§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. David Blunkett)With permission, Mr. Speaker I wish to make a statement on nationality, immigration and asylum.
Last October I informed the House of the new strategic direction for that crucial area. Today I am publishing a White Paper to be followed by legislation in this Session.
Significant progress has already been made. The first induction centre was opened on 22 January in Dover. Registration cards were launched last week and are now being issued to new asylum seekers. We have launched the highly skilled migrant programme. New border security controls are in place, following my announcement on 19 September. As of last week, asylum seekers are no longer being held in prison. I confirm that vouchers will be replaced by cash by the autumn, together with action against fraud and the development of a more robust, faster and efficient system.
The White Paper takes forward our agenda by offering an holistic and comprehensive approach to nationality, managed immigration and asylum that recognises the inter-relationship of each element in the system. No longer will we treat asylum seekers in isolation or fail to recognise that there must be alterative routes to entry into this country.
Our policies must command trust, confidence and respect from the wider community. The British people demand coherence in policy and efficiency in administration.
Our starting point has been the development of a sense of belonging and community. Confidence in our identity and citizenship allows us to welcome those who come to the UK as refugees or legal migrants more readily.
I confirm that, to give new meaning and value to the acquisition of British nationality, we will introduce a number of key reforms: there will be new light-touch arrangements to ensure that those who take on nationality have the language skills and basic knowledge of our society that are needed to contribute fully; there will be ceremonies at which the confirmation of citizenship can be celebrated; and we will modernise the oath of allegiance to provide new wording to make clear the fundamental rights and duties of citizenship. That will be a citizenship pledge.
The White Paper sets out the routes by which men and women can work legitimately in this country. In today's global economy, that is crucial both to our competitiveness and prosperity.
My new proposals include the development of routes for seasonal or short-term casual working; consultation on reform to the working holidaymakers scheme to make it less restrictive; and enabling students graduating in the UK to switch into the work permit scheme.
This White Paper sets out an end-to-end revision of the asylum system. The new process will track and support asylum seekers from induction, through reporting and accommodation, to removal or integration.
Work has started on the new trial accommodation centres which will be mandatory for those designated asylum seekers who are claiming public support. The 1028 centres will offer education, health care and legal and interpreting services. Opportunities for volunteering and other purposeful activities will also be available, as will appropriate language support.
For those refused asylum, secure removal centres will enable us to protect the integrity of the system through early removal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is nice to have the support of the Opposition in such large numbers. I hope that the consensus continues.
Without an agreed and legitimate route for asylum seekers to enter this country, it has been inevitable that men and women desperate to seek refuge would put their lives at risk. That is why I am announcing today that we will set up the new gateway for those seeking to settle in Britain. This will be operated under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Legitimate refugees who come via this gateway will no longer have to attempt a hazardous journey across the channel. This will be a major step in regularising legitimate entry alongside our managed economic migration programme.
In addition, to secure a robust foundation on which we can build, I intend to undertake a full comprehensive audit of existing asylum claimants. Longstanding cases will receive urgent attention.
The White Paper also sets out substantial changes to the whole asylum appeals process. Far too many appeals and judicial reviews are designed to delay and frustrate. I am therefore announcing today that we will simplify the one-stop appeals process; set closure dates for appeal hearings to stop multiple adjournments; and make the Immigration Appeal Tribunal a superior court of record.
In addition, we will increase the capacity of the adjudication system by 50 per cent., to a total of 6,000 a month, during the course of this year; and we will expand the number of removal places to 4,000.
I can also confirm that I intend to close Campsfield House. This outdated centre is no longer appropriate in the 21st century. These places will be transferred to the new high-standard removal centres.
My reforms will protect fundamental rights, stop abuse of the system, and enable more effective administration and processing of claims. Those working in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be able to do their job more effectively, and I expect both greater productivity and efficiency.
Let us be in no doubt. We need to reduce the pull factor by clamping down on both clandestine entry and illegal working.
The Proceeds of Crime Bill will ensure that we can seize the assets of criminals involved in smuggling and trafficking people. In addition, the maximum penalty for those facilitating illegal entry will be raised to 14 years.
I can also announce that we will legislate to tackle trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That will be a stepping stone to more wide-ranging legislation dealing with sexual exploitation. In addition, together with our European and international partners, we will introduce tougher border controls and step up action.
A high-level steering group of business and trade union leaders will be established to take forward proposals to tackle illegal working; and, as I announced on Tuesday, we intend to launch a consultation on entitlement cards to be published in the spring or early summer. I want to 1029 avoid misunderstanding should such a card be agreed, failure to carry it would not be a criminal offence. That should allay fears as regards stop and search.
Alongside those measures, we will act against the worrying practice of fraudulent marriages. We will increase the probationary period from one to two years; consult on a new non-switching provision to prevent people from applying to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage, after entering through a different category; and encourage communities with a culture of arranged marriages to look to those already resident in the United Kingdom.
Finally, I know that the rules on family visitor visas have been a cause of great concern to hon. Members. I have an open mind on how best to improve the system—not least for those seeking urgent entry on occasions such as bereavement. The Government would thus welcome ideas on how best to provide guarantees or bonds. That might be undertaken not simply by individuals or families, but by the provision of a community bond. I realise that we have to get that right, so I encourage positive suggestions on the best way to proceed.
Our future social cohesion, economic prosperity and integrity depend on how well we rise to the global challenge of mass migration, communication and flight from persecution. We have a history of trade and migration that has brought us wealth and prosperity over the centuries.
Nevertheless, building trust and confidence to secure the support of the British people is essential. By doing that, we can create a country that is open to skills and enterprise, but not to exploitation. This is a Britain with a balanced approach to nationality and migration—a country of which all of us can be proud.
§ Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)I thank the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in letting us see the statement and the White Paper in advance.
Some months ago, when the Home Secretary first made a statement about his proposals for changing the UK's asylum arrangements, I responded that the aim of the Conservative party—like that of the Government—is to see the establishment of an asylum system that is humane, effective and fair; that rapidly provides a safe home for the innocent victims of persecution; and that, at the same time, prevents the asylum system being misused as a means of evading our immigration rules. I have since reiterated that position, and I re-state it today. We welcome unreservedly the fact that the Home Secretary is genuinely trying to make those joint aims a reality.
May I gently urge that, in future, when the Home Secretary has such interesting and important proposals, he restrain himself—if that is humanly possible—from using partial leaks of his White Papers to the media as a way of announcing the proposals? I recognise the temptation, but the interests of rational debate in this country will be best served in the long run if we are all able to discuss the full statement that we have all heard on the basis of a White Paper that at least some of us have had the opportunity to read.
When the Home Secretary made his initial statement, many questions were necessarily left unanswered. Some of them have been answered in the White Paper. We welcome the increase in the capacity of the adjudication system, the new UNHCR gateway—a 1030 massive improvement—and the news in the White Paper that there will be health care and interpretation facilities in the accommodation centres.
At least at a first reading, however, some of the questions remain unanswered. It is not clear in the White Paper whether the accommodation centres will, in practice, normally provide legal assistance on site, still less whether decision makers and adjudicators will be available on the spot. We remain uncertain whether the residence requirement set out in paragraph 4.37 of the White Paper will really be enforceable on the basis of entitlement to benefits, given the fact that many asylum seekers do not take up benefits in any case. Will the Home Secretary undertake to let us have those critical details by the time that we come to debate the Bill?
In the months since the initial statement, we—like the Home Secretary and his ministerial team—have had time to reflect on the causes of the shambles that he has gallantly admitted to having inherited from his predecessor, the current Foreign Secretary.
As the Home Secretary will recognise from our recent debates, we are persuaded that a significant part of the problem faced by hard-working officials arises from the sheer weight of numbers, which is in part generated by the disproportion between the share of the burden borne by the UK and the share of the burden borne by France.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take this further opportunity to state a commitment to achieving the closure of Sangatte; a renegotiated bilateral agreement with France when that becomes possible—to take the right hon. Gentleman's point—after the French elections; and in due course, as he says in the White Paper, the replacement of the Dublin convention with some meaningful and effective arrangement for distributing the burden fairly around the EU and other European countries. Will the Home Secretary accept that, in the absence of such changes on the international front, it is highly unlikely that he will achieve the fulfilment of his, and of our, ambitions?
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)He's the Home Secretary's puppy.
§ Mr. LetwinThe hon. Gentleman chunters happily that I am the Home Secretary's puppet. That is presumably because he cannot understand the possibility that, as a matter of fact, there could be agreement about sensible measures and constructive opposition.
Turning from asylum to the related issue of economic migration, we note with interest the more detailed proposals, contained in the White Paper, to increase the rate of permitted economic migration. We join the Home Secretary, I hesitate to tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in believing that, in a crowded island, there are environmental and social reasons for limiting the rate of immigration, but we join the Home Secretary also in the acknowledgment that the British economy and British society have much to gain from a controlled inflow of talented and energetic people who seek to better their circumstances by setting to work and engaging as entrepreneurs in our society. We strongly welcome the Home Secretary's moves towards ensuring that all those entering the country as migrants should be proficient in English and should acquire an early understanding of our constitutional arrangements.
1031 We will look carefully and constructively at the details of the proposals put forward in the White Paper for the amendment of the immigration rules, and we anticipate an interesting and fruitful debate when the Bill comes before the House.
Although no one can doubt the work that has gone into the White Paper, will the Home Secretary agree that the proposals, both on asylum and on immigration, will ultimately be judged not by the nobility of the aspirations that they undoubtedly represent, but by their effectiveness in practice?
Can the Home Secretary tell us what targets and criteria he will now establish to enable the House to hold him to account two or three years hence? What does he expect then to be the speed with which asylum claims are processed? What does he regard as the then tolerable backlog? With what speed does he expect removals, where those are necessary, then to occur?
If the Home Secretary is willing to address the remaining practical questions relating to his measures, and if he is willing to state clearly what results his measures are designed to achieve, I believe that he will have the backing of the whole House in seeking to bring order out of his predecessor's chaos.
§ Mr. SkinnerCome on David, stroke him!
§ Mr. BlunkettI will do my own stroking in my own time.
I warmly welcome the approach of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on behalf of the official Opposition. I do hope that, despite continuing disagreements about particular detail, this will herald a new beginning in this country of not using asylum as a political football and not enabling the National Front and the British National party to make mischief with it. We all seek, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman seeks, to find solutions that balance the needs of this country and those who seek asylum and those of the British people and the confidence and security that they demand.
I take the little rap across the knuckles about what may or may not have emerged. I heard the hon. Gentleman—albeit for 20 seconds—on the "Today" programme this morning, so he was quite willing to respond, and I read with interest his Daily Express article before he came to the House on Monday, so we are all a little guilty of wanting to ensure the widest possible debate.
Yes, legal advice will be available in the accommodation centres. Yes, we will seek to provide a coherent way in which the adjudication process can be organised around the centres, which will speed the operation, cut the enormous cost of travel and the dislocation that occurs when appeals are cancelled by the Immigration Appellate Authority, not simply by the lawyers who represent those appellants. We will link the reporting centres—often mobile reporting centres—across the country, so that we can track and know where people live and where they are. In fact, entitlement to the new cash benefit will be dependent on them adhering to those facilities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the shambles. The shambles was inherited by my predecessor in May 1997—the shambles of the Siemens contract, which did not work 1032 badly; it did not work at all. There was the failure to introduce computerised fingerprinting, which we dealt with at the end of October, and the failure to have a system that balanced nationality and immigration with asylum. I pay tribute again to the work done by my predecessor and by the then Minister of State with responsibility for immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who worked very hard, including on developing the concept of economic migration.
Let us examine the international position and France. We talked about that on Monday, and the hon. Gentleman raises the issue again today. I explain, once again, that tolerated illegal presence in France is undoubtedly a problem. I cannot deal with that problem bilaterally in the months ahead, but the development of Dublin II in the European Union must address and overcome that problem. If we can do that alongside international moves in relation to border controls and while tackling head on, through economic development, the causes of economic migration and persecution in the source region—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing just that with the Chancellor—and by overcoming unacceptable regimes, as we have done in Afghanistan, we will reduce the flow of those who seek a better or safer life in other parts of the globe.
Finally, we welcome economic migration, but it will need to be controlled, and we will be able to achieve that more readily through the new routes that have been explained today. The hon. Gentleman asked me about a judgment of my performance and, by implication, that of those who work for and on behalf of the Home Office. I will, of course, hold them to account, and I will be held to account by Parliament. I shall set out in the Bill the way in which we will have legislative dates for implementation. Of course, I will have to negotiate further resources with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and therefore targets, such as those in the spending review this summer, will be determined at that date. But I am painfully aware that, if I am still in the job in three years' time, it will be me and no one else who will have to answer for the competence, effectiveness and activity of the service.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House will know that I have to protect the business of the House, so I appeal to hon. Members that, when they question the Home Secretary, they should ask one question, and one question alone.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)May I ask the Home Secretary about language restrictions on older people? Home Office records will show that Dr. Louis Pirouet of the Refugee Council, the late Dr. Max Perutz, who died yesterday, and I went to see Home Office officials on that very point. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the restrictions that might be imposed on those who are genuine refugees but who are too old to start learning a language?
§ Mr. BlunkettI hope that I can put my hon. Friend's mind at rest by stressing that we are talking about people who are seeking naturalisation—citizenship. Although, as I stressed on Radio 5, it is important not to exclude spouses or older women from language tuition, which has 1033 been the case because such tuition is currently not free for spouses, I accept my hon. Friend's point and will reflect on it as it relates to naturalisation. There is no problem with those seeking refugee status and wishing to remain here.
§ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I, too, welcome the White Paper and intend to make a constructive, and I hope positive, response. An holistic attitude to the interlinked issues will give us a better chance of getting things right this time compared with the hash made by Governments in the past nine years, once under a Labour Administration and twice under the Conservatives. I look forward to working on the details so that we get them right in the consultation period before legislation is introduced.
On citizenship, we welcome a preparation process, a pledge and a ceremony of citizenship. Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is open to proper and full consultation so that we get those right and obtain the agreement of the maximum the number of people to those steps in the process?
On asylum seekers, what are the implications in the White Paper for the number of people who will be in accommodation or induction centres, and how does that compare with those who will remain in dispersal programmes? What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that we get the decisions right in the first place so that they are not turned down on technical, as opposed to substantive, reasons, as is often the case? Are we going to reduce the huge number of people in detention to about the European Union average? Will those in detention have a right to apply for bail? Presumably judicial review will remain even though the system has changed. Will significant extra resources be available and will a target on the backlog be set?
Finally, in relation to migrants and asylum seekers, the Home Secretary will know that we greatly welcome the existence of legitimate routes from outside the country. Does he have a timetable according to which those are likely to be in place and any idea of the numbers? Will everyone in that position be given advice and support so that they can consider properly whether they will be accepted as asylum seekers rather than as economic migrants before they make an application for one or the other?
§ Mr. BlunkettIn view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and not because I cannot remember the questions, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. On the hon. Gentleman's most salient questions, let me say this. Everyone who is interested in the development of citizenship and language must be fully consulted; bail will continue to be available; and no restrictions will exist other than those that I set out in the White Paper in relation to judicial review. At this stage, we are not setting a target figure for the gateway. We need to ensure that we build up from what will inevitably be a low base.
§ Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West)I welcome the reconsideration of financial bonds for visitors, as will my constituents.
On the health care of people who enter the country, especially from those regions with poor immunisation records, I note that the accommodation centres will 1034 provide health care. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to deal with those who do not require public support and who will not, therefore, go through accommodation centres? What interim measures does he plan to introduce to encourage people to contact primary care authorities now for immunisation?
§ Mr. BlunkettI am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. All people who come from outside the country and claim asylum will have to appear at, and work through, the new induction centres. As we build those up rapidly during the course of the year, we will undertake health checks and carry out immunisation if appropriate.
§ Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)The White Paper makes it clear that the Government continue to regard Oakington immigration reception centre in my constituency as a key element of the processing of asylum applications, yet the Home Secretary will have known since October that Oakington is to be the site of a new settlement of housing development and must therefore close by 2004. Why does the White Paper make no reference to what is intended to be a centre for fast-track applications for asylum? What is to happen to the Oakington centre? If the service is to be relocated elsewhere, why cannot that be done more quickly, to one of the accommodation centres that are to be established?
§ Mr. BlunkettThe programme of 3,000 places in accommodation centres—to answer a previous question—which must be trialled initially is separate from the matter to be judged in the Lords in the spring, which is the challenge to the operation of Oakington. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I have two years in which to relocate Oakington, whereas I have three months in which to win the case on the operation of the principle.
§ Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North)I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said this afternoon. I shall respond to his invitation regarding the family visitor process. Will he say anything today about the review of the fees for appeals in respect of family visitor applications?
§ Mr. BlunkettThose fees have been a cause of concern to many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend. I am aware that the review indicates that they cause not only administrative inconvenience, but considerable distress to those involved. I am therefore minded to abolish them.
§ Mr. David Cameron (Witney)I welcome what the Home Secretary has said today, especially about asylum seekers no longer being kept in prison and his announcement about Campsfield House. Will he say a little more about the accommodation centres and how they will link with induction centres and removal centres? What is to be secure and what is not?
§ Mr. BlunkettThose seeking asylum will spend a short spell in induction centres. That will gradually reduce dispersals to bed and breakfast and other accommodation of that sort, which will alleviate pressure on local communities at those sites. Accommodation centres are the next stage—they must first be trialled, of course—of the full provision that I described in my statement. They will be open centres: people will be free to come and go, 1035 provided they are present in the evening and are registered and people know what is happening. Removal centres will bite only when people have been refused leave to remain and have gone through the appeals process. They will enable us to operate the removals process much more effectively. Expanding the number of places to 4,000 will enable us to manage the process sensibly. In the removal centres, security will be paramount.
§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)Much that is in the White Paper will be welcome, especially the news that asylum seekers will no longer be held in prison and that the hated voucher scheme is on the way out. No reasonable person will object to the notion that citizenship brings with it responsibilities as well as rights. As regards the deportation of failed asylum seekers, especially when children are involved, has my right hon. Friend considered introducing a modest resettlement grant, so that we do not dump destitute families with children at airports on the other side of the world?
§ Mr. BlunkettI am very sympathetic to ensuring that we get that right. One of the reasons why removal has, throughout the ages and for Governments of all persuasions in other countries, been so difficult is that often the family has been in the country for a considerable period. Working with the International Organisation for Migration and others to get the process right makes sense in terms of both voluntary resettlement and returns, and those removed through removal centres. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall examine this closely, and that the Department for International Development will be involved.
§ Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)Does the Home Secretary accept that a weakness of the White Paper is its failure to address the removal of failed asylum seekers? Even under his proposals, we are talking about fewer than one in three failed asylum seekers being returned. Why does he not go for 100 per cent. of failed asylum seekers being sent back to where they came from?
§ Mr. BlunkettWhy does the hon. Gentleman remind me of Alan B'stard's friend Piers? He did yesterday, and he does again today.
There is a really sensitive and important issue: how do we accelerate the removal of those who are already here and have gone through the system, as opposed to how we operate the new system, whereby people will be placed in removal centres and it will be possible to remove 100 per cent. of those who have gone through the new process? The sensitivities concern the fact that we do not wish to tear neighbourhoods, communities and different ethnic cultures apart in the process. Otherwise, we could send the police out en masse, collect people, stick them on planes and send them away; there has to be a balance. If I can get 100 per cent. of those who should not be here through the new system and out of the country, I will, but I would welcome a bit more sensitivity and help from people such as the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about providing a gateway for asylum seekers to make applications from other countries 1036 under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Does he agree, however, that people will still make applications in this country, having arrived here by other means, or because the circumstances in their country of origin have changed? Does he accept that under the United Nations convention on refugees—the foundation of international law on asylum—we cannot simply regard those people as illegitimate applicants and those who come through the gateway as legitimate applicants?
§ Mr. BlunkettFirst, we will accept asylum claims from those who present themselves and prove that they have a legitimate case, whether or not they have come through the gateway. Indeed, under the convention, we have an obligation to do so, which we will fulfil.
We must consider putting a time limit on older cases—those before 2 October 2000—in which, having tried to get asylum, people then make a claim based on human rights. If we can get that right, we can try to make sense of a system that is otherwise disabled by people taking one route but then switching to another.
§ Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)I particularly welcome many of the compassionate proposals that the Home Secretary outlined to the House. Will he give more details on the way in which he intends to stop the exploitation of children brought into the country for the sex trade, and tackle the disgrace of young British Asian women being forced into arranged marriages against their will?
§ Mr. BlunkettSo that there is no misunderstanding, let us be clear about the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages, which are agreed. Forced marriages are utterly unacceptable; the communities that operate arranged marriages are clear about that, and I pay tribute to community leaders who have taken action to make the tradition more secure.
We must address the need to increase the penalties and take much more decisive action when children are checked as they come into the country—highlighted, of course, by the tragic Climbié case—not simply under immigration and asylum legislation, but under the sexual offences issues that I shall introduce in the next parliamentary Session as part of the reform of the legal and criminal justice system.
§ Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)I welcome above all the Home Secretary's determination to bring more efficiency to the administration of the system; without efficiency, there will not be fairness. He referred to marriages and the no-switching rule, where there is obvious conflict between efficiency and fairness. People who are in the country as students or visitors and get married here often do not return home to apply for permission to enter as a spouse because of long queues in their countries of origin; the delay in getting here may mean that they do not witness the birth of their child or that their family cannot be financed here. In his review of the process, will my right hon. Friend take all those factors into account to ensure that people in genuine marriages can look after their spouses in Britain?
§ Mr. BlunkettYes. I will examine in detail the issues raised. Perhaps I ought to have made it clear, although in 1037 a statement one must be concise, that we are referring to those who enter on visitor and other visas under six months, and who do so knowing that they intend to switch. It is unfair on those who are using the system legitimately; it slows down the system for them. That is why we need to examine the matter urgently.
§ Hywel Williams (Caernarfon)May I say on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party that there is much in the White Paper for us to study? We in Plaid Cymru and the SNP will look with interest at the short statement of what it means to be British on page 34. That might be useful. I refer the Home Secretary to the answer that he gave me on Monday regarding language. What consideration has been given to the implications for the use of language as an occupational qualification in some circumstances?
§ Mr. BlunkettI promise the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of being Welsh and not being British or, as I said on Monday, of the Welsh language not being included—or Gaelic, Mr. Speaker. I need to get this right. I shall simply duck the last part of the question, which is designed to embroil me with the Assembly as regards the necessity of the Welsh language in some jobs and some professions. I have enough on my plate today.
§ Mr. Iain Coleman (Hammersmith and Fulham)Given that previous ministerial statements indicated that the anticipated average time in an attendance centre could be up to six months, and given that a number of individuals and organisations, including the chief executive of the Children's Society, have expressed grave concern about children being taken out of or not being in mainstream education for such a long period, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the complex and diverse needs of the children of asylum seekers will be met, and give us some details of the likely arrangements for that?
§ Mr. BlunkettI will happily write to my hon. Friend, and I will place the letter in the Library so that hon. Members can see the substantive answer. Clearly, on the top of one question, I cannot answer all that. I should make it clear that there is a big difference between what happens in the accommodation centres and the time spent in removal centres. Accommodation centres are an alternative to the haphazard dispersal of youngsters, often into unsatisfactory accommodation, and often not getting them into school quickly. The provision of education—tailored, I hope, to particular regional languages—will be a gain, not a detriment to the well-being of those children. In any case, the entire operation that I spelled out today—the seamless approach from induction through to integration or removal—is designed to speed up the process. God forbid that anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months. The process needs to be speeded up. If we can get that right, my hon. Friend's fears will be overcome.
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)The Home Secretary will have noted that much of his statement was warmly received on the Conservative Benches. Is he completely satisfied with the security arrangements at the various French ports of exit, and does he feel that it would be useful to persuade our French friends to have more British personnel involved?
§ Mr. BlunkettI am glad to say that the French welcomed the additional immigration officers and security 1038 at Coquelles. As I spelled out on Monday, I cannot guarantee that security is 100 per cent., but over the past six months there have been enormous improvements at the rail freight terminal and at ports. The reduction from 808 people in July to 32 in December coming through clandestinely is an indication of the progress that has been made.
§ Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)Will the Home Secretary say a bit more about the accommodation centres—where they will be situated, how much it will cost to run them and what element of compulsion there will be for the people inside them? Will his prediction that people will spend no more than six months in these centres be enshrined in regulation, or is there a danger that the centres will become long-term ghettos where asylum seekers are stuck while the system is incapable of dealing effectively and efficiently with their applications?
§ Mr. BlunkettAsylum seekers will not be any more stuck—to use my hon. Friend's phraseology—than they are at the moment in terms of the accommodation that they have been assigned under the asylum support system. I cannot give a guarantee that a requirement will be built into law that nobody should be in the centres for more than six months. I can only endeavour to change completely the efficiency and administration of the system, so that no one, whether they are in an accommodation centre or in existing dispersal, finds themselves waiting for an inordinate and unacceptable time. I can assure him that the intention is to provide help and support. People will not be held or restricted in accommodation centres. They will not be imprisoned or confined, but they will be expected—as will the reporting centres—to ensure that we know where they are. If they are claiming support, they must be given an option in respect of whether to get support in an accommodation centre. We cannot compel people to take accommodation, food, board, lodging, education and health care, but we can offer them those things if support is what they seek.
§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)May I invite the Home Secretary to apply the same decent, democratic and compassionate values that he showed in his statement to the proposal to site one of the asylum and accommodation centres at a remote, rural location in my constituency—Throckmorton airfield? Does he think that it is right that the Government should assert Crown immunity and introduce urgent provisions to override the democratic planning process, which has already ruled out on environmental grounds any development on the land? Does he think that it is right to locate asylum seekers, as he intends to do, immediately between the county's only landfill site and the burial site of 130,000 foot and mouth-diseased carcases? What message does that decision risk sending about the Government's attitude to asylum seekers?
§ Mr. BlunkettI welcome the hon. Gentleman's undoubted concern for the well-being of the asylum community. Of course, I shall bear it in mind, but let me make it clear that we have made no decision on the sites. We have initially identified eight, one of which is already deemed unsuitable. We have a competitive exercise that has to include the normal contracting, tendering and advertising process to see whether the voluntary and 1039 private sectors would like to propose other sites. From all those sites, we will initially select four for consultation. My noble Friend Lord Rooker contacted the hon. Members in whose constituencies these initial centres are proposed in order to ensure that no secrecy or underhand activity was involved. We will do the same when additional sites have been identified. We will then work through those that are unacceptable because of factors that make it unhealthy or undesirable for the centres to be placed there.
§ Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I think that I agreed with just about every word in it—an unusual situation for me.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in respect of Islam, it is clear that when parents are arranging a marriage for their children, the main prerequisite is compatibility? Will not that compatibility be much more easily achieved if parents arrange marriages within the UK community of Muslims who are originally from the Asian subcontinent, rather than by going to the subcontinent to bring back young husbands and wives? That would help with many of the aims that he is trying to achieve in his White Paper, as many of them are better achieved from within the Asian community. It would certainly help the many young women who, I am afraid, visit my office in need of help because of the breakdown of traditional arranged marriages that have gone very wrong.
§ Mr. BlunkettI am grateful to my hon. Friend for her sensitivity and forthrightness in representing her constituents and in raising the issue of equality. I want to make it clear that we are not seeking to impose anything on the communities with regard to these issues. We are simply raising an issue that many people in communities in which arranged marriages are part of the culture wish to have addressed, and wish to have articulated in this, their and our Parliament.
§ Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon)The Home Secretary will be aware that, between 1997 and 2001, in the light of two critical reports by successive chief inspectors of prisons, his Department was urged to close Campsfield House. Every year, however, the Department said no, and that Campsfield House was fit 1040 for the 20th and 21st centuries. Today, the Home Secretary has suddenly decided that it is not fit for the 21st century, which is welcome. Does he not think it unfit because it is too small to accommodate the large numbers of people he wishes to detain, including those who are not due for removal and, for the first time, families, who—according to the White Paper—are now liable for detention, even when they are not due for removal? Is it not time for a radical review of the Government's detention regime, to stop people who have been persecuted, and who are later granted asylum, being detained for months in unsuitable detention centres?
§ Mr. BlunkettFirst, I am setting up accommodation centres. Only when someone has failed to establish their right to remain through the appeals process am I using secure removal centres. Secondly, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so churlish. If I was closing Campsfield House only because it was not big enough, I would have waited to close it—and to announce the closure—until the accommodation and removal numbers were up to an acceptable level. I have not done that, because I believe—and the hon. Gentleman appears to agree—that Campsfield is unsuitable. I would have welcomed a little more warmth from him.
§ Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes)As a site in my constituency is being considered for an accommodation centre, I have tried to reassure local residents that they will be consulted fully about the proposals, should South Killingholme be selected. Will my right hon. Friend reassure those residents that they will be involved in the consultation process? Will he similarly reassure the three parish councils and the unitary authority affected?
§ Mr. BlunkettYes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that people understand what is on offer, so that they do not badly misunderstand what is to take place. It is also important, when establishing such centres, that people genuinely feel that they have a contribution to make, not least because the centres will provide substantial opportunities for jobs for local people.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We now come to the business statement and I must advise Back Benchers once again that one question to the Leader of the House is sufficient.