to keep that clear distinction. However, under our obligations under the relevant EU directives, if we take more than a year to make a decision, an asylum seeker is able to apply to work, and we will usually grant them the ability to do so.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Does the Minister agree that when asylum seekers are not entitled to work, they sometimes find illegal work, which furthers the black market and disadvantages people who work in that field?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman’s point would be correct if we were prohibiting people from working and not providing them with any support. While we say they cannot work, so as to maintain that important distinction, we do provide them with housing where the bills are paid and a basic level of subsistence to support them in the period before we make a decision.

In the four minutes I have remaining, I will say a little about the difference between asylum seekers and those who have failed in their claim. That is important and I have made this point to the hon. Lady. If we are to maintain the proud record that the United Kingdom has in giving people refuge from persecution, it is important that those who have gone through the appeal process through the tribunal system, where we will have looked at their cases carefully, and been found not to require that support leave the country. It is important to distinguish that those on section 4 support are those who have been found not to require our protection. They should be leaving the country. We support those cases where there is a temporary barrier to them doing so, but frankly they should not be here. I know that that is a difficult message for people sometimes, but we have looked carefully at their cases and they do not need our protection. They should return home.

[Sarah Teather]

I am aware that the Minister does not have much time, but does he recognise, particularly in the case of Zimbabwe, that people were left in a situation where the courts would not return them because it was unsafe, and for a prolonged period of time they were left on very tiny amounts of support?

[Mr Harper]

As I have said, if there are temporary barriers to their removal—I do not know the particular cases that the hon. Lady was talking about—we will support them, but if they are found not to require protection, it is right that they leave. That is why we have a different regime for those who have no right to be here from that for those seeking asylum.

We do not think that the Azure card is more expensive than administering cash payments. It can be used in major supermarkets, chemists, children’s and clothing retailers, and some charity shops, which deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe. The hon. Lady made a point about purchasing birth control or sanitary products with the Azure card, which she raised when we met. I have checked it, and there is no restriction on purchasing those products, although there are rightly restrictions on purchasing alcohol and tobacco. I agreed to look into those cases and have checked them, and there is no restriction on birth control or sanitary products, which is right.

I will deal with some of the points raised in the debate. On accommodation and people moving around, we have specific restrictions in our new Compass contracts on how many times people can be moved. People will normally go into initial accommodation when they first make a claim and then will be moved into their dispersal accommodation. They will be moved from that only if there is a good reason, such as if the property becomes unsuitable or if they request it. Under the contract, they are only allowed to be moved twice in an 18-month period. We should not see people being moved about frequently, because that raises a range of issues.

The hon. Lady also referenced the recent report by the Refugee Council about the dispersal of pregnant women. We changed our policies last August, which she acknowledged, and 19 of the report’s 20 case studies were prior to our policy change. That change should have dealt with some of the issues that have been raised. This has been a good debate, and I am sorry that I have not had time to deal with all the issues.

Charging for Immigration and Nationality Services 2013-14

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am announcing proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the UK Border Agency and services provided by the agency. The Government review these fees on a regular basis and make appropriate changes as necessary.

In developing these proposals, the UK Border Agency has sought to limit most increases to 3%, which is in line with recent measures of inflation. There are further targeted increases for applications made within the UK, where the value of the entitlements provided to successful applicants is greater, and new fees for European residence documents.

The UK Border Agency has given careful consideration to its fee levels, to ensure they provide the funding necessary to operate effective immigration controls and invest in improving service levels to customers. This is balanced against the need to ensure that the UK continues to attract and welcome the “brightest and best” migrants from around the world and those that make a valued contribution to British society. Given the ongoing need to reduce public spending, we believe it is right that we continue to reduce the contribution made by UK taxpayers towards delivering the immigration system by asking those who use and benefit directly from the system to make a greater contribution.

For certain application categories, we will continue to set fees higher than the administrative cost to reflect their value to successful applicants. This helps to provide resources to run the UK immigration system and enables the agency to set lower fees elsewhere in support of wider Government objectives to attract those businesses, workers, students and visitors who most benefit the UK.

I have laid regulations for fees set higher than cost. In addition, I will shortly lay another set of regulations in Parliament for fees set at or below cost. Further details explaining all fees changes are provided in the explanatory memoranda for both sets of regulations. Subject to parliamentary approval the Government intend to bring new fees into force from 6 April 2013.

The attached table, setting out all the proposed fees, includes indicative unit costs for financial year 2013-14. The unit cost is the estimated average cost to the UK Border Agency of processing each application. Unit costs are published so it is clear which fees we set over cost and by how much.

Full details on how to apply for all of the agency’s products and services will be provided on the UK Border Agency’s website: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk.