* Accessibility * Email alerts * RSS feeds * Contact us ____________________ Search * Home * Parliamentary business * MPs, Lords & offices * About Parliament * Get involved * Visiting * Education * House of Commons * House of Lords * What's on * Bills & legislation * Committees * Publications & records * Parliament TV * News * Topics You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Daily Hansard - Debate 23 Nov 2010 : Column 147 23 Nov 2010 : Column 147 House of Commons Tuesday 23 November 2010 The House met at half-past Two o'clock Prayers [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Oral Answers to Questions Justice The Secretary of State was asked- Imprisonment for Public Protection 1. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): How many prisoners who have completed their tariff remain in prison for the purpose of public protection. [25560] The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): On 17 November 2010, 14,680 prisoners were serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection, or a life sentence in prisons or secure hospitals. Of those, 6,320 are held beyond their tariff expiry date, excluding offenders who have been recalled to custody following release. John Mann: Those prisoners have been held in prison for good reasons and on good judgment. Does the Secretary of State intend, as is rumoured throughout prisons, to reduce the number of such offenders in prison? If so, how many sex offenders and violent criminals will be released back into our communities? Mr Clarke: That rumour is probably on the hon. Gentleman's website where I have seen that he is telling his constituents that I will release robbers, burglars, drug dealers and so on. Perhaps he will wait for the sentencing review, and stop living in a fantasy world. The indeterminate prison sentence has never worked as intended. The intention was that it would apply to a few hundred dangerous people who were not serving life sentences. The number is piling up, and more than 6,000 have gone beyond their tariff, but they will not simply be released. We will re-address the subject, and we will not release all the people he keeps telling his constituents we will release. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Will the Secretary of State look at the Prison Reform Trust's report and specifically conduct a review of the social and financial costs and benefits of IPP sentences, and examine the available policy options set out by the trust? Mr Clarke: We are taking a balanced look at the whole subject. The Prison Reform Trust takes quite the opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). It believes that those sentences should be 23 Nov 2010 : Column 148 scrapped entirely. It is critical of the way they work, and it is clear that they are not working as intended, but the Government are hoping to take a balanced view. We must obviously protect the public against dangerous people and the risk of serious offences being committed on release. On the other hand, about 10% of the entire prison population will be serving IPP sentences by 2015 at the present rate of progress, and we cannot keep piling up an ever-mounting number of people who are likely never to be released. Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State accept that it is inherent in both life sentences and the concept of IPP sentences, which are widely supported throughout the Chamber, that many prisoners will be tariff-expired because the idea is that they are not released until it is judged that it is safe to do so? Does he also accept that although it is true that the precise construction of the clauses was inappropriate and led to some very short tariffs, since the changes that I introduced in 2008, the number of new IPP sentenced prisoners has dropped by 50% from about 1,500 to under 1,000 a year? Would it not be far better for public safety to let that work through instead of prematurely releasing such prisoners? Mr Clarke: No, it has always been the case that some people are held indeterminately, and certainly those on life sentences. The purpose of IPP sentences was to have a sentence below a life sentence for dangerous people for whom life was not quite justified. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that such sentences never worked as intended, which is why, when he was Secretary of State, he introduced an Act of Parliament to try to correct some of the mistakes that had been made. We are now considering how the sentence works in practice, and we will introduce considered proposals in due course. Administration of Justice 2. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): What proposals he is considering to increase the level of efficiency in the administration of justice. [25561] The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): Following the spending review, the Ministry of Justice must make a total budgetary saving, including resource and capital spending, of 25% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15. Guy Opperman: I remind the House of my former profession of barrister. Eleven years ago, the Labour Government introduced the Woolf reforms, which changed all manner of process in the civil courts. What detailed proposals does the Minister have for the same telephone case management in criminal work, particularly post-not guilty pleas, and after-guilty pleas and sending matters for pre-sentence report? Nick Herbert: We are certainly interested in improving the efficiency of justice by looking at case management, and some encouraging pilots have been run in London, in which costs have been saved through integrated case management arrangements between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. We are also very interested in employing the greater use of technology, such as virtual courts, and I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about other ideas as well. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 149 Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): In the name of so-called efficiency of justice, the Secretary of State has scrapped the post of chief coroner, a move widely condemned by organisations such as Inquest and the Royal British Legion. They point out that tens of thousands of people every year are forced to grapple with the archaic, unaccountable coroners system, which needs the reforms promised by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Minister said that scrapping the chief coroner was necessary to save money, but what assessment has he made of the increased costs that will be incurred through the greater use of judicial review, which is bound to result from this short-sighted decision? May I invite the Secretary of State or his Minister to put on record now exactly what the real cost will be of that false efficiency? Or will he take this opportunity to reverse that misguided proposal? Nick Herbert: We do not think that this was a sustainable proposal, with set-up costs of £10 million and running costs of £6 million a year. The important thing now is to reform the coroners system appropriately to ensure the efficient administration of justice in this area. Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that savings do not simply become higher costs for other Departments or other parts of their own Department, whether in the context of magistrates court closures, which adds to police costs, or changes in the legal aid system that generate demand for expenditure elsewhere? Is there a mechanism for assessing how costs will fall elsewhere? Nick Herbert: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that what he describes does not happen, but he will know that there is significant under-utilisation of magistrates courts. That is why we have had to take this action in consulting about closure, not least in relation to the Tynedale magistrates court, which is adjacent to his constituency in Northumberland and which is operating at a utilisation rate of only about two thirds. National Offender Management Service 3. Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the support given by the National Offender Management Service to children in young offender institutions who have been in care. [25562] The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): The National Offender Management Service has a responsibility to safeguard the welfare of all young people in custody, and all young offender institutions are regularly inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons. Revised guidance on the responsibilities of local authorities to support young people leaving care is due to be published shortly by the Department for Education. It will include a chapter dedicated to the responsibilities for supporting care leavers involved in the criminal justice system. Luciana Berger: I thank the Minister for that reply. I recently met representatives of the Liverpool Children in Care Council and heard young people expressing concern about the level of support given to young 23 Nov 2010 : Column 150 offenders who are looked-after children. Typically, they do not have the same support networks that other young offenders have. Will the Minister now commit to revisiting this issue to ensure that vulnerable young offenders are given the help and support that they need to get their lives back on track? Nick Herbert: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of providing such support. Last week, I visited Feltham young offenders institution with the Mayor of London and saw how innovative arrangements to provide greater support and counselling for young people had a considerably reduced the recidivism rate on a particular wing in that institution. That shows that, with better rehabilitation, we can get better results. I would be very happy to talk to the hon. Lady about any specific ideas she might have for improving the system. Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Is it any wonder that children in care do not have the necessary continuity of support once they are in custody, given that the full financial responsibility of local authorities is lost at that point? Will the Government ensure that when such children in care are in custody, they are not out of sight, out of mind and off the financial books of the local authorities? Nick Herbert: It is important to ensure that the incentives are right, that we deter the inappropriate use of custody for young people and that local authorities are fully focused on what they need to do to reduce recidivism before the use of custody becomes important. Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): The Minister will be aware that, according to a written ministerial statement today, the Omand review of the case of Jon Venables was released this morning. It is 114 pages long. Is he also aware that my constituent, Ralph Bulger, the father of James Bulger, and his brother Jimmy Bulger knew nothing about the release of this report today until the media contacted them, asking for a statement on what they thought would be in this 114-page document? Can he ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again? Nick Herbert: My understanding is that appropriate arrangements should have been made, and that Mr Bulger was aware of the report but not its release. I shall of course look into the matter, and I am happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about what went wrong, if something went wrong in this case. Sentencing Policy 5. Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): What recent progress he has made on reviewing his Department's policy on unduly lenient sentences. [25564] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt): The powers of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to refer certain Crown court sentences to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency are working well. Sarah Newton: I am particularly concerned with the sentencing of people convicted of paedophilia and believe that the policy review should be based on evidence. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 151 What assurance can the Minister provide that data that the Ministry of Justice collects will separate crimes of paedophilia from all sexual offences as currently recorded? Without that data it will be difficult to review the appropriateness or otherwise of current sentencing policy. Mr Blunt: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern. All offences of sufficient seriousness to be tried only in the Crown court can be referred through the unduly lenient sentences process to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General; and 17 of the 31 offences that are triable either way and listed in statutory instrument 2006/1116 refer to offences against children, which reflects how seriously the House takes the matter. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that on three occasions over the past two weeks the Secretary of State for Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister's deputy-the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)-have come to the Chamber and essentially repeated from the Dispatch Box announcements already made in the media. I want to ask the Minister about reports in this Sunday's papers on the Department's sentencing plans. The current Prime Minister in March, the Conservative party manifesto in April and the Secretary of State in June all said words to the effect: "We will introduce a system where the courts will specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain offenders. These prisoners will only be able to leave jail after their minimum sentence is served by having earned their release, not simply by right." Will the sentencing review ditch that policy or keep it? Mr Blunt: I am afraid the shadow Secretary of State will have to wait until we produce the policy. It is entirely appropriate that it be presented to the House first. Sadiq Khan: It is outrageous that we have to buy The Times and read The Daily Telegraph to see what the Government are planning. That is not new politics, that is not the way to do things, and the Secretary of State, who has been an MP for 40 years and served in three Cabinets, should know better. The Minister ducked the previous question, but he and, indeed, the Secretary of State know that knife-crime cases cause real and lasting misery to the victims, to bereaved families and to communities. Before the general election and in their manifesto, the Conservatives were quite clear, because they said that "anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence." We know what the press say their Government will do, but what will the Minister do in the sentencing review to be published next week? Mr Blunt: This may be slightly tedious, but I must say again that the shadow Secretary of State will have to wait until the proposals are presented in a comprehensive fashion to the House. Of course, knife crime is an extremely serious offence, as we have acknowledged, but, as far as the precise proposals are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman, like everyone else, will have to wait until they are presented in a coherent fashion to the House first, as is appropriate. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 152 Prisoners (Voting Rights) 6. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): What discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the effects on prisons and prison staff of making arrangements for the implementation of voting rights for prisoners. [25565] 9. Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): What discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the effects on prisons and prison staff of making arrangements for the implementation of voting rights for prisoners. [25568] 10. John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): What discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the effects on prisons and prison staff of making arrangements for the implementation of voting rights for prisoners. [25569] The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): Ministers are considering how to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, and when decisions have been taken, they will be announced to the House in the usual way. Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that prison staff already have to deal with requests for further information about how voting rights will be implemented-not only from prisoners, but from local communities who have grave concerns about the matter. Will he meet a group of MPs for whom that is a particular concern, so that the needs of our constituents might be considered? Mr Clarke: I will consider that request when we have announced our conclusions, which we will, to the House. The previous Government were incapable of taking a decision on the Hirst recommendation, which was made five years ago, and we are about to produce our proposals. I would point out that remand prisoners already vote, and always have voted; they vote by post, and it has never caused any difficulty. In the end, there is no suggestion that prisoners are going to be registered in the prison at which they are Her Majesty's guests. Those that bother to get registered will be registered in constituencies scattered across the country. Of course I will consider the logistics if, after we have produced our proposals, it is apparent that any particular logistical problem will be posed. Mr Bain: When the Secretary of State meets the Deputy Prime Minister, will he pass on the grave disquiet of the people of Glasgow that the 93 convicted sex offenders, 10 convicted murderers and 15 convicted attempted murderers in Barlinnie jail in my constituency have not been exempted from the Government's review on the right to vote? The Secretary of State knows that neither the European Court of Human Rights nor case law from Strasbourg requires that such individuals should have the right to vote, so why do the Government not just do the right thing and rule it out? Mr Clarke: There is no suggestion-and there never has been-that every prisoner is going to get the vote. It is not the Government's consultation that is responsible, but a judgment given five years ago by the European 23 Nov 2010 : Column 153 Court of Human Rights-a Council of Europe institution -and we are now deciding how to implement it. I cannot anticipate the Government's decision, which will be taken collectively by Ministers, but the idea that lots of murderers and rapists in Barlinnie prison are all going to be given the vote is, I suspect, rather fanciful. John Woodcock: The Secretary of State must understand the grave concern about this measure from the public and, I hope, from both sides of the House. If the Secretary of State is clear that there is no suggestion that murderers and rapists will be given the vote, why will he not simply rule out at least those two categories right now? Mr Clarke: The principal consideration is to take a decision and present it to the House. I am trying to shoot down some of the fanciful ideas that have been expressed. I understand the real concern about this: most of the House would have preferred not to change at all the existing ban on prisoners voting, but doing nothing-the previous Government's position-and allowing solicitors to go running around prisons signing up prisoners to get compensation for having their civil liberties denied is piling up quite a bill. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers will very soon resolve any uncertainty. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): But is there not a contradiction at the heart of the Government's policy? Currently, all Members of Parliament represent all prisoners living in prisons within their constituency, yet the Secretary of State has said that they will be represented by Members of the constituencies where they were last registered. That contradiction needs to be resolved if representation of prisoners by prisoners is to be taken seriously. Mr Clarke: I think there is some confusion in the House about the convention that applies, which both I and my hon. Friend should resolve-although it is not my responsibility to resolve it. I take the view that I represent my constituents when they are in prison wherever it is that they are imprisoned, but I know that other MPs take the view that they represent every resident of a prison in their constituency. Perhaps we should resolve the parliamentary conventions on this matter at the same time as we have a look at which prisoners might have voting rights. Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): In considering the Government's policy on this thorny issue, will the Secretary of State, if he has to abide by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, restrict the right to vote to those prisoners at the lowest level of seriousness-for example, those dealt with by the magistrates courts for summary offences only? Mr Clarke: This applies only to prisoners-obviously, people who have not been in prison do not lose their vote at all. We have to comply with the judgment of the Court. The problem is that this extremely annoying issue will become even more annoying to the public and everyone else if we simply do nothing and wait until some huge financial judgment is made against the taxpayer, which will turn the present public anger into fury. That is why we are going to bring forward considered proposals. At the moment, someone not sent to prison does not lose their vote-irrespective of what other punishment they receive in their summary trial. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 154 Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): The Hirst judgment says that article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights obliges this House to give some prisoners the vote; as we have heard, it also gives rise to financial compensation to some prisoners who have been denied that right. Although I sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend, does he accept that there is an intellectual case for, in time, bringing powers back to Westminster in this area by repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawing from the European convention of human rights? Mr Clarke: There has been another British case today, which has clarified the situation slightly and has underlined the fact that the Government have discretion on how to comply with their obligations. In due course, obviously, we shall establish a commission on how best to give effect to our human rights obligations in this country, but that will not happen until at least next year. The coalition Government do not intend to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, which was imposed by the victorious British on the rest of Europe after the war in order to establish British values across the countries that were recovering from fascism and was drafted largely by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who put what he thought were the best principles of British justice into it. Prison Places 7. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): What steps he is taking to increase the number of prison places. [25566] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt): Our current plan is to build the prisons to which we are contractually committed. On the basis of current policies, we expect prisoner numbers to rise from about 85,393 last Friday to about 88,000 in 2015, and we expect the implementation of the proposals that will be outlined in the forthcoming Green Paper to reduce that number to about 3,000 fewer than today's figure. We will always provide enough prison places for those who the courts judge should receive a custodial sentence. Andrew Rosindell: Notwithstanding the Government's efforts to stabilise the prison population, will the Minister assure us that those who commit crimes and deserve to go to prison will continue to do so? Mr Blunt: Yes. Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): The Minister will know that it is a basic human right for people to be incarcerated as near as possible to where they reside. When will the Government comply with that basic requirement by providing a prison facility for north Wales, especially as we understand that Shrewsbury prison is to be closed? Such a prison would serve the whole of mid-Wales as well as north Wales, and, as the Minister knows, its establishment is long overdue. Mr Blunt: I am not sure that I recognise that as a basic human right, but it is certainly operationally sensible. Providing support for prisoners when they are incarcerated away from their families is an important 23 Nov 2010 : Column 155 part of assisting their rehabilitation into society. However, speculation about which prisons might or might not close in future is not appropriate at this stage. We will conduct a review of prison capacity in the light of the Green Paper and the responses to it, and only at that stage- Mr Speaker: Order. I think that we have the drift of the Minister's answer. We are grateful. Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): Surely the reoffending rate is a critical factor affecting the number of prison places that are required. Restorative justice programmes such as that of the Sycamore Tree foundation, which operates at Haverigg prison in Cumbria, are both inexpensive and highly effective in reducing reoffending. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the number of restorative justice programmes in Britain's prisons? Mr Blunt: I suggest to my hon. Friend that he can look forward to the Green Paper with great interest. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): According to the latest figures, more than half the prisons in England and Wales are officially overcrowded. If the Minister is ultimately successful in reducing the number of prisoners, what will his priority be-to close prisons or to reduce overcrowding? Mr Blunt: It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to ask that question. As a former Prisons Minister, he bears part of the responsibility for the level of overcrowding that we have inherited. Sadly, the answer is that we are not in a position to create enough prison places to be able to address the problem of overcrowding. That will probably have to wait for more economically propitious times. It will take us a while to get the economy into the shape that will enable us to deal with the prison overcrowding that we have inherited. Legal Aid (Immigration Appeals) 8. Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): How much was spent on legal aid for cases in respect of immigration appeals in the last 12 months. [25567] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): In 2009-10, overall legal aid expenditure on advice and representation in immigration and asylum appeals was £85 million. I should, however, point out that it is not possible to identify expenditure for initial advice separately from expenditure before the immigration and asylum tribunal in cases in which both advice and representation are provided. Mr Evennett: I thank the Minister for his response. Can he confirm that, under the coalition Government proposals, immigration cases will be taken out of the scope of legal aid? Mr Djanogly: Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are consulting on removing all immigration matters from the scope of legal aid, other than for those in immigration detention. That means removing matters 23 Nov 2010 : Column 156 such as varying leave to remain-for example, if a foreign student wants to change their visa to get permission to work instead, or, indeed, to stay here for longer. Such cases will no longer be at the taxpayer's expense. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): One of the ways in which we can cut down on waste in the legal aid budget is to address no-shows by Home Office officials at immigration hearings. Can the Minister tell me the number of cases in which Home Office representatives do not turn up to these hearings and the cost of that to the legal aid bill, or will he write to me with that information? Mr Djanogly: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with that information, but I can tell him that it is an issue. Defendants' representatives not turning up for hearings is also an issue. Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Responding to Lord Carter's 2006 review of legal aid, the Minister said it put very vulnerable individuals at risk, that people were not being represented and that the structure was "being destroyed", and he concluded: "I would say it's a meltdown." Carter reduced the budget by about 5%, whereas the current Government's Green Paper cuts civil legal aid income by 42%. How would the Minister describe that? Mr Djanogly: The important point to make is that the last Government did, indeed, look at legal aid: they had more than 30 consultations over a five-year period, including Carter. The result of that was that providers and those in receipt of legal aid were lost within the system and did not know where cuts were coming from, and what we are doing now is putting forward a comprehensive review of legal aid, whereby providers and all stakeholders will be able to see their position within the system-and as a result the consultation will be accurate. Mr Slaughter: Well, we can all make what we will of that, but the fact remains that more than half a million people who may have unfairly lost their job, their income, their right to decent housing or access to their children-or, indeed, who may have been deported from the country, as the Minister has just said-will now go without advice or representation, whereas criminal legal aid and some of the high-cost advocates earning more than £900,000 a year are largely untouched. The Secretary of State said in his statement on these measures that it was important to strike a balance. Does the Minister not think that the balance has been got wrong in this case? Mr Djanogly: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the consultation document, which has clearly got a section on very high-cost cases, and on which we have significant proposals. More particularly, the Labour manifesto said it wanted to cut legal aid, so if he is going to talk about our cuts, perhaps he might like to say where he would be making cuts in legal aid. Miscarriages of Justice 11. Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had on the provision of services to people who have experienced trauma as a result of a miscarriage of justice. [25570] 23 Nov 2010 : Column 157 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt): We want to help people who have suffered trauma as a result of a miscarriage of justice to access support that ought already to be available, for instance through the national health service. We will work with the Department of Health, other Departments and the voluntary sector to that end. Katy Clark: I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently met the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, as constituents of mine have been affected by having been wrongly imprisoned for lengthy periods. I understand that under the previous Government, the Justice Ministry was looking at how better to provide support services to such people. Is that work still going on, and will the Minister be willing to meet me and other Members with constituents who have been similarly affected, because we are not dealing with this issue well enough at present? Mr Blunt: I am afraid that we have concluded that, due to the extremely challenging financial climate, it no longer makes sense to go ahead with the work started by the last Government on identifying the unmet medical needs of those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice because there are not going to be additional funds to meet those needs. Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Despite that answer, will the Minister still agree to meet those interested MPs, because in a previous answer he said the Government would ensure that services were available through the NHS, whereas the fact is that they are not? These particular needs can best be met-and most effectively and most cost-efficiently-by having a more discrete system, and it would pay the Minister and the Department to meet these MPs and MOJO. Mr Blunt: I am, of course, very happy to meet parliamentary colleagues to discuss this issue. Meetings are due between Ministry of Justice officials and those in the Department of Health to see how matters can be improved. I am sure that those discussions will be improved by the knowledge that I will gain from colleagues, so I am happy to have the meetings. Legal Aid 12. Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): What steps he plans to take to fulfil the aspiration in the coalition agreement to increase the efficiency of the legal aid system. [25571] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): The consultation document "Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales", published on 15 November, sets out proposals to make the legal aid scheme more efficient. We looked from first principles at its scope, the eligibility rules, and the fees paid to lawyers and other providers of legal aid. We looked at alternative sources of funding, and we are also consulting on reducing administrative bureaucracy and making the system simpler to operate. Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the issues raised by Des Hudson of the Law Society are unfounded, that access to justice 23 Nov 2010 : Column 158 will still be available for people who really need it and that worthy organisations such as Citizens Advice are valued by this Government? Mr Djanogly: Yes, we are certainly very keen to work with voluntary organisations such as Citizens Advice to ensure more efficient and focused provision of legal aid, and included in that will be our proposals for a civil law telephone gateway service. By refocusing legal aid we aim to ensure that taxpayers' money will be prioritised to help the vulnerable receive the legal support that they need. Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): The Secretary of State will know that proposals to close both the county court and magistrates court in my town of Whitehaven have been met with widespread anxiety and have been condemned by the local bench and local solicitors. Will he agree to meet us, so that he can learn at first hand just how ruinous the proposals would be if enacted? Mr Djanogly: The courts consultation closed in mid-September. We have been examining the significant number of responses and will be reporting back to the House on them before the new year. I am sure that the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made on his local courts will be examined and, following our decision, I would be happy to meet him. Offenders (Alcohol Dependency) 13. Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): What recent estimate he has made of the number of offenders with an alcohol dependency. [25572] 17. Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): What recent estimate he has made of the number of offenders with an alcohol dependency. [25576] The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): In a survey carried out in 2005-06, 23% of prisoners sentenced from one month to four years reported having drunk alcohol four weeks prior to custody and said that they would find it quite difficult or impossible to stop drinking. We also estimate that 37% of offenders subject to community orders have an alcohol-related problem linked to their offending and their risk of reconviction. Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that alcohol misuse is estimated to cost £7.3 billion in crime and antisocial behaviour, and that it was a factor in 18,000 incidents of violent crime in Wales in 2008, can he assure the House that help for prisoners with alcohol problems will be given the same priority as help for offenders with drug problems? Nick Herbert: It is important that alcohol problems are tackled, both among offenders given community orders and those in custody. We know that treatment for alcohol problems is cost-effective; the United Kingdom alcohol treatment trial found that for every pound spent on treating problem drinkers £5 is saved on costs to health, social and criminal justice services. That is why, in the long term, providing such services on a payment-by-results basis is the answer. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 159 Mrs Chapman: Given the undeniable link between alcohol misuse and crime, does the Minister believe that someone's being excessively drunk is seen as sufficiently aggravating by the courts when they pass sentence? Nick Herbert: We have not received any representations to the contrary. These matters can be considered by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and we believe that sufficient powers are available to the courts. The important thing is that when offenders are sentenced, they should receive adequate treatment-that applies both to community and jail sentences-so that addiction can be dealt with. Sentencing Policy 14. Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con): When he expects to publish his proposals on the future of sentencing policy. [25573] The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): We intend to publish a Green Paper setting out proposals on sentencing and rehabilitation in December. Richard Harrington: On a recent visit to the Hertfordshire probation trust in Watford, I was impressed by the efforts it has made and the success it has achieved in reducing reoffending rates. The staff told me, in particular, of their view that short-term prison sentences were detrimental to those efforts. Will the Secretary of State come to Watford to meet them, so that he can share those experiences? Mr Clarke: I am grateful for that invitation; I have already received a letter. I shall do my best, although I am not quite sure when I will get to visit the probation trust. The Government are placing particular emphasis on rehabilitation and on reducing our quite appalling reoffending rates, as we have ever since my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice led for us on this matter in opposition. I accept that a great deal of good work is being done on the ground now and obviously we will have to build on it. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) about the ineffectiveness of some short sentences, because nothing whatever is done when people go out of the gate once they have finished their sentence, but I am quite clear that we cannot get rid of all short-term sentences. I have always believed that for a certain number of cases no alternative is reasonably practical for magistrates. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): The crimes of child abduction, gross indecency with children, sexual activity with a child under 13, sexual assault of a female and sexual assault of a male have all attracted custodial sentences of six months or under in the past year. Will the Lord Chancellor give a commitment that under the sentencing review none of those crimes will be subject to community-based sentences, as he has proposed potentially in comments that he has made to date? Mr Clarke: I have no idea why the heart of our sentencing reform is described by sections of the press and some Members of Parliament as just getting rid of all short-term sentences and replacing them with community 23 Nov 2010 : Column 160 sentences. I have no doubt that there is an important role for community sentences, and we must make them more credible, more punitive and more effective-some of them already are. The important thing is that every case should receive the right sentence based on the facts and the offender in order to protect the public. That will be the underlying aim of the entire sentencing review. Legal Aid (Clinical Negligence Cases) 15. Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effects on the NHS of removing clinical negligence from the scope of legal aid. [25574] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): Clinical negligence cases against the NHS are funded approximately 50:50 between legal aid and no win, no fee agreements with lawyers. We will be interested to understand through our consultation the specific impact on the NHS of the removal of clinical negligence cases from the scope of legal aid, which should save some £17 million to legal aid. However, we also estimate that our proposals to reform no win, no fee conditional fee agreements will save around £50 million each year to the NHS in reduced legal costs. Dr Wollaston: Could reducing legal aid for clinical negligence lead to an upsurge in no win, no fee deals and an increase in the compensation culture? Mr Djanogly: My hon. Friend is right to point out that changes in one area can have knock-on implications in another area. It is important to point out that that is precisely why we put out the legal aid consultation document on the same day as Sir Rupert Jackson's proposals on no win, no fee agreements. The two can be weighed up together and the consultation will therefore take a holistic approach. Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): On legal aid, the Minister has spoken today about working with voluntary sector organisations. Community Links' welfare advice service in my area has seen 9,000 people so far this year. It is very cost-effective and has been paid for until now by legal aid. Under the Minister's proposals, it will not be in the future. How will that work be supported by the Government in the period ahead? Mr Djanogly: People have the option of getting conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements. They can go to a lawyer and that lawyer will take a view on the chances of success. The question that must be asked-we will be very interested to hear the responses to it during the consultation-is whether, if the private sector is not prepared to take on the risk, the public sector should be prepared to do so and what proportion of that risk it will be prepared to take on. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Following my question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice during his legal aid statement, is there not a danger that, given the complexity of clinical negligence cases, the most vulnerable will not have access to no win, no fee simply because such companies will not offer their services to them? 23 Nov 2010 : Column 161 Mr Djanogly: There will still be power to grant legal aid in exceptional cases where a CFA will not be available, although that power will be restricted. The fact remains that CFAs will still be available for people with no ability to fund their cases so that they can take proceedings. Legal Aid (Family Law) 16. Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab): What estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of family law cases that will be eligible for legal aid during the period of the comprehensive spending review. [25575] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): We estimate that removing from the scope of legal aid most private family law cases, except for those involving domestic violence, forced marriage and international child abduction, would reduce the number of people receiving advice under the legal aid scheme by about 211,000 annually and of those represented in court by just under 54,000 annually. Together, those figures represent an estimated annual saving of £178 million. However, we have also decided to retain legal aid for mediation to help separating couples sort out their issues without the courts where possible. Tony Lloyd: The Minister's last point is very important. In many such private cases, child-protection issues arise. Can he give the House an absolute guarantee that private cases in which child protection becomes an issue will still receive legal aid? If not, these cost savings will be at the expense of our children's future. Mr Djanogly: Absolutely; where a public family law matter arises, that case will remain within scope. If a child is subject to being taken away from their parents, legal aid will be available. Topical Questions T1. [25585] Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): Following the conviction of Jon Venables on 23 July for possessing and distributing indecent images of children, I commissioned Sir David Omand to undertake an independent review into the management of Jon Venables from his release from local authority detention in June 2001 until his recall to custody on 24 February 2010. Today, I have placed a copy of Sir David's report in the Library. Sir David has concluded that Jon Venables was effectively and properly supervised at an appropriate level and frequency of contact, having regard to the particular circumstances of his case. Sir David also concludes that no reasonable supervisory regime would have been expected to detect his use of the computer to download indecent images. The report contains a number of recommendations on the future management of this and similar cases that will be taken forward by the National Offender Management Service. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 162 Mrs Chapman: Nineteen-year-old Scots Guardsman Andrew Gibson was killed in a Darlington nightclub. Yesterday, the Attorney-General said that he was unable to refer what many view as an excessively lenient sentence of just two and a half years to the Court of Appeal. Will the Secretary of State undertake to investigate the awarding of lenient sentences in which alcohol is an aggravating factor? Mr Clarke: The Attorney-General has a power to exercise in these cases and he has to exercise it in his quasi-judicial role by making a proper judgment and not just reacting politically. I understand the hon. Lady's concern about that case, but sentences are normally imposed by the court that has had the opportunity to hear all the evidence, facts and information about the accused person. The Attorney-General takes seriously his responsibility to step in where a mistake seems to have been made and ask a higher court to consider imposing a more serious sentence. I cannot claim to exercise any control over him in that regard; it is his difficult judgment to take in each case. T2. [25586] Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): The Lord Chancellor will be only too aware that one of his key responsibilities is looking after the Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Alderney and Sark. Will he explain to the House why the Crown dependencies were yet again refused the right to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday this year? Will he address this issue to ensure that next year they can do so like other countries in the Commonwealth? Mr Clarke: My right hon. Friend Lord McNally has the responsibility and the honour to lead on matters concerning Crown dependencies, which I assure my hon. Friend he takes very seriously. I keep discovering that he has made visits to the Crown dependencies to discuss these matters. I was quite unaware of this problem and I shall make inquiries of Lord McNally and those responsible for the ceremony about the background to this issue of laying a wreath on behalf of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): The Secretary of State announced in the House last week-a day after ITN-that significant sums of money were to be paid to British residents and citizens who were detained at Guantanamo Bay, and he explained the factors behind the decision. Does he agree that there is an urgent need to resolve the claims of British victims of terrorist attacks overseas and will he commit today to such compensation being paid as a matter of urgency? Mr Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman rightly expresses irritation about leaks to newspapers and the television, and I assure him that I share all that irritation. [ Interruption. ] If I were indulging in the kind of masterful spin-doctoring of the previous Administration, I would have trailed them better than occurred either in the newspapers or ITN. I made the statement when I did because I was told that ITN had carried the news the night before. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if he helps me to find out where the information is coming from, I will take appropriate steps. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 163 On compensation for victims of terrorism and crimes, we are having to review the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We are having to look at the prospects for the compensation for terrorism scheme. The fact is that we were left with a system of criminal injuries compensation that was not working. We have enormous liabilities piling up for which the previous Government had not made adequate funds available, so we have hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of arrears of claims. Sadiq Khan: That is a different issue. Mr Clarke: It is not a different issue. They are related issues and we will give our conclusions in due course. Several hon. Members rose - Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of interest and little time. From now on, we need short questions and short answers. T3. [25587] Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): What assurance can Ministers give my constituents in west Cornwall that the legal aid reforms published last week will not adversely affect the coverage of, or reduce access to, legal aid, particularly in civil and family proceedings? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): The hard facts are that the amount of legal aid being paid out in civil cases will be reduced. As part of the Government's savings of £2 billion, £350 million is subject to be taken out of legal aid by 2014-15. That means that we will focus legal aid on the most vulnerable who need legal representation. T4. [25588] Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): A number of professionals have contacted me about their worries that, once the Youth Justice Board disappears, there will be a lack of co-ordination and an increase in reoffending by young people. Can the Secretary of State give any reassurance to those professionals that when their work disappears inside the Ministry of Justice, that co-ordination work will still be taken seriously? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt): Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As the Minister with responsibility for youth justice, I will make sure that the functions carried out by the Youth Justice Board will be properly executed within the Ministry of Justice. The Youth Justice Board has done good work, but now it is time for Ministers to take direct responsibility for the work. T5. [25589] Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): Families in Witham town are concerned about the presence of paedophiles and sex offenders, and the risk that they pose to children in our local community. What steps is the Secretary of State taking, in conjunction with other Government agencies, to ensure that my constituents are protected from those dangerous individuals? The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): My hon. Friend might know about the child sex offender disclosure scheme, which is being extended to 24 police forces, having been successfully piloted in 23 Nov 2010 : Column 164 11 police force areas. It allows members of the public to ask the police to check whether people have contact with their children at risk. They have already successfully protected children and provided considerable reassurance to parents. T6. [25590] Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): It is clearly inappropriate for convicted criminals to celebrate Christmas with raucous parties in prison. Is the Secretary of State certain that present Ministry of Justice guidance will prohibit such activity this Christmastime? Mr Clarke: I hate to tell the hon. Lady that there are no good parties going on in prisons to which I can invite her over Christmas. The whole story about parties was faintly ridiculous. The announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) did not mention parties and had very little to do with parties. Time was-I can remember from my youth-when a popular song began with "The warden threw a party in the county jail," but we do not approve of that kind of thing nowadays. Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Every suicide is a tragedy, but particularly in prisons it is more harrowing for the family, other prisoners and the prison staff. With that in mind, can one of the Ministers give an update on the programme of installing safer cells? Mr Blunt: About 6,200 safer cells have been provided since 2005. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's consistent interest in that. Our objective is to make sure that safer cells are available in all circumstances for offenders deemed to be vulnerable and to require such accommodation. T7. [25591] John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): It was as recently as 30 June, when the Government had had nearly two months to examine and find how unexpectedly bad the public finances were, that the Secretary of State said that he would explore "proposals to restore public trust through minimum/maximum sentencing". Can he tell us what has changed since then? Mr Clarke: Not much has changed. We are exploring proposals of all kinds. We are about to produce a Green Paper in December, and as is always the case-there is nothing new in this-people try to guess what might be in it. Some people make informed guesses, some make uninformed guesses and some get it right. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until December to see our final judgments about how best to reform a sentencing system which is over-complicated, difficult for the judges to understand and ripe for reform, and which is completely failing to protect the public by getting reoffending rates down to a sensible level. Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): Recently, a group of Travellers was served with an eviction order from the site next to St Peter's, a new school in my constituency of Filton and Bradley Stoke, only for another group of Travellers to move in as soon as the site was vacated. Will the Minister look at the law in 23 Nov 2010 : Column 165 question to see whether it can be changed so that it is site-specific, rather than applying to individuals in certain cases? Mr Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. We are already looking at the law on squatting; this, in a sense, is an associated issue. I shall be happy to examine it as well. T9. [25593] Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): As part of the review that the Secretary of State is carrying out into implementing giving prisoners the right to vote, will he consider the issue as, in some ways, a positive opportunity to prepare them for reintegration into society? How is he approaching that? Mr Clarke: Of course we would welcome prisoners preparing in any way for rehabilitation as honest citizens in society. I wait to see how many prisoners will actually take advantage of the opportunity when we decide the extent to which we have to go to comply with the Court judgment. It is conceivable that in some cases the vote would widen the mind of prisoners and prepare them for taking on the obligations of citizenship. I actually do not think, however, that we should take that too far. Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The Government intend to amend the law on the prosecution of universal jurisdiction offences. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it would be unseemly for decisions relating to those prosecutions to rest with the Law Officer who is also a politician, as would be the case for the Attorney-General? Mr Clarke: The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is what we are contemplating. The Government have committed themselves to that. This is a question of arrest; we are looking at citizen's arrest. We want to keep the right of citizen's arrest but we do not want it to be a publicity stunt based on inadequate evidence, so we are contemplating making it subject to the DPP's consent. We are simply trying to find the legislative time to do it. The Government have committed to doing this as rapidly as possible. Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): Can the Justice Secretary tell us how many times he or his Ministers have spoken to the Scottish Justice Minister about prisoners voting rights? Mr Clarke: I have written to Kenny MacAskill and I see him from time to time. I have not yet got a response, but I expect to be in close contact with the Scottish Government when we make any change, because I suspect that it will apply to the entire United Kingdom. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): Last Friday, a 16-year-old boy in my constituency was horrifically beaten and stabbed outside his school in full view of his classmates. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need to reserve the harshest penalties for those who viciously wield knives and to make sure that there is a strong deterrent against doing so? That young man lost his life as a result of that horrible crime. Mr Clarke: I am, of course, shocked to hear of the outrageous nature of the crime in my hon. Friend's constituency. We have to make sure that all our sentencing proposals give the courts all the powers they need. It is a 23 Nov 2010 : Column 166 question of how to set out the severity of the appropriate sentences, at the same time leaving the court in the end to decide on the exact sentence, based on the circumstances of the case and the offender. Although the recent habit-particularly under the last Government, who produced 21 different criminal justice Bills-was to keep producing very elaborate rules, in my experience judges do not need to be told that an offence of the kind described by my hon. Friend deserves the full force of the law and the severe punishment that the public would undoubtedly expect for such a case. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Is not the vote for prisoners a dyed-in-the-wool Lib Dem policy? Is that not the real reason why the Secretary of State will not stand up for us and tell the European Court that the ruling is simply unacceptable to the British people and the vast majority of our MPs? Mr Clarke: It is not a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative policy, it is true, but it should be the policy of every responsible Member of the House to accept that we have to comply with a judgment of the European Court, because nobody is advocating withdrawing from the convention. The hon. Gentleman's party accepted that. His party never repudiated the judgment; it always accepted that it was going to have to give votes to prisoners. It wasted five years and two consultation exercises, however, because it was incapable of taking a decision in advance of an election-or at all, as it happened. Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): On a less controversial subject, what scope is there for mediation in family law cases, and will such cases continue to qualify for legal aid? Mr Djanogly: We have taken the view that mediation should be retained within the scope of legal aid, and we think that it should be thoroughly encouraged. Too often, people take the course of court when they should look towards sorting out issues between themselves, and mediation will play a big part in enabling them to do that. Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): On prisoner voting, will the Secretary of State have the grace to accept that before the election, given the implacable opposition from the whole of the Conservative party from top to bottom, with the then shadow Justice Secretary describing the proposal as "ludicrous", and deep and profound concern on our Back Benches, it was not that one did not want to do something, but that there was no way in the world that such a measure would have passed through this House? Mr Clarke: I am relieved to hear that the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, was so implacably determined to press on with this issue throughout his five years. He should perhaps have a word with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who could explain how committed he was. I am impressed that it was solely the opposition of Conservative Front Benchers that caused this five-year delay. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was having difficulty with Downing street and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and 23 Nov 2010 : Column 167 Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and others in coming to any decision about anything, or doing anything about it, before the general election. [ Interruption. ] Mr Speaker: Order. There is so much noise in the Chamber that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) could not hear me call him. Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Can my right hon. and learned Friend take the time to remind the House which party was in power when the Human Rights Act 1998 was incorporated into British law, and, more pertinently, who was the Secretary of State responsible for it? Mr Clarke: It was certainly the Blair Government who introduced the Human Rights Act. I regret to say that I cannot remember who the Secretary of State was, but it was probably the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Actually, he probably has more things to answer for than that, but that was certainly one of the things that he put on the statute book. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss setting up an employers liability insurance bureau to ensure that victims of asbestos-related diseases who cannot trace either 23 Nov 2010 : Column 168 employer or insurer are compensated? I am sure that if he will meet up with me, I can fill him in and persuade him why it is so important. Mr Clarke: The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will probably be in touch with the hon. Lady to deal with that suggestion. There are obviously very difficult issues involved in these asbestos claims-they troubled the previous Government, and there have been decisions for the courts. We will therefore consider her suggestion with interest; it has been made before, but we will consider it again and come back to her. Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): The Government are rightly focused on getting more people who are out of work into work, but a particular group of concern is ex-offenders. Will the Government, as part of the big society, continue to support charitable organisations such as the Apex Trust, which does a wonderful job in getting those offenders back into work? Mr Blunt: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the mechanisms we will use is payment-by-results schemes to turn offenders into taxpayers. That means that there will be rewards both for stopping offenders reoffending and for getting offenders into employment. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 169 Controlling Migration 3.33 pm The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on immigration. Controlled migration has benefited the UK economically, socially and culturally, but when immigration gets out of control, it places great pressure on our society, economy and public services. In the 1990s, net migration to Britain was consistently in the tens of thousands each year, but under Labour, net migration to Britain was close to 200,000 per year for most years since 2000. As a result, over Labour's time in office net migration totalled more than 2.2 million people-more than double the population of Birmingham. We cannot go on like this. We must tighten up our immigration system, focusing on tackling abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants. To achieve that, we will have to take action across all routes to entry-work visas, student visas and family visas-and break the link between temporary routes and permanent settlement. That will bring significant reductions in non-European Union migration to the UK and restore it to more sustainable levels. We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands. On the work routes to entry, all the evidence shows that it is possible to reduce numbers while promoting growth and underlining the message that Britain is open for business. After consulting widely with business and with the Migration Advisory Committee, I have decided to reduce economic migration through tier 1 and tier 2 from 28,000 to 21,700. That will mean a fall of more than a fifth compared with last year in the number of economic migrants coming in through tiers 1 and 2, excluding intra-company transfers. Business groups have told us that skilled migrants with job offers-tier 2-should have priority over those admitted without a job offer, who are in tier 1. I have therefore set the tier 1 limit at 1,000, a reduction of more than 13,000 on last year's number. Such a sharp reduction has enabled me to set the tier 2 limit at 20,700, an increase of nearly 7,000 on last year's number. The old tier 1, supposedly the route for the best and the brightest, has not attracted highly skilled workers. At least 30% of tier 1 migrants work in low-skilled occupations such as stacking shelves, driving taxis or working as security guards, and some do not have a job at all, so we will close the tier 1 general route. Instead, I want to use tier 1 to attract more investors, entrepreneurs and people of exceptional talent. Last year, investors and entrepreneurs accounted for fewer than 300 people, and that is not enough, so I will make the application process quicker and more user-friendly, and I will not limit the numbers of those wealth creators who can come to Britain. There are also some truly exceptional people who should not need sponsorship from an employer but whom we would wish to welcome to Britain. I will therefore introduce a new route within tier 1 for people of exceptional talent-the scientists, academics and artists who have achieved international recognition, or are likely to do so. The number will be limited to 1,000 a year. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 170 Tier 2 has also been abused and misused. Last year more than 1,600 certificates were issued for care assistants to come to the UK. At the same time, more than 33,000 care assistants who were already here were claiming jobseeker's allowance, so I will restrict tier 2 to graduate-level jobs. We have listened to business and will keep intra-company transfers outside the limit. However, we will place a new salary threshold of £40,000 on any intra-company transfers of longer than 12 months. Recent figures show that 50% of intra-company transfers meet those criteria. That will ensure that those coming are only the senior managers and key specialists who international companies need to move within their organisations. I should like to thank the Migration Advisory Committee for its advice and recommendations. Next year, I will ask it to review the limit in order to set new arrangements for 2012-13. However, the majority of non-EU migrants are, in fact, students. They represent almost two thirds of the non-EU migrants entering the UK each year, and we cannot reduce net migration significantly without reforming student visas. Hon. Members and others might imagine that by students, we mean people who come here for a few years to study at university and then go home. However, nearly half of all students coming here from abroad are actually coming to study a course below degree level, and abuse is particularly common at those lower levels. A recent check of students studying at private institutions below degree level showed that a quarter could not be accounted for. Too many students at lower levels have been coming here with a view to living and working rather than studying, and we need to stop that abuse. As with economic migration, we will therefore refocus student visas on the areas that add the greatest value, and in which evidence of abuse is limited. I will shortly launch a public consultation on student visas. I will consult on restricting entry to only those studying at degree level, but with some flexibility for highly trusted sponsors to offer courses at a lower level. I will also consult on closing the post-study route, which last year allowed some 38,000 foreign graduates to enter the UK labour market at a time when one in 10 UK graduates were unemployed. Last year, the family route accounted for nearly 20% of non-EU immigration. Clearly, British nationals must be able to marry the person of their choice, but those who come to the UK must be able to participate in society. From next week, we will require all those applying for marriage visas to demonstrate a minimum standard of English. We are also cracking down on sham marriages, and will consult on extending the probationary period of settlement for spouses beyond the current two years. Finally, we need to restrict settlement. It cannot be right that people coming to fill temporary skills gaps have open access to permanent settlement. Last year, 62,000 people settled in the UK on that basis. Settling in Britain should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in, so we will end the link between temporary and permanent migration. I intend to introduce these changes to the work route and some of the settlement changes from April 2011. I will bring forward other changes soon after. This is a comprehensive package that will help us to meet our 23 Nov 2010 : Column 171 goal of reducing net migration, at the same time as attracting the brightest and the best, and those with the skills our country needs. This package will serve the needs of British business, it will respond to the wishes of the British public, and it will give us the sustainable immigration system that we so badly need. Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): Let me start by thanking the Home Secretary for the-rather late-advance sight of her statement, for coming to the House this afternoon in person, and for clarifying the confusion caused by the misleading leak of the contents of her statement to the BBC this morning. The Home Secretary is right to say that migration has made, and continues to make, a vital contribution to the economic vibrancy, business strength and vitality of our country. She is also right to say that it is essential for migration to be properly controlled, for reasons of economic well-being and social cohesion. But the question is: how? The Labour Government put in place transitional controls on EU migration, a suspension of unskilled work permits, a tough but flexible points system to manage skilled migration, and tighter regulation of overseas students. They closed 140 bogus colleges, and imposed new citizenship requirements on those seeking settlement. At the general election, the leader of the Conservative party proposed to go further in two key respects. First, he proposed a new target to reduce net migration to the "tens of thousands by 2015." To meet that target, he pledged a cap on immigration, which he said would be tougher than the points system. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party said: "We can't come up with promises like caps which don't work". He then agreed to the cap in the coalition agreement. Since then, the Government have been in wholesale retreat, and today they are in wholesale confusion over this policy. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, universities, Nobel prize winners, and UK and foreign companies-large and small-have all highlighted the huge damage that the Government's proposals would do to investment and jobs. The Home Affairs Committee and the Migration Advisory Committee have said that the proposed cap applies to only 20% of non-EU migration. As a result, we have had the unedifying sight of the Prime Minister hinting at concession after concession-in the face, we read, of opposition from the Home Secretary, thanks to the excellent public lobbying and guerrilla tactics of the Business Secretary, who, sadly, is not in his place this afternoon. In his use of such tactics, he is less Stalin and more Trotsky-and certainly not Mr Bean. Today the Home Secretary has come to the House to confirm the details of the retreat. We will keep a close eye on her proposals to see how they affect business and science. None the less, we join business representatives in welcoming her decision to exempt intra-company transfers of workers. What has caused confusion is this morning's briefing to the BBC that the total cap would be 42,700 work permits. Her officials then had to clarify the fact that there is no such cap on that scale. She has now said that she will allow 21,700 tier 1 and tier 2 work permits, but with no cap on migration caused by intra-company transfers. If the number of intra-company 23 Nov 2010 : Column 172 transfers goes up, will she put in place an offsetting cut in tier 1 and tier 2 work permits? If not, and I very much hope that she will not, will she confirm that her supposed cap is a con, a guess and a fig leaf-in fact, no cap at all? The permanent secretary revealed today that 9,000 jobs will be lost from the Home Office, the bulk of which will be from the UK Border Agency. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she can implement the policy that she has outlined today, and keep our borders secure, with those cuts? On family reunification she had nothing new to say-no target-and on overseas students she announced no action, just another consultation. I have learned in the past few weeks that it is a mistake to ask the right hon. Lady a long list of questions, but there is one question to which it is vital that she should give an answer this afternoon: is it still the objective of the Prime Minister and the Government to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015? In her statement she repeated the goal, but she omitted to put a date on it. Will she reaffirm the 2015 promise? In recent months-on VAT and tuition fees-the Deputy Prime Minister has got into a habit of breaking pre-election promises. Can the Home Secretary reassure us that the Prime Minister has not caught the same disease? This is a simple question. Is the "tens of thousands" pledge still binding by 2015-yes or no? Mrs May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response. During the Labour leadership campaign, he said: "as many of us found in the election, our arguments on immigration were not good enough." Listening to him today, I realised that Labour's arguments on immigration are still not good enough. He made a number of claims about what the Labour Government did on immigration, including the claim that they introduced transitional controls when new member states entered the EU. I seem to remember that when the first tranche of new member states entered the EU, that is precisely what they did not do, despite every blandishment from the Conservatives to encourage them. The right hon. Gentleman then said that the previous Government took action on the points-based system limits. I accept that, but what happened? They closed tier 3 of the points-based system of entry into the UK, but nothing else, so when tier 3 shut down, the number of student visas went up by tens of thousands. That is why this Government know that when we deal with one part of the immigration system, we must act across the whole of it. I made the figures for the tier 1 and tier 2 caps that we are introducing absolutely clear in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the UK Border Agency could manage the cuts and keep our borders secure with the changes in personnel that will be made, and the answer to that, unequivocally, is: yes, it can. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm what I said in my statement, which is that we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands-[Hon. Members: "When? By 2015?"] If he is to criticise the Government's plans on immigration, the right hon. Gentleman must have a plan. So far he does not even have an immigration spokesman, let alone an immigration policy. The British people, who according to his own words felt that Labour 23 Nov 2010 : Column 173 was no longer on their side and no longer stood up for them on immigration, will not listen to him until he has an immigration plan. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): If the cap is set too low-in other words, at a level that stops UK businesses creating wealth and jobs-or too high, how quickly can it be adjusted, and how will the adjustment process work? Mrs May: We are confident in the work that we have done, and in the fact that we have got the cap-and, crucially, the changes to policy-right. The announcement is about not just the figure, but the change in policy. The Migration Advisory Committee will undertake an annual review, so it will be able to advise the Government on what the figure should be in future, after considering how behaviour has adapted to the policy changes that we are introducing. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): The right hon. Lady says, "We will end the link between temporary and permanent migration." How can temporary migrants, whether spouses or workers, earn permanent settlement? Mrs May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she gives me the opportunity to say that we will be making initial changes to the settlement proposals, but that we also intend to consult more fully on exactly how we will introduce changes to settlement more widely. The initial changes will relate to the language requirements, but we will also look at the salary levels required for a sponsor to bring somebody in for settlement, and at the criminality thresholds. Those are the immediate issues that we will consider. I also intend to ask the Migration Advisory Committee to do some more work on changing the settlement requirements in the longer term. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration on this admirable programme and the excellent start made. May I press her a little further on the breaking of the link between settlement and people coming here to work temporarily? At what stage does she expect to introduce the measures necessary to achieve that? Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and echo his thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for his sterling work. We are keen to look at these other routes, particularly the settlement route, as well as at the other aspects, and over the coming months, as I indicated in response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), we will be asking the Migration Advisory Committee to consider the matter so that we can introduce the changes. I hesitate to put an absolute date on that, but I hope that we will be able to announce something next year. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): The Home Secretary is more famous for her footwear than her headgear, but may I welcome the exemptions to the cap that she has announced today? The Home Affairs Committee made recommendations on intra-company transfers and elite scientists, and this is the right approach for the immigration policy that the Government have decided to pursue. On 23 Nov 2010 : Column 174 students, however, she will not be able to tackle the issue of bogus colleges unless she accepts a previous recommendation by the Committee to restrict the use of the word "college". It is because this word continues to be used that people enter this country and pursue non-educational courses. Will she please look into that? Will she also examine how the whole administration of the immigration system operates in relation to illegal immigration? Mrs May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. His turn of phrase encourages me to enjoy my time in front of the Home Affairs Committee when that happy occasion next comes around. He also made a serious point about his Committee's past recommendations on this issue. We will certainly look at his specific suggestion. We need to consider a number of ways of ensuring that students coming to the UK are genuinely coming as students and to institutions properly offering an education and providing a qualification. This is not just about the immigration system, but about the reputation of the UK, because we do not want people to come here thinking they are coming to a college on an educational course, but then find that they have come to something quite different. Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I generally welcome my right hon. Friend's statement-but on EU migration, are we not in danger of ignoring the lessons of the past six years, when we imported more than 1 million low-wage and low-skilled workers, despite having 5 million of our own citizens on out-of-work benefits? Will she also explain why importing highly skilled workers is practical, when we have record numbers of UK and British graduates who could and should do those jobs? Mrs May: My hon. Friend is right about the need to ensure that people in the UK are skilled enough to take up the work available. The figures show that EU-UK immigration and emigration numbers have broadly balanced out, and that net migration is coming predominantly from outside the EU. Our immigration policy has to fit in closely with the skills agenda that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary announced last week. On occasions, however, there will be highly skilled workers with a specialism that a British company needs-in areas such as the energy sector, for example-and it is right for Britain to be open for business, and for us to allow companies to grow by introducing those workers into the UK. Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Given the views that were so robustly expressed during the general election campaign, I welcome, on behalf of many of my constituents, the Home Secretary's statement. Will she bear in mind another of their views, which is that they are now aware that the population of this country is primarily pushed by immigration? Will she tell us more certainly when she will return to the House to give a statement on breaking the link between coming here to work, which is often welcome, and almost automatically getting the right to citizenship? Mrs May: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments, and for his work, with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), on settlement 23 Nov 2010 : Column 175 in the UK. They have both done a lot of important work in highlighting the issue. I am afraid that I will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman in not being able to give him a date when I will come to the House, but I assure him that I will do so in due course, to show how we will be able to change that route. As he said, the British public were absolutely clear that the Government should do something about this matter. They saw a Labour Government who did not do anything about immigration. We are a Government who will deliver for the British people. Several hon. Members rose - Mr Speaker: Order. A great many Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I should like to accommodate as many as possible, so brevity from the Back Benches and the Front Benches alike is required. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. She correctly mentioned student visas, and then mentioned consultation. Given that we have had 10 years of almost mass immigration, will she assure the House that that consultation will be swift? Mrs May: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will issue that consultation very shortly, and that we want to be in a position to make changes to student visas next spring. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The immigration cap may be designed for the south of England, but it definitely does not fit Scotland. Does the right hon. Lady not even start to understand and appreciate that Scotland has a different range of population and demographic issues? How can immigration caps possibly help Scotland, which is suffering from structural depopulation? Mrs May: This proposal will help all parts of the United Kingdom, because it does two crucial things. It meets the British people's need to see us controlling our immigration system, but it does so in a way that will enable business to bring in skilled workers. Many businesses in Scotland have spoken to us about the need to bring in skilled workers-in the energy sector, for example-and I believe that they will welcome our decision today. Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Specifically on the energy industries, on which so many jobs in my constituency depend, I welcome the flexibility and movement. Will the Home Secretary assure those industries that small companies in the supply chain will not face too bureaucratic a process for tier 2 applications, and that intra-company transfers will not be so time-limited as to make projects impossible to deliver? Mrs May: I am happy to give the comfort that my hon. Friend asks for. Indeed, we will look at the administrative process for tier 2 applications to ensure that they involve as little bureaucracy as possible, with small companies particularly in mind. I hope that he will see some benefits from that. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 176 Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): I wonder how many of us would be sitting here today, if in the 20th century our parents and grandparents had had to go through the sieve that the Home Secretary is putting in place to slow down the number of people coming to the UK. Does she agree, and will she say so more strongly, that the arrival of 10% of the English population in the form of Huguenots enriched Britain, that Jews who came here enriched Britain, and that Muslims and Pakistanis in my constituency have enriched Britain, and will she be very careful before she gives any comfort to Migrationwatch, the British National party and the United Kingdom Independence party, and their horrible anti-immigrant line? Mrs May: I have to say that several of the groups that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned came here as refugees, and we are not talking about the asylum system today. We do need to examine the operation of our asylum system to ensure that it operates swiftly in the interests not only of the UK, but of those who are seeking asylum. However, that is not what we are debating today. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Hon. Members will be delighted that the Home Secretary has announced this policy to the House first, and that the BBC was so wonderfully misinformed this morning. In Wellingborough, immigration is the No. 1 issue, but my constituents are more concerned about people coming from the European Union. I wonder how that question is going to be addressed. Mrs May: Unlike the last Labour Government, we have been absolutely clear that, for any new member states entering the European Union, we would apply transitional controls. Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): Are not these proposals a damp squib that will have no real impact on the number of people coming to Britain? Bearing in mind that the Government have already ruled out EU migrants, intra-company transfers, students, sportsmen and women and anyone in the arts, who is left? Mrs May: Labour Members really are going to have to get their story in order as to exactly what they want to do on immigration. We want to ensure that Britain is open for business and that we can bring in skilled workers, which we will be doing, but that we can put in a cap that enables us to reduce net migration into this country. That is what the British people want, and it is what this coalition Government will deliver. Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): May I welcome the statement as representing a constructive way forward? Does the Minister agree that foreign students should leave the country and reapply if they want to change their course or apply for a work permit? Mrs May: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. One of the issues around students relates to those who come here to study one course and then move from course to course in order to be able to stay here. We will be looking at that issue in the consultation, and I can assure him that the proposal he has just made is exactly the kind of thing that will be in the consultation. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 177 Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): The Home Secretary has suggested that there might be some concessions for those involved in the fishing industry. By and large, I welcome the proposals put forward today, but she has mentioned a concession of a year until September 2011 in regard to work permits for Filipino fisherman. Would she be prepared to consider extending that arrangement for another year, given that the fishing industry feels that it cannot do without it? Mrs May: I think that we will have to look at that matter again closer to the September 2011 deadline. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the more exceptions to the rules that people claim, the less effective the overall rules will be. We are absolutely clear that, within the rules that we have set, there are groups of very specialist workers. A number of issues have been raised with me about people with very particular skills who are needed by certain industries, and who we believe can come in, within the routes that we are setting out. Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): Tony Blair's adviser once said that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to "a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural". Can the Home Secretary confirm today that so-called social objectives are no longer acceptable as a reason for immigration, and that it should be based instead on the economic benefits that immigrants can bring to this country? Mrs May: As I said at the beginning of my statement, controlled migration can benefit this country economically, socially and culturally, but we are absolutely clear, in looking at the routes into the country for economic migrants, that the people who are coming in will bring a genuine economic benefit to the UK. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): Does the £40,000 figure for intra-company transfers refer only to salaries or to salaries plus benefits? Mrs May: In line with current arrangements, there will be some allowance for allowances. Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): Immigration from Ireland to the UK has doubled from 7,000 to 14,000 as the euro crisis has developed. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as well as having a legal right to come, those young people will be welcomed to our shores, and that we will continue to create the jobs that they need? Mrs May: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that will be in many people's minds, given the situation in Ireland at the moment. Of course, movement is available within the European Union area, and movement from Ireland into the UK has been long standing. Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): What procedures and resources will be available for enforcing these proposals, given that one of the problems, under successive Governments, has been people overstaying when their visa has expired? 23 Nov 2010 : Column 178 Mrs May: One of the issues that we will look at among specific groups, such as students, is the number of people who overstay. That is one of the problems and abuses of the system, but, unlike the previous Labour Government, the current Government are committed-in addition to what we are doing on immigration-to proper UK border controls, through our work to ensure a UK border force. Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): May I warmly welcome the sensible decisions that my right hon. Friend has taken? Does she agree that, although the economic migration that she intends to permit is clearly of benefit to the nation, a population pushed up to 70 million is not? That is the inheritance she faced, on official figures, from the policies of the Labour party. Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that, if we take no action, the numbers of net migrants to the UK are likely to continue to be about 200,000 a year. We think that we need to do something about that, which is why we are introducing the package today and will be introducing further measures on other routes of entry. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): English language schools in my constituency contribute more than £100 million to the local economy, yet they face real difficulties because of the uncertainty surrounding the student visa system. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a cost-benefit analysis to the UK economy of overseas students who study at our schools is carried out? What words of reassurance can she give to bona fide language schools that there will be a swift resolution to the issue? Mrs May: A number of hon. Members from all parts of the House with English language schools in their constituencies have raised the question of such schools. We take the issue very seriously, and one aspect of the student visas consultation will be aimed specifically at such schools and how we can introduce to the system some changes that will benefit them. Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which will be welcomed in my constituency by people of all backgrounds and political persuasions. In particular, I welcome the exemption for wealth creators and the re-focusing of tier 1 on eminent scientists. Will she tell the House a little more about how the 1,000 limit will work? Mrs May: We are finalising the details of exactly how the 1,000 limit will work. We are also considering a role for bodies, such as research councils, in confirming those people who would be of benefit. We want to include not just those who are at a point in their career when they are known to be great scientists, artists and so forth, but also exceptionally talented people who are at the beginning of their careers. Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): The Home Secretary says that the aim is to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. Will she specify when she intends to do so? I thought I heard 23 Nov 2010 : Column 179 her say 2015, but doing that while slashing the border agency staff who need to do the job of policing is not going to wash with the British public. Mrs May: I had answered the point about what I said in relation to tens of thousands, and I answered the shadow Home Secretary's point about the UK Border Agency. As I said, we will be able to deliver the policy through the agency, and we will be able to ensure that the agency can deliver on its requirements, and we as a Government are committed to reinforcing our border security by introducing a border police command in the new national crime agency. Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): There are many approved, well-established and highly reputable English language schools in my constituency. I support much of the statement's content, but I am profoundly concerned about any further delay in sorting the problem with people coming to the UK to study English at such schools. I urge the Home Secretary to agree to meet me, a cross-party delegation of MPs and the Immigration Minister as soon as possible, because many companies and businesses in Eastbourne and throughout the UK are suffering badly. I urge her to grant me that opportunity. Mrs May: I am well aware that my hon. Friend has made significant representations on that point, as have other Members. Indeed, I believe he has already met the Immigration Minister. I would be happy to meet a group of MPs to discuss the matter, and, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we are very well aware of the point, which has been well made by many Members. We are conscious of the economic benefits of English language schools and some of their very specific issues with particular students from particular countries. We are looking at how we can address that issue in our student visa proposals, but I would be happy to meet a group of MPs. Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I agree entirely with the need to take swift removal action against people who overstay their work or student visa entitlement, but this country has a problem with people who have overstayed for many decades and have given birth to children who are now adults. Can anything be done to regularise their situation so that they can go into legitimate employment without having to go through all the same hurdles and costs of applying for citizenship that others do? This represents a real barrier for those people. Mrs May: We inherited the legacy programme from the last Government and had to deal with a significant backlog of cases, some of which related to people who have lived here for many years. Their cases had simply not been tackled with the right and proper degree of speediness. As the chief executive of the UK Border Agency confirmed to the Home Affairs Select Committee, we aim to finish that legacy programme by next summer. Looking to the future, we need to ensure that we do not get into the situation again of allowing people to come here and making them wait many years for an answer from the Government as to whether or not they can stay. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 180 Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): It is a disgrace that last year 1,600 visas were granted to people who wanted to work in care homes when there are 33,000 care workers claiming jobseeker's allowance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a kick in the teeth for those unemployed care workers, proving that her proposals are exactly the right policy to introduce? Mrs May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is the right policy for us to introduce. Many people, not just care workers, are unemployed, yet they have to see care workers being brought in from overseas. Of the many graduates in the UK, one in 10 are unemployed six months after their graduation. Last year, however, I believe that 38,000 overseas students stayed here after their graduation to work in the UK. We need to deal with that and we also need to ensure that we get the skills training right for people in the UK. The action we have taken on immigration today is not just an indictment of the last Labour Government's failure to do something about the problem, but is also a very sad commentary on their failure to deliver a proper skills agenda for the UK. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): May I press the Home Secretary on the issue of language courses? I am thinking particularly of Sheffield International college in my constituency. With its 1,000 students, it plays an important role in the local economy and as a feeder institution helping students to proceed on to our two universities. All that makes an enormous economic contribution. Mrs May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for echoing the importance of this issue, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). As I said, I am happy to meet a group of MPs to discuss English language schools. We know how important that issue is and we are looking to address it through consultation. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and tell her that my constituents will welcome the move away from expressing rhetoric about British jobs for British workers towards taking substantive action? Nevertheless, many people in Harlow will be concerned that their jobs are being given away, particularly by big companies like the major supermarkets, to temporary migrant workers. Will my right hon. Friend set out how her measures will help this situation? Mrs May: I believe that our measures will help because they will tighten up the provisions to ensure that the people who come into this country under either tier 1 or tier 2 are the skilled workers that companies need, not those coming here to do low-skill jobs. We will also tighten up on the intra-company transfers route through the salary threshold so that that route is available, as it was always intended to be, for senior managers and people with specialist skills rather than for people doing low-skill jobs. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): May I concur with what has already been said about the position facing English language schools? It 23 Nov 2010 : Column 181 is a difficult position and it needs to be addressed urgently. This country is already losing custom as it goes to other countries-we are not the only country where English is spoken-so I urge the Home Secretary to do something about the problem quickly. Otherwise, areas like mine, where English language schools contribute significantly to the local economy, will suffer. Mrs May: There may be other hon. Members who wish to raise the issue of English language schools from their constituency viewpoint. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have to others, that we are well aware of this issue and we are looking to address it as we deal with student visas. Although many English language schools offer a very good product and are of significant economic benefit to the UK, I also need to point out that this sector of the economy is not completely free from abuse. Sadly, some schools do damage to others by setting themselves up as English language schools and then not offering the right services. Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does she agree that as well as controlling immigration, we should do more to ensure that those who settle here and integrate with us respect our culture, traditions and values, and make greater efforts to learn our language? Mrs May: I think it is important for people who come to live here in the United Kingdom to be able to participate in society. That is why next week we are introducing an English language test for those who wish to come here to join a spousal partner. I think it only sensible for someone who is coming to live here to be able to speak English, and thence to participate in society. Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the statement in general terms, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. There is still uncontrolled migration from the European Union, certainly to my constituency, into which have come a substantial number of unskilled and semi-skilled European workers who are undercutting the unemployed work force. What steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure that some curbs are placed on those people? Mrs May: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He has a record of having taken a rather different view from the Front Bench Members of his party when it was in government. As I have made clear and as the figures show, the vast majority of net migration is from outside the European Union. The flows into and out of the country of British and EU citizens balance out, and have done so for the past few years. As for the future, the Government have made it absolutely clear that if there are any new member states, we will exercise transitional controls. Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many British workers in the IT industry are very concerned about losing their jobs as a result of intra-company transfers? 23 Nov 2010 : Column 182 Can she reassure them that she will crack down on the abuse of the system that has been witnessed by some IT companies? Mrs May: As I said in my statement and have said in response to a number of questions, we are tightening the rules relating to tier 2 entry to the United Kingdom, as well as those relating to intra-company transfers. We will ensure that those who come here really are the skilled and highly skilled workers who are needed. However, my hon. Friend's point echoes one made by a number of other Members about the need to ensure that businesses in the United Kingdom seek the skills that are available here. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I should hate to misrepresent the Home Secretary. To avoid confusion, will she tell us whether she will reduce net migration to tens of thousands by 2015-or has she just dropped the Government's specific commitment to that date? Mrs May: We have been absolutely clear about our aim in regard to net migration, and we made it absolutely clear in the coalition agreement that we were committed to introducing an annual limit on non-EU economic migration. That is what we are doing today. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: I call Paul Uppal. [Interruption.] Order. I am quite worried about Opposition Front Benchers. They are in a state of quite extraordinary excitement, but I want to hear Mr Uppal. Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Immigration cases take up most of the case load at my weekly surgery, particularly during the summer months, when the wedding season and many other family occasions take place. Will the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), consider pinning down responsibility for sponsorship when people come here to visit their families on such occasions? That would tackle head-on the problem of absconding, fraud and overstaying. The last Labour Government examined the matter when immigration was an issue, but they ducked it and chose not to do anything about it. Mrs May: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. When we consider the issue of family visas, we will be happy to accept representations from him on that and any other ideas that he may have. Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Will the Home Secretary say more about how she believes that the needs of particular sectors of the economy, and the pressures on them, can be properly respected and responded to within the new annual limits? Is a regional dimension built into any of the Government's proposals? We know that before the election the Liberal Democrats spoke of huge regional issues relating to immigration. Does the new regime take any account of the needs of, and the pressures on, particular regions? Mrs May: The proposals I am setting out today apply to immigration policy across the United Kingdom. To respond to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am confident 23 Nov 2010 : Column 183 that the needs of particular sectors will be met through our changes to tier 1, tier 2 and the intra-company transfer route. We have listened very carefully to business, and the CBI recently said it thought that "a workable...solution would encompass...protection of sponsored work permit numbers as a priority ahead of those without a job offer", which we have done. The CBI also said that by "prioritising the demand-led part of the system-Tier 2-in this manner the government will be able to deliver on its goal of reducing net migration without damaging business", which, again, is exactly what we have done. Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): I welcome the statement. Does the Home Secretary agree that the UK economy's dependence on skilled labour from abroad highlights two of the starkest failures under the last Government: the promotion of welfare dependency, and the failure to improve skills and training? Mrs May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is important that we see the policies announced in the statement in the context of our welfare reform policy, the Work programme to be brought in next year, and the Business Secretary's proposed skills agenda, which he introduced in a White Paper last week. Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): During last Thursday's immigration debate, the Home Secretary's departmental colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said: "We therefore aim to reduce net migration to the levels of the 1990s-tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, each year by the end of this Parliament."-[ Official Report, 18 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 1120.] The end of this Parliament will, of course, be in 2015. May I offer the Home Secretary another opportunity to confirm categorically that that is still her Government's policy this week? Mrs May: I say to the hon. Lady that it is the position- [Interruption.] Listen very carefully. I will say this only once: we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament. Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): Returning to the issue of student visas, we have quite a few boarding schools in West Worcestershire, such as Malvern college, St Michael's college in Tenbury Wells and Malvern St James college, which attract students from all around the world. They are highly trusted sponsors, but they are already finding that the system is slowing them down. Can the Home Secretary reassure these colleges that the process will become faster? Mrs May: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While we are consulting on focusing the student visa route on universities, further education colleges and degree level courses, highly trusted sponsors will be able to offer courses at below degree level, and I would expect that the schools to which my hon. Friend has referred would be able to continue to offer courses because, as she says, they are highly trusted sponsors. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 184 Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Two months ago, UK executives at Toyota told me of the benefits for their company and the wider British economy of the transfer of knowledge and skills through intra-company transfers. Will the Home Secretary publish the economic analysis that I am sure she has performed of the impact on growth and output of restricting intra-company transfers of longer than 12 months to those on salaries of more £40,000? Mrs May: I gave some figures in my statement, and I am also happy to be able to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration met representatives from Toyota to discuss their particular needs, and I understand that they were comfortable with our proposals. Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): I congratulate the Home Secretary on having the grit and determination to introduce this important proposal. She rightly pointed out the kinds of abuse we saw under the previous Government in respect of programmes such as the student visa scheme, which meant that many people were here who should not have been. What measures are her Department taking to ensure that those who are here illegally are removed-and removed quickly? Mrs May: We are considering the measures that could be taken against those colleges or so-called colleges that just enable students to come here to work and then stay on, rather than be removed. As I said in answer to a number of other hon. Members who raised this or similar issues, this Government are committed to strengthening our borders through the border police command within the national crime agency. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. I just hope that the consultations do not take too long and that the whole House will have an opportunity to debate all these issues in detail, probably with an immigration Bill. Given the rampant abuse of tourist, student, work and family visas, is it not time that an incentive is provided for those tempted to overstay or those who have overstayed by saying that they can return to their country of origin voluntarily or be barred from re-entering this country for at least 20 years? That would be an incentive that would work. Mrs May: I think I will take that as my hon. Friend's contribution to our consultation exercise on student visas. Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): I congratulate the Home Secretary on this statement. The shadow Home Secretary has apparently admitted in the media that the Labour party, when in government, made a mistake in 2004 by not applying transitional controls to enlargement of the European Union then. Ed Balls indicated assent. Michael Ellis: I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that such transitional controls will be applied to any further enlargements of the European Union? 23 Nov 2010 : Column 185 Mrs May: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment on any future new member states entering the European Union. I am fascinated that the shadow Home Secretary stood up in response to my statement and claimed that the previous Government had introduced all these transitional controls, yet now we hear that he says they made a mistake in not doing this properly. Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will go a long way towards assuaging the concerns of my constituents. They are not so worried about business people being here for two or three years; they are worried about the permanent settlement that automatically seems to be granted when someone has lived here for four years. Can she give further assurances about the criminality aspect, because that is another great concern in my constituency? Mrs May: We are indeed looking at the criminality criteria for entering in order to tighten them up; we want to look at people's records when considering who can enter the UK. We think that that is an important element that we should be looking at, and I know that the issue has concerned a number of people. Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): Has the Home Secretary made an estimate of the number of sham marriages, particularly those to EU migrants to the UK? What further measures will she take to deter this and punish those responsible? Mrs May: I do not have an estimate of the number of sham marriages, but I am happy to say to my hon. 23 Nov 2010 : Column 186 Friend that the UK Border Agency was very active in stopping sham marriages over the summer; we had a very big crackdown on them. Many people were concerned and surprised to see that a Church of England vicar was caught and arrested for helping sham marriages to take place. Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): Last and most certainly least, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does she agree that, although the large-scale import of cheap labour may keep the lid on wage price inflation, it also keeps a lid on productivity because business men who feel that they can import cheap labour are less incentivised to be productive? Does she agree that that is not a competitive model and that the Government should not turn a blind eye to businesses that try to import cheap labour? Mrs May: I have said in some of my conversations with businesses that it is important that they look to ensure that they encourage and provide the training for skills growth and development here in the UK. That is important, as it is in the UK's interests, the individual's interests and the interests of those businesses. Mr Speaker: I must thank the Home Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation, as a result of which in 40 minutes of Back-Bench time we managed to get through 44 Back-Bench questions and answers. It shows what can be done when we put our minds to it. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Excellent chairing. Mr Speaker: Well, I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his unfailing support and I heard what he said. __________________________________________________________________ Next Section Index Home Page * A-Z index * Glossary * Contact us * Freedom of Information * Jobs * Using this website * Copyright