Home Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Work of the Home Secretary, HC 434
Tuesday 10 July 2018
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 10 July 2018.
Members present: Yvette Cooper (Chair); Rehman Chishti; Stephen Doughty; Kirstene Hair; Stuart C. McDonald; Alex Norris; Douglas Ross; John Woodcock.
Questions 365 - 532
Witnesses
I: Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, Home Secretary; Sir Philip Rutnam, Permanent Secretary, Home Office
Written evidence from witnesses:
Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP and Sir Philip Rutnam
Chair: I welcome everybody to our Home Affairs Select Committee evidence session on Brexit. Can I welcome the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary? We are very grateful for your time this morning.
We want to concentrate today on the Home Office issues around Brexit, but, if we can, to start with a couple of brief questions around the Windrush crisis. Douglas Ross.
Q365 Douglas Ross: Sir Philip, on 25 April you told us that you were instructing Sir Alex Allan, the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial standards, to look into the conduct of Civil Service support to the former Home Secretary. That was confirmed by you at a public meeting of this Committee. We have seen a confidential executive summary of that inquiry. When will that be fully made public?
Sir Philip Rutnam: You are quite right about the timing of the commissioning of that. That was a confidential report to me as Permanent Secretary and to the Cabinet Secretary as head of the Civil Service.
Q366 Douglas Ross: You did not say it would be when you informed this Committee. You were quite open and public at this Committee, on 25 April, to say that there would be an inquiry. You were asking Sir Alex Allan to do it. There was no intention or obvious concern from you at that time that it should be confidential. As the Home Affairs Select Committee, we were expecting to receive that full report. I believe that people watching this Committee would naturally think—a civil servant that wants to be open and transparent—that that should be made public, so why has it not been?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Perhaps that was an omission in my comments to the Committee at the end of April. What I said to the Committee was that, as Permanent Secretary, I was commissioning a report into the conduct of individuals. That is naturally a confidential matter, which contains personal data and also covers personnel issues.
I am aware that the Chair has written to me asking for publication of the executive summary, and I will reply to that letter as soon as I am able. But you will understand that when one is considering something that contains personal information about individuals, which is a confidential matter about individuals’ conduct, then publication is not a straightforward matter; far from it.
Q367 Douglas Ross: But it is straightforward in terms of the public. This is a very public scandal. It resulted in the resignation of the former Home Secretary. The advice she received at this meeting was subject to much publicity, yet you are saying that civil servants can hide behind confidentiality when, really, the public want to know if our elected politicians are getting the necessary support from the Civil Service.
Sir Philip Rutnam: I do understand the circumstances. I also understand the public interest in the way in which the Civil Service conducts itself in the support of Ministers. I understand that. However, we also have to take into account, very carefully, the fact that individuals have rights to confidentiality and privacy of information.
Q368 Douglas Ross: A month after you launched that inquiry there were reports online—and I just googled this morning—that suggested two members of staff had been moved sideways or moved out of the Home Office as a result of this investigation. Surely, it would be better for you to get this information upfront and out into the public domain, rather than these stories generating for some time because there is no confirmation or otherwise from the Home Office.
Sir Philip Rutnam: I understand that there were stories—although they were not correct—of individuals moved as a result of decisions that they had made in response to the Alex Allan review. I want to put that to rest. I reassure the Committee that I take very seriously the points that have been made to me about the public interest in this matter. However, I also have to take very seriously indeed the fact that the report necessarily contains confidential personal information.
Q369 Douglas Ross: We members of the Home Affairs Select Committee have only been given three pages of the executive summary, which we are not allowed to publish any further. How can we be sure that we have looked into all available information? Can you tell me now if you have looked into the passing of notes between civil servants and their advisers, which were then not fed into the former Home Secretary?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I would point out that I commissioned this report from Sir Alex Allan, who is a former Permanent Secretary of great distinction, a very experienced senior civil servant and also the Prime Minister’s adviser on the ministerial code. I can assure you that he is somebody with exactly the right sort of background and reputation to investigate these matters with great thoroughness and integrity.
Q370 Douglas Ross: That is a very thorough answer that is not a response to the question I asked, so I will try again. Did the investigation look at notes passed between a civil servant and his staff behind him, which were not then passed on to the former Home Secretary when she was giving misleading information to this inquiry?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I am not going to get into the detail of the investigation but—
Q371 Douglas Ross: That is part of the problem, Sir Philip. Sorry, that is the problem. For me, as a member of this Committee, that is something I am extremely interested in. I want to know if our Home Secretary and other members of his team are currently well supported and if his predecessor was well supported. It was a very public point that was made at this Committee and you are refusing to give us even that basic detail. That is not mentioning individual members of staff. That is asking about conduct between civil servants and the former Home Secretary when they potentially had information that they did not share with the then Home Secretary who was then unable to share it with this Committee.
Sir Philip Rutnam: I would draw to your attention the terms of reference of the investigation, which were to do with the support provided to the previous Home Secretary before, during and after that Home Affairs Select Committee hearing, which obviously includes questions of briefing before the hearing and briefing during the hearing.
Yes, of course it will include the question of notes passed back and forth, all of those matters. But beyond sharing, as we have done, the executive summary on a confidential basis with the Home Affairs Select Committee, I have to take under review your request for any further disclosure. Because the report, which is what you are suggesting I should share more widely, even the executive summary, contains confidential personal information that I am under a duty to protect.
Q372 Douglas Ross: There is no satisfaction—for me, certainly—that we are getting a full and frank overview of what the investigation you requested from Sir Alex Allan looked at. Therefore, for me there can be no completeness in this investigation because everything is shrouded in secrecy. I believe this is part of the problem that we have had with the Home Office for so long: that you do things internally. You are not open and transparent, and this is yet another example of you, as the head of the Civil Service in that Department, being unwilling to engage with elected Members who are here to represent their constituents and are on this Committee to thoroughly challenge what the Home Office is doing.
I believe we are being hampered in that by your actions at the moment, and I would hope you would carefully consider the evidence you have heard today and, certainly, if it is just me that is fine but I think other members of the Committee would want you to be far more open and transparent with this Committee, going forward, on this particular issue and others.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Obviously, I regret the concern that you express. I regret the fact that you are dissatisfied with our response. I would assure you that it has been a very thorough review. We also took—
Q373 Douglas Ross: That is fine. You know that, Sir Philip, because you have seen it but we haven’t, so—
Sir Philip Rutnam: We have taken the step—which is quite an exceptional step—of sharing with the Committee the executive summary of the report on a confidential basis.
Q374 Chair: We have respected that confidence but, Sir Philip, would you accept that advice given by officials to the Home Secretary contributed to the giving of inaccurate information to this Committee and to the resignation of the Home Secretary?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I would accept that there are lessons to be learnt from that.
Q375 Chair: That is not the question I asked. The question is: do you accept that the giving of advice to the former Home Secretary by officials contributed to the giving of inaccurate information to this Committee and to the resignation of the former Home Secretary?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Once again, I think you are trying to draw me into the substance of the—
Q376 Chair: I am simply asking you the conclusion, and I think it is important that this Committee and the public hear the conclusion of that report.
Sir Philip Rutnam: The report is a confidential report into the conduct of individual civil servants.
Q377 Chair: What is your conclusion as a result of reading that report, Sir Philip?
Sir Philip Rutnam: My conclusion is that, as a Department, we need to be much better at supporting Ministers when they are preparing for Select Committee hearings. We need—
Q378 Chair: Indeed, I am sure that is right. I am sure that is always the case, but is it your conclusion that Home Office advice to the Home Secretary contributed to the inaccurate giving of information to this Committee, yes or no?
Sir Philip Rutnam: We have a duty as officials to do our best to—
Q379 Chair: I am sure that is true as well. We do not disagree with that. I asked you a yes or no question.
Sir Philip Rutnam: We have a duty as officials to do our best to put Ministers into a position where they give accurate replies.
Q380 Chair: I am asking a yes or no question. You also have a duty to give accurate answers to this Committee yourself.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Indeed, yes. Indeed I do. However, I also have a duty to respect the fact that, under the Civil Service code, we are not here to discuss the advice we give to Ministers and—
Q381 Chair: I am not asking you about individuals. I am not challenging your concerns about the privacy of individuals. I am asking you for your conclusion about the performance of the Home Office and the advice that was given to the former Home Secretary. What is your verdict, what is your judgment based on reading the report, Sir Philip?
Sir Philip Rutnam: My judgment is that we should have done better on that occasion. We could have done better and we should do better. What I do not want to get drawn into is the specifics of what happened before, during and after that hearing.
Q382 Chair: Did it contribute to the Home Secretary’s resignation?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I am afraid the then Home Secretary’s decision to resign was a personal decision to resign. I do not think I should comment on her—
Q383 Chair: Of course, but did it contribute to her giving inaccurate information to this Committee?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Is it part of a sequence of events that then, as part of a longer sequence of events, ultimately culminated in her resignation? Yes, part of a sequence of events.
Q384 Chair: This is a hugely inadequate set of responses. Home Secretary, can I ask you if you will agree to the publication of the executive summary of the Alex Allan review?
Sajid Javid: I am considering that, and let me reflect on some of what has been said by Mr Ross as well as you, Chair.
First of all, of course, the Permanent Secretary is absolutely correct in the report, which I have read. I have seen the final report and of course taken a great deal of interest in it as the new Home Secretary because I think, in any Department—and the Home Office included—we want to make sure, where issues do arise, where mistakes may have been made, that we all learn lessons from that. I think it is quite right to have someone independent, with the stature of Sir Alex Allan, appointed to look into this.
We have also made sure that the former Home Secretary has seen the report in full, has had the opportunity to look at the report and see the contents of that. I do take seriously what the Permanent Secretary has said in terms of this challenge that clearly exists between having a good, thorough report, which I believe it is, where it has left no stone unturned in trying to get to the bottom of the issues. At the same time, naturally, it does refer to a number of individuals with personal and professional information that you would not want to readily put out in public because of the duty of care towards them.
That said I am looking at what more can be done to publish more, because I do understand what Mr Ross has said. Of course, as members of the Committee, you have the executive summary but it is on confidential terms. I am looking to see what more can be done.
I am also happy to turn to your question, Chair, as I have read the report. Again, I want to make sure that lessons have been learned. One of the takeaways from the report is that I do believe the former Home Secretary could have been provided with better advice, in preparation for her Committee appearance at the time and also following her Committee appearance. For the reasons that Sir Philip said I cannot get into the details, but one thing that comes across from the report is that there are lessons to be learned, certainly, as to the quality and timeliness of the information that was provided to the former Home Secretary.
Q385 Chair: Obviously we have asked you—and I ask you again—for us to be able to see the full report. As you will be aware, we have respected the Home Office’s confidence in terms of the executive summary. We would like to see the entire report and also for you to reflect further on the points that Douglas Ross has made about the need for publication of the executive summary as well.
Sajid Javid: Yes. I will consider that.
Q386 Chair: Can I also briefly ask you: when are we going to get the monthly update on the Windrush cases?
Sajid Javid: Today, hopefully; this afternoon, hopefully.
Q387 Chair: After this Committee session, so we cannot ask you any questions about it?
Sajid Javid: Either after this Committee session or by tomorrow morning. Certainly, I have tried to expedite it so it can get done today.
Q388 Chair: It is obviously a bit of a concern that we have not had it before this meeting.
Sajid Javid: Yes. Hopefully, you will see when you receive it that there is a lot in it. It is very thorough and I wanted to make sure you had the most up to date information.
Q389 Chair: It would have been nice for us to be able to ask you some follow-up questions. Does it have in it the information about the number of people who have been detained?
Sajid Javid: Not the number of people. It has a lot more information on detentions and the work that we are doing, but we still do not have an actual number that I think would be accurate enough to share at this point. If you allow me, I can explain a bit more about why and you will see that from the letter.
Q390 Chair: I think we had better not but, thank you, I am grateful for that.
Sajid Javid: I think there is a very valid and thorough explanation. Hopefully, it will give you confidence about the amount of work that is being done, not least reflecting that over 150 people are working on that exercise at this point.
Chair: We will look forward to seeing that this afternoon. Douglas Ross, did you have one further question on immigration?
Q391 Douglas Ross: Yes. It was just on the Tier 2 cap. You have taken the decision to exempt doctors and nurses from the cap. First of all, how do you think that is going to work and, secondly, why has it taken so long for the Home Office to reach that decision? It is a concern that has been raised by this Committee, other Committees and Members across the House, for several months, given that the cap has been breached every month since the turn of the year.
Sajid Javid: Not having been in the Home Office earlier, I cannot give you too much information on why a similar decision was not reached in the past. I can be accountable for the time I have been at the Home Office and, of course, I am very happy with the change that has been announced. Already both the knowledge of that change and the difference it will bring itself will be very beneficial, not just in terms of the health service but also, more broadly, because of the space it opens up for other professionals in other areas that have also experienced shortages.
Then that leads me to how it is going to work by exempting doctors and nurses. It sounds as though they will be completely outside the cap and, therefore, that will release more space inside the cap for other professions. Up until now, approximately 40%, as a rough number, has been made up of health professionals, so it would release quite a significant portion—in the thousands—extra each year and certainly each month. That is something I am going to keep under review and see how that progresses. I made that clear at the time of the announcement. If we need to take further action, of course I will look at that too.
Q392 Douglas Ross: Finally, on non-EEA workers, we had David Goodhart from Policy Exchange a couple of weeks ago, when I raised questions about fishermen coming from the Philippines. Previously there had been a successful scheme that allowed them to operate on inshore vessels in Scotland, Northern Ireland and around the rest of the UK. That is no longer available. I am personally looking for something to be put in place. There is an adjournment debate on Wednesday—I have to be in Westminster Hall next week for it—which I am hoping the Home Office will respond to.
Basically David Goodhart said, “If these industries, fishing, farming and so on, cannot get labour locally then they just have to give up and go away, effectively. We should not be too worried about the fishing industry because, if they are good enough, they will survive and get decent staff at a decent wage locally in the local economy”. Do you agree with that or do you agree with me that there should be changes to the scheme in place for non-EEA workers?
Sajid Javid: It is to our benefit, both in terms of our economy and in other ways, that we have a number of industries that thrive. That means that we have to make sure, through various Government policies, that we have the people with the right skills. That also includes immigration policies, and it is something we will be looking closely at. Maybe later we might discuss what a future immigration system might look like. We can touch a bit on that.
Also, you have mentioned, Mr Ross, you have an adjournment debate coming up, so I will make sure you get a fuller answer at that time.
Douglas Ross: Thank you.
Q393 Stuart C. McDonald: Welcome Home Secretary and Sir Philip. Is it not pretty remarkable, two years after the referendum, we now seem to have a Government position on the future relationship on most aspects except immigration, which is surely going to be pivotal for negotiations in relation to our future relationship with the EU. Why do we not know what the Government’s position on immigration is yet, and when will we finally get a White Paper on that subject?
Sajid Javid: Just to be clear there with your question, Mr McDonald, you are referring to the future immigration system only. Is that your—
Q394 Stuart C. McDonald: I am wondering why it is we have the Government now setting out their position in terms of the future relationship with the EU but they have not addressed immigration yet.
Sajid Javid: Because when it comes to immigration issues related to Brexit, they are being quite correct that the priority has been starting with the EU citizens that are already here in the UK, the 3.5 million-odd citizens. That has rightly been the priority of my predecessor. It has been my most immediate priority, in terms of immigration Brexit-related issues, to set out that scheme, to put out the settlement scheme, which you will know is something that I did a few weeks ago.
That has been my priority, because that is where people have been looking for confidence to know that EU citizens that are in this country are not just welcome to stay but we want them to stay. I want them to stay. I want them to continue contributing, not just economically but culturally and in so many other ways, and I want to give them as much confidence as possible.
While it is important for the Government to eventually set out what a future immigration system looks like, given that that future immigration system will not start until the end of the implementation period, I don’t feel that, for the Home Office at least, it has been the priority. Because I think—right here and now—European citizens that are in Britain want to know that they are welcome to stay and that we want them to stay, and that is why I have made that my priority.
Q395 Stuart C. McDonald: It is not just a matter of getting it in place in time for the end of the implementation period, is it? The Chequers’ statement appears to recognise—and the European negotiators certainly seem to expect—that future migration policy, as it applies to EU nationals, must form part of the negotiations on the future relationship. Essentially, we are at a time now where we need to know what the Government’s position is on that. Are you disputing the future that immigration policy for EU nationals is going to form part of the negotiations that are taking place in the months ahead?
Sajid Javid: Mr McDonald, the Prime Minister referred yesterday, in her statement to Parliament, that later this week the Government will be publishing a White Paper on the future relationship. That will include a chapter on immigration and similar issues. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss that now before the publication of the White Paper. That is when it will be properly presented to the House and to the public.
Therefore, I won’t get into the details of that, but I can assure you there is a considerable amount of work going on, not just in my Department but with other related Departments, on what a future immigration system can look like. My Department has prepared a draft paper on that and, as is usual with these papers, it will come to Cabinet for discussion and a collective agreement will be reached on what a future immigration system will look like.
For that reason, what I might be able to say to you today in this Committee is very limited. There are certain factors that we have already made clear, for example, the ending of the freedom of movement and other principles, but I am limited in what I can say at this point. In terms of more detail on a future immigration system specifically, in terms of the timing of Government decisions, my plan is that soon after the summer recess, taking into account information that will come from the Migration Advisory Committee that is due to report on European-related immigration matters in September—
Q396 Stuart C. McDonald: Surely that is too late. If we are having these negotiations now and we are trying to get towards some sort of future relationship agreement in the autumn, waiting for the MAC is not realistic. Can you give us some idea of what that chapter in the White Paper is going to say, and why did the Prime Minister not say anything about immigration in yesterday’s statement or her statement last week, and why isn’t it mentioned at all, except in passing, in the Chequers’ agreement? Has the Cabinet agreed a position on a future immigration policy?
Sajid Javid: First of all, you clearly said that you think it is too late for a White Paper on immigration to come out after the summer recess in the autumn. I don’t think it is too late. We are developing a new immigration system, the first time our country has looked at a completely new UK-only immigration system for decades. We want to make sure that we get it right, the right time is taken and that it is properly discussed, both in Parliament and elsewhere. The timeframe that we set out, which is a White Paper in the autumn followed by an immigration Bill early next year, given that our plans are based on having an implementation period, that will set out the process and I think it will be done in the right way.
When we publish the other White Paper—so that is the White Paper that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday that is planned for this week—I think it is fair to say it will talk at a high level about immigration and what that eventually might look like. But after the Chequers’ agreement this weekend and the statement the Government published at that time, it will recognise that in any trade deal—whether that is with the EU or any future trade deals we might do once we have left the EU—there is normally a component about labour mobility, especially on everything from your visitors, tourism to business visitors, and it will refer to that. That is the kind of thing you would be looking at in any trade agreement.
Q397 Stuart C. McDonald: Okay. In the past we have heard from your predecessors that the future system would allow for visa free access for EEA visitors and students. Is that still the case?
Sajid Javid: I would refer against to the statement that came out from the Government this weekend. That did refer to having a system in place with the EU, in terms of visitors both from the EU, the EU 27, to us and vice versa. We want to make it as simple as possible and have a visa free process. We want to look at the continued use of e-Gates, for example, to smooth the process as much as possible. Also, in terms of business visitors, making sure that when you have business people crossing borders that it is straightforward, it can be visa free, and that will be an aspect that is partly covered in the White Paper coming this week. Again, I stress that that is what you would look to do in any good, deep and comprehensive trade agreement, which is what we are aiming for.
For example, if you look at CETA—so the Canada-EU free-trade agreement—labour mobility provisions are included in that agreement, which of course apply to the UK today. That is a good example of the kind of mobility that you can have that is contained in trade agreements.
Q398 Stuart C. McDonald: The CETA provisions are very restrictive in terms of labour mobility and there will be a lot of businesses looking at that sort of comparison with concern, particularly those that require EU migrants for low skilled labour. I am talking about things like social care, all the way across to food processing and so on. Will the chapter on migration policy say anything about how low skilled migration needs would be met after the implementation period ends?
Sajid Javid: It would be wrong for me to go into detail about what it might say. It is appropriate that it is published at the time alongside the other aspects of what a future arrangement might look like, because it fits in with many of the other parts of the Government’s proposal.
I would take issue with your comments about CETA, your reference to CETA—if I sum up your words—as not ambitious and quite restrictive; I think you said “limited”. It is actually a very broad agreement on, for example, what is called the Mode 4 provisions, which is a starting point for free-trade agreements in terms of the mobility of labour. If you look at that agreement that the EU reached with Canada, it is one of the most ambitious out there. It does show you a basis for future trade agreements but what I cannot tell you today is what it might eventually look like between us and the EU because we still have to agree on a future arrangement.
What I can tell you—again because the Prime Minister has said this, so I am not pre-empting anything that is in the White Paper—is that there will be a complete total end to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement, as we understand it today, will end but, also, there will be no version of that, no derivative of that, no type of free movement. There will be no backdoor version of free movement. Free movement will end.
Q399 Stuart C. McDonald: Will your chapter address concerns about low skilled workers at all?
Sajid Javid: You will have to wait for the chapter.
Stuart C. McDonald: Okay.
Q400 Chair: As that is the position, should we reschedule the session until Thursday afternoon?
Sajid Javid: As a Committee, alongside other parliamentarians, you will see more information when the White Paper comes out, but what I can say is the following. The White Paper will not be focusing on immigration issues. Of course, the EU can raise any issue it likes as we discuss and it is a proposal from us and the EU has yet to still respond to that paper. We will clearly respond to any immigration issues the EU raises and look at those. The White Paper in terms of its focus will not be around immigration. There are many other issues—and some of those the Prime Minister covered yesterday in her statement—that will take prominence in the White Paper, and any further detail or discussions on immigration will come at a later date.
Chair: Given that our concern is the complete lack of information about what the Government wants on immigration, the fact that there is not going to be much on immigration in the White Paper is not very reassuring. Stuart had one more question.
Q401 Stuart C. McDonald: Yes. In terms of the plan for registering EU citizens that are already here, can you give us more detail about what the Government’s position will be if we have a no deal Brexit? What will be the status of EU citizens be then? What exactly will happen to almost certainly the tens if not hundreds of thousands who fail to register in time? There could be children, for example, who do not appreciate that they have to be registered.
Sajid Javid: Sorry, just to check your question, Mr McDonald, so that I have understood it correctly. When you say “register in time”, are you talking just in a no deal scenario or just in general?
Q402 Stuart C. McDonald: First of all, what happens to EU citizens that are here if there is a no deal scenario? Secondly, if there is a deal then what happens then sort of thing?
Sajid Javid: Thank you. Before I turn to that, Mr McDonald, if I may, just the last comment made by the Chair saying if there is not much information on immigration it is not very reassuring. I would beg to differ because this is a negotiation. No one negotiates by putting out the maximum amount of information. Of course, it is not early on in the negotiation. The negotiations have gone on for a while but the publication of that White Paper is an important moment. It is a very important moment in the negotiations, but there is always a strategy to negotiation, so I would not accept that at this point, even in the negotiations, that you would go out there with a maximum amount of information, with a big proposal. That would be a very poor negotiation strategy.
Q403 Chair: Home Secretary, you are about to publish a White Paper, which is going to at least, we hope, set out the Government’s intentions and what their objectives are on trade and customs.
Sajid Javid: It will.
Q404 Chair: But, as we understand it from what you have just said, it will not tell us what the Government’s objectives are on immigration, so we all understand there is going to be a negotiation. We all understand what the objectives are from the EU Commission. We just have no idea what your objectives are. Surely you should be telling us what they are.
Sajid Javid: In any negotiation there is always going to be a balance of information. Of course you want to get the proposal out there, get high level information out there, but there is a lot that will need to be discussed because it is very much connected with how the EU responds, what its proposal is. All I would say is that there will be a chapter on immigration in the White Paper. It may not be to your satisfaction in terms of detail, but it is part of a negotiating process and it does not mean to say that the Government have not thought these issues through, but perhaps when you see the White Paper you will be able to reflect on that.
Mr McDonald, your question about EU citizens and the settlement scheme specifically around no deal. The first thing to say, of course, is our focus is in terms of getting a deal but, you are quite right, we have to prepare for all eventualities. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear on this that, even in the case where there is no deal, no one will be asking or even thinking that EU citizens will not be welcome to stay. I have been very clear that we want EU citizens to stay, and—not just want them—I have put it different ways: we need them to stay. It is vitally important to our economy. It is important to us for all sorts of non-economic and cultural reasons as well. That is the basis that we will be working on.
Of course, the scheme that we have set out today is based on the agreement that was reached with the EU back in December and it is reciprocal. Therefore, while we have set out the scheme, it is notable and regrettable that EU countries in turn have not so far been public at least about what they will do, for example, in Spain and France. That is something that we would like to see, but even in a no deal scenario, absolutely, I would like to see EU citizens stay and we will be making sure that we work on that basis.
You have also asked me—was it about—if people fail to register on time in the scheme?
Q405 Stuart C. McDonald: Yes. Inevitably, there will be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands that will fail—
Sajid Javid: Yes. I do not underestimate the scale of the exercise. We are talking about over 3 million people. By its very nature, this type of thing is unprecedented. Therefore, we need to make sure that we are very focused on it and we get it right. In my Department we have hired a number of people, hundreds, to focus on this.
There has been considerable resource and, first of all, we have tried to make it as straightforward and simple as possible with the maximum use of technology. The process for the EU scheme will be an online process. It will be a process that can be done through a number of electronic devices. The amount of information that we will be asking for: again, we have kept it to the absolute minimum amount about identity, residence, and National Insurance number.
Q406 Stuart C. McDonald: I get all that and that is all welcome.
Sajid Javid: This all helps to make sure that we can deal with the numbers because your concern was about the number of people.
Q407 Stuart C. McDonald: No, my concern is that, regardless of how wonderful the system is, there will inevitably be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, who fail to register. That is a simple 5% of the total. What happens to them? When I asked the Immigration Minister this in the Chamber she said there would be a proportionate response, but we need a little bit more clarity and reassurance. There will be parents that don’t know they have to register their children. There will be some folk who just forget or have some sort of problem or are hard to reach. What happens to them? We need some further clarity.
Sajid Javid: The first thing is it is incumbent on us to make sure that the vast majority have registered during the implementation period, and we have also announced a buffer period after that up until June 2021. It is deliberately longer than the implementation period. We need to make sure that we are reaching out to communities proactively, so we already have quite detailed information of where many EU citizens are working and living in the UK. We will reach out to those communities. We will do it in other languages as well, for example, Polish. We will use those languages.
Q408 Stuart C. McDonald: I get all of this but I still need to know what—
Sajid Javid: That is important because that is to try to minimise the potential that someone might not register. I accept your point that, no matter how much effort you make, there may still be people and it might be in the thousands that, through no fault of their own, fail to register, not knowing about the scheme or for some other reason. You mentioned there may be instances of children or others.
You referred to the response of the Immigration Minister when she was asked a similar question saying “a proportionate response”. It just means that we are going to have a commonsense approach to that. Even if someone has missed the deadline—of course, we want everyone to try to work towards the June 2021 deadline, but if someone has a good reason as to why they couldn’t or missed it or they tried and it went wrong, then of course we would listen to that because, as I have also said, our default position will be a reason to grant.
We are looking for reasons to grant people the right to stay. Even after the June 2021 date, if someone through no fault of their own—it is a genuine issue where they could not have done it or something went wrong—of course, we would want to have commonsense and compassion about that because, as I have said, I want these citizens. I want them to stay. They are very much part of the fabric of our country. We have to work hard to make sure that we reach out in every way, including in situations like that.
Q409 Stuart C. McDonald: But I think you will appreciate that a little bit more detail will be welcome if we are asking about this in the future, either in the Chamber or here.
Sajid Javid: I understand, Mr McDonald.
Q410 John Woodcock: Home Secretary, why are you against giving preferential access to Britain for EU citizens?
Sajid Javid: I don’t believe I have said that in this Committee, so I don’t know where you are getting that information from.
Q411 John Woodcock: But you are, aren’t you?
Sajid Javid: No. What I am—
Q412 John Woodcock: You are not?
Sajid Javid: I am answering your question, if you will allow me. You keep interrupting with a further question, so just allow me to answer your question.
John Woodcock: Sure.
Sajid Javid: First of all, I said a moment ago, as a Government we have not yet set out what our future immigration policy is going to be. I will not repeat it all but there is a timeline to that. The first phase of significant information—notwithstanding what will be in the White Paper this week—will be the immigration White Paper, which is not going to come out until after the summer recess. I am limited in what I can say because anything that comes out from the Government naturally needs to be a Government agreed position, and that is what you should be looking out for when that White Paper comes about.
What I also referred to in this session earlier, which has a direct bearing on your question, is that what I recognise—and I think everyone recognises—is that in any trade agreement you will have discussions around labour mobility. That will certainly be the case in our future relationship with the EU. Those discussions will start, and already there has been some back and forth but when we publish the future framework White Paper later this week you will see more on that. That will then feed into what an eventual relationship looks like, but when we set out the immigration White Paper in the autumn that is when we can properly set out publicly what a future immigration system will look like.
Q413 John Woodcock: I understand what you say on not being able to set out the Government’s position while there is no Government position, but do I take from that that you are potentially prepared to compromise on your view that there should not be preferential access for EU citizens, if that is necessary to secure a better deal for trade with the EU once we leave the European Union?
Sajid Javid: There is only one view on this that is relevant and that is the Government’s view.
Q414 John Woodcock: No, your view is very relevant. Don’t do yourself down, Home Secretary.
Sajid Javid: I represent the Government. It is the Government’s view that is relevant and it is important that, as the Home Secretary, I put forward the views that I hold based on the information, for example, being gathered by my Department, the evidence being put together based on the information that will come forward through the MAC report that I referred to earlier. The view that matters is what the final view of the Government will be on this issue. For that you are going to have to wait for the immigration White Paper.
Q415 John Woodcock: Well, help us in the report that we are preparing on the options. What would be the case for ending preferential access to Britain from EU citizens?
Sajid Javid: It probably starts with a bit of the discussion we have already, which is freedom of movement. When we leave the EU we will end freedom of movement. That will end. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that. Also, through the referendum, it is one of the issues that probably caught many people’s minds in terms of how they chose to vote and so we will be ending freedom of movement. There will be no need for it and we have been very clear about that.
As I referred to earlier but I am happy to repeat, when we talk about ending freedom of movement we are ending it and not trying to have it, as some parliamentarians have suggested, “Can you end it in name only, and can you have some kind of backdoor arrangement?” Absolutely not, it will be ended full stop, in every way, no derivative, no backdoors, nothing. We will be ending freedom of movement.
Once that has sunk in to those people who do not quite still believe it, then you can articulate when you reach an eventual agreement on trade. As I said, all good trade agreements have mobility components. We will look at how that can work with the EU. Equally, as we look at trade agreements in the future with other countries, we will also be looking at mobility. As a country, it is important that we are open to talent from across the world.
In the future as we manage immigration into our country and we bring it down to a sustainable level, we will still want to be open to talent from across the world that can help us with some parts of our economy, for example. But it should be from across the world. There is no magical reason why it should only be, for example, from the EU. There is talent across the world and being that global Britain requires us to be open to all of it.
Q416 John Woodcock: Your language on ending freedom of movement is very strong. It is helpful to get that steered. You also said there may be a labour market component—
Sajid Javid: Mobility.
John Woodcock: —a mobility component to any deal with the EU. Help us understand more what that means. If you are ending freedom of movement what could not be part of any mobility agreement?
Sajid Javid: What could not be part of it is, for example, the right for someone just as their own free choice to come and work in the UK. There will be no automatic right for anyone in the EU, for example, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, to just make a unilateral decision that they can just hop on a plane or a ferry or something and just come and work in the UK. That will end.
Q417 John Woodcock: Potentially, any EU citizen would be free to travel to the UK—
Sajid Javid: Of course, yes.
John Woodcock: —and set up as self-employed in the UK?
Sajid Javid: No, not necessarily.
Q418 John Woodcock: “Not necessarily” is much less definite than how you have been on no freedom of movement; not necessarily.
Sajid Javid: The first part of your question was potentially that an EU citizen will be able to travel to the UK. Let’s just take that for a start: a traveller. Of course, the top of the list are visitors, tourism. We want—
Q419 John Woodcock: Without a visa?
Sajid Javid: Without a visa. That will absolutely be the intention. That is to have continued exchange of visitors for tourist reasons or other reasons without visas. Also, to facilitate that electronically, for example, e-Gates or other electronic means as much as possible, much in the same way that we do for visitors today, so that we can benefit from those visits, both through tourism and in other ways, including culturally.
Business visitors: certainly, in the service industry—and, as you know, the UK economy is dominated by the services sector, which is then by definition people focused—we would want to make sure that for people in the service sector in Europe and in Britain, that they can easily visit each other’s countries maybe to carry out service contracts on a short term basis, again, without visas, without any paperwork and stuff and make that as smooth as possible.
Q420 John Woodcock: You have not made that guarantee for non-EU countries, and so that in itself would be preferential access—
Sajid Javid: No, not at all, because we have visa free arrangements with a number of countries in the EU. We also have arrangements with non-EU countries today that allow business people to travel freely without visas as well. As you allude to, we do not do that with all countries so it really does depend. For example, a visitor from Japan today does not need a visa. A visitor from Japan that wants to conduct certain business work here will not need a visa. Therefore, as we look to do more free-trade agreements with other countries we would look to expand that.
As I mentioned earlier, in the WTO framework agreements there are—not quite standard—clauses from those framework agreements that have been used by many countries and then built on. One I referred to earlier was the Mode 4 clause, which is also in the Canada agreement as well as other agreements the EU has done, for example, with other countries. We would look to what the WTO has set out in the past to its members. We will become a full member of the WTO when we leave and we would look to see how you can smooth that travel. But again, as a country that wants to be open to business and travellers and visitors from across the world, it is something that you would look to work on with a number of countries, not just the EU.
Q421 John Woodcock: Finally on this, Chair: if you do agree to a system where EU residents are able to travel freely, are able to set themselves up effectively as one man small businesses, we are potentially replicating the system that we had briefly for Romanian citizens when the brake was applied after their access to the EU, aren’t we?
Sajid Javid: I am not familiar with the system before EU membership of Romania. Is that something you are referring to?
Q422 John Woodcock: No, post—
Chair: The transition period.
John Woodcock: —the transition. That is the phrase I am looking at. You are potentially looking at making permanent the arrangements we had for Romania in the transition period, where Romanians were free to come over. They could not formally work but many of them set themselves up as self-employed.
Sajid Javid: I am not too familiar with that system that may have existed in the past. I don’t think I am looking at anything like that and, to be clear—because I don’t want you to walk away with the wrong impression—we are not looking at some system where EU citizens can come and set up as self-employed, as you describe. We are not looking at that.
John Woodcock: No, I understand that but—
Sajid Javid: Today we have a visa system, for example, for non-EU persons that may want to set up a business in the UK as entrepreneurs or otherwise. We have a system where they can apply for such visas, and that is the kind of thing that we would look to build on with other countries as we enter free-trade agreements with them.
Q423 Chair: Can I just clarify some of the points you said? No automatic right for anyone to come and work in the UK. Does that include you ruling out that for scientists, for doctors, for highly skilled individuals?
Sajid Javid: We are not planning any automatic right in terms of work. When it comes to students, for example, I think we would want a framework that welcomes students from the European Union and vice versa from UK countries.
Q424 Chair: You could have visa free travel for students, for example, or visa free study for students?
Sajid Javid: I don’t want to pre-empt any discussions but when we talk about mobility framework, again, when you look at agreements that have been reached by other countries, bilaterally or with the EU, there is often an element of recognition of students from each other’s countries, as well as visitors, as well as business people. When it comes to students, for example, and maybe even scientists, you want to take a commonsense approach to that.
What I am trying to hopefully be clear on is that when we talk about freedom of movement will end, the idea that someone can just come to our country, roll up and just automatically start working will end.
Q425 Chair: I want to clarify just what that means in terms of what it is that you have ruled out. Are you ruling out allowing scientists and doctors and highly skilled, much needed individuals in the UK workforce from coming here without a visa and being able to get a job. Are you ruling that out?
Sajid Javid: Yes. We are not anticipating an automatic right for anyone, including those categories you mentioned.
Q426 Chair: You are ruling out people being able to come here and set up their own business without getting a visa first?
Sajid Javid: Without getting a visa: we don’t anticipate allowing that without some kind of visa process.
Q427 John Woodcock: That is not the same as ruling out because you started this by saying “Not necessarily”. You were categoric on lots of things about freedom of movement but you said not necessarily freedom to travel and then set up as self employed.
Sajid Javid: Yes, so what is your question?
Q428 John Woodcock: Are you ruling it out or are you just saying it is not your plan? Because to me before you said “Not necessarily” and then you said, “It is not our plan”, which we understand but you did not categorically rule it out.
Sajid Javid: I want to be clear. I don’t want to pre-empt anything that will be published shortly.
Q429 John Woodcock: We have pre-empted quite a lot already, which is why we are pushing you.
Sajid Javid: Yes. Specifically on people setting up their businesses, we already have a regime for that. We would be looking to build on that and, as you do free-trade deals, we might want to approach that in a more flexible way but there will not be an automatic right. I thought that was what you were referring to: where there would be an automatic right for people, whether it is to set up businesses or if they are highly skilled workers—
Q430 Chair: Much turns on the word “automatic” here. Are you saying, whether they are the scientists, whether they are the people who want to set up the businesses, you are ruling out them being able to come and do so without a visa?
Sajid Javid: There will not be the same rights that exist today under freedom of movement. There will not be.
Q431 Chair: We understand that. We are just trying to understand what it is you are ruling out. Are you ruling out people being able to come without a visa if, for example, they are in particular groups or categories, maybe the scientists, maybe the doctors, whatever? Are you saying whoever they might be, they will have to get a visa? There may be some particular visa arrangements that you will negotiate, but they will still have to get a visa before they can come to work?
Sajid Javid: Perhaps it is clearer at this stage if I articulate it in this way: what we are ruling out is freedom of movement. That is what we are ruling out. Today we all know what freedom of movement means. We know the rights that come with freedom of movement. We are ruling that out. That will clearly necessitate a series of changes to all categories of visitors or people that are coming to the UK. That is what we are ruling out.
Now your questions, Chair, and also Mr Woodcock, are specifically about: will this require a visa? Will that require a visa? Whether it requires a visa for certain types of visitors or people coming to the UK for other reasons, we will negotiate that. We will negotiate that as you would negotiate in any comprehensive free-trade agreement. What we are ruling out is rights that exist today under freedom of movement will no longer exist. That is what we are ruling out.
Q432 Chair: What I am trying to understand from you is whether that means what you have just said. It means that you are ruling out allowing particular groups of people—perhaps with the highest skills of all—to still come here, search for a job and get a job without a visa. Are you ruling that out as well, as part of what you just said?
Sajid Javid: Given that we will be saying something more about this publicly soon—
Q433 Chair: On Thursday?
Sajid Javid: There will be an immigration chapter in the paper on Thursday. I am not going to get into the details of it. At this stage it is right that the information I give and share is around freedom of movement and that, by ruling that out, it will necessitate a series of changes in a number of categories. Depending on what that category is, whether it is visitors, business people—you mentioned scientists—there could be differences, but what they will all share is that there will be no right of freedom of movement.
Q434 Chair: For all of those groups, including the scientists, including all of those groups, they will not have anything that could be approximated as free movement in any way. In other words, they will have to get some form of visa or some form of permission first before they can either get a job in this country or look for a job in this country?
Sajid Javid: There will not be any form of freedom of movement.
Q435 Chair: People have different things that they mean by free movement I am afraid, so let me ask you this question one more time. Are you ruling out them being able to get a job in this country without having permission first, either through a visa or through a work permit or through some form of bureaucratic process before they can work in the United Kingdom?
Sajid Javid: There will be some process involved. Again, I don’t want to pre-empt what is going to be published eventually. I have also referred to the work that MAC is doing independently. That is going to have an important input into what the final immigration system looks like. That is why I think at this point where we are today, without the benefit of that information, it is appropriate to just focus on the fact that, in terms of the changes that will certainly be made, it is because of the end of free movement the automatic rights that exist in many categories today will no longer be there.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Can I add one point just on the way in which the legal structure operates in this? Persons who come to the United Kingdom not exercising rights under the European treaties of free movement, all persons coming to the United Kingdom not exercising free movement require leave to enter. Necessarily, there is an administrative step involved in giving leave to enter. In some cases that involves a visa decision. In some cases it does not involve a visa decision. The Immigration Act 1971—and that entire framework—requires that the Home Office grant leave to enter for anybody not exercising—
Q436 Chair: My question is: are you ruling out giving any groups of people automatic leave to enter? Is that being ruled out?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I do not think there is such a thing as automatic leave to enter but, as the Home Secretary has said, how both the objectives—
Q437 Chair: You are ruling out giving leave to enter saying, “This particular group, because of the skills they have, maybe they are the top scientists or whatever, we are not going to give that group leave to enter”, as a result of simply having good qualifications?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Many different groups and many different countries of origin, and some groups require visas in order to be given leave to enter. Some groups do not. How we design the system, both in terms of the objectives and the administrative running of the system, is all going to be the subject of the White Paper and, before that, the advice from the MAC, which we are due to receive in September.
Sajid Javid: If it is helpful just to make the distinction that because of freedom of movement today, the current situation is: if someone from France, for example, comes into the UK because of the existing EU treaty today and our commitment to it, they do not need leave to enter. That is why, for example—I am just to be very practical about it—that individual can come through the e-Gates and that is an identification process only, just to identify they are who they say they are through their passport. At that point they can enter the UK but, legally, they do not require leave because leave has already been given because of the rights that exist under freedom of movement.
If someone is coming, for example, from Japan today, they need leave to enter the UK. They may not require a visa to facilitate travel—let’s say they are a tourist—but they will require leave. That is why, for example, that individual cannot use the e-Gates today because, under our existing laws, that is only an ID process. It is not a process that gives you leave. In the Japanese case, they can still enter quite easily but they will need leave.
Therefore, what we anticipate—it goes back to my earlier comment and I will make it clearer—is that, when freedom of movement ends and those obligations we have today, everyone that enters the UK, wherever they are in the world, will need leave.
It can take different forms. You might be able to do it electronically if you make a change in law. That is why we are going to have an immigration Bill to look at any potential necessary immigration changes we might need to do to facilitate travel. It may be done through someone from Border Force, but what we anticipate is that once we have left the EU at the end of the implementation period, anyone entering the UK will need to obtain leave.
Q438 John Woodcock: To be clear, you are not ruling out that they may have leave to enter by virtue of being an EU citizen?
Sajid Javid: Again, I want to be clear. If you take the example I have just used of Japan. A Japanese citizen visiting the UK needs leave to enter the UK.
John Woodcock: I get that.
Sajid Javid: In that case you do not need a visa. You still need to prove your identity and you would still need to be given leave formally as you enter the UK. Going forward, if you are a visitor, for example from the EU, a tourist for example, we want to make that as easy as possible and we do not anticipate having visas but you will still need leave to enter the UK.
Q439 Chair: You are going to have to have a process to grant all of these people leave or not, as the case may be.
Sajid Javid: Yes, you will. Correct.
Q440 Chair: Have you done an assessment of the additional resources for 200,000 people looking for leave to remain a year?
Sir Philip Rutnam: That is absolutely part of our preparation for the new system. The design of the new system, in terms of both people and systems is absolutely integral to the work that we are doing in the run-up to the White Paper.
Q441 Chair: In terms of how this interacts with the negotiations, do you accept that if you make it harder in terms of the number of visas and so on that you request, that will also make it harder to get the kind of free-trade agreement that you want, either on goods or services, or do you think there are no trade-offs?
Sajid Javid: Of course, the EU is going to have some questions around labour mobility, as they will have in many other areas. Once we have published our proposal and once the Prime Minister and others have had the opportunity to discuss that with their EU counterparts, we will listen to those. That is not unusual. In any free-trade agreement, labour mobility is always discussed. I have already referred to some of the standards that exist generally through the WTO. I would expect them to raise issues around mobility, of course.
Q442 Chair: If, as part of the negotiations, it becomes clear that in order to get the common rulebook on goods that you propose, or the free-trade agreement on services and the close free-trade on services agreement that you proposed, will you then look at greater flexibly in what you have just said around granting particular groups, for example, automatic leave to enter?
Sajid Javid: At this stage we are putting a proposal to the EU. They have yet to respond to it, the new proposal the Prime Minister discussed yesterday in Parliament. I want to see how they respond, but how we respond in terms of that will be a collective decision of the Government but it will respect clearly what I have set out today, regarding the end of freedom of movement and the fact that anyone, regardless of whether they are from the EU or elsewhere, going forward in a future immigration system, will need to obtain leave.
Q443 Chair: Does that mean you anticipate every business that wants to recruit somebody from abroad will have to go through some form of visa or work permit or application process in order to recruit somebody from France or Germany or Spain?
Sajid Javid: I do not want to prejudge exactly what a future system would look like, in terms of the paperwork that might be involved or the process that might be involved, because that is the kind of process, especially with newer technology, you might be able to smooth out. We keep coming back to the same thing, but it is important. The current system that exists of freedom of movement and no need to have leave, that is what will end.
Q444 Chair: Yes, you have said that very many times. You expect everybody to have leave. Are you ruling out it being possible for some kinds of employers, maybe the NHS, maybe particular employers, any employers being able to recruit from the EU without having to go through some form of visa or paperwork first?
Sajid Javid: By definition there will be no one who will have the right to—let me phrase it more accurately. Because we will be leaving the EU, everyone will require leave. If everyone requires leave, there will be some kind of process involved in every case. The question is what exactly that process will be, and clearly there will be differences in each category. I could not answer details sector by sector what may or may not happen, but I hope it is clear that everyone will require leave. By necessity there will have to be some kind of process. Hopefully, with some of the examples I have shared today with countries that are outside the EU and therefore their citizens require leave, it can show that the process can be very smooth where we want it to be.
Q445 Chair: To confirm, in response to John Woodcock’s very first question, you are not ruling out a preferential system for EU citizens compared to non-EU citizens?
Sajid Javid: I want to be clear on that. I would not refer to it as a preferential system or not. I think it is important to recognise—obviously in this case, with the EU, it is with a block of countries—that with any single country you have a free-trade deal with, it is usual to look at the mobility framework. That can lead to preferential—for example, today—
Chair: You would expect it to be within a free-trade agreement or within some form of wider agreement. However, subject to it being within a free-trade agreement, you are not ruling out a preferential system for EU citizens compared to the existing system for non-EU citizens?
Q446 John Woodcock: They might get a better deal? They might have a better deal than Japan, for example?
Sajid Javid: We do not have a free-trade agreement with Japan, so it would be a better deal that Japan just on the basis it is a deal, with a country that does not have a deal.
Let me take an example. Through the EU today, we are part of a free-trade agreement with Canada because of our membership with the EU today. We have signed up to that deal, the CETA deal. That means that today Canadians, whether they are businesspeople or otherwise, but certainly around businesses and certainly around service businesses, have better mobility today because of that trade agreement between the UK and Canada.
If you ask me, Mr Woodcock, is that preferential treatment for the Canadians versus, for example, US citizens, where we do not have a free-trade deal through the EU today, then of course it is preferential treatment for the Canadians, but that is by virtue of the fact that they have a free-trade agreement with us.
Q447 Chair: Just to clarify—this might be all wrapped up in the free-trade agreement or whatever the arrangements are—subject to it being wrapped up in a free-trade agreement, you are not ruling out preferential treatment for EU citizens compared to all of the other citizens with whom we do not have a free-trade agreement or do not have as close a free-trade agreement?
Sajid Javid: I think the Prime Minister has already been very clear on this. Yesterday she was asked about this in Parliament. She absolutely made it clear that we anticipate and would want a mobility framework with the EU in our free-trade agreement, in the same way that you would expect it in any free-trade agreement. What that framework looks like is still subject to negotiation, but I think in approaching any country in the future, especially for us to have a free-trade agreement, it would be madness to rule out looking at mobility such as visitors, businesspeople and so on.
Q448 Chair: The reason we are pressing you on this is that Andrea Leadsom said in response to this, “There will be no special favours for EU citizens over anybody else”. When she was asked, “Will they get preferential treatment at all?” “No, no, no.” That sounds like a pretty categorical ruling out of any special arrangements, even within a free-trade agreement. That is ruling it out. What we are trying to get from you is: are you, the Home Secretary, ruling out any special arrangements for EU citizens compared to non-EU citizens?
Sajid Javid: As Home Secretary I fully recognise, and I think it is a good thing, with any free-trade agreement we do, including the EU, that we look at mobility, about visas for visitors and businesspeople.
Q449 Chair: Is Andrea Leadsom wrong?
Sajid Javid: No, I think, as you have alluded to yourself, when people—it depends very much in the context that is being discussed. When you discuss freedom of movement and leave and preference, it can get quite complicated.
Q450 Chair: This was not about free movement, though, it was about whether there should be any special favours for EU citizens over anybody else. It was about whether there would be preferential treatment. She said, “No, no, no”. That sounds like it is ruling it out. To the extent that I can understand what you are saying, it seems to me you are not saying it should be ruled out, and be subject to the negotiations on the labour mobility as part of a free-trade agreement.
Sajid Javid: It might be helpful if we refer to the Chequers’ statement.
Q451 Chair: We have that, so I do not think we need to read it on to the record.
Sajid Javid: In paragraph 6(i) it is very clear. It will, “Include a mobility framework so that UK and EU citizens can continue to travel to each other’s territories, and apply for study and work similar to what the UK may offer other close trading partners in the future”. That is the key: similar to what we may offer other partners in the future. When Mr Woodcock and others talk about preference and things, I think it is important to keep that context in place. It is what you would look at in any free-trade agreement.
Q452 Chair: You could offer some form of ease of leave to enter, and leave to work, that you might similarly offer to the US or to India or to other countries if you were going to do a similar free-trade agreement with them?
Sajid Javid: Yes, that is right.
Q453 Chair: Is the net migration target and meeting the net migration target going to be an explicit objective of the post-Brexit migration system for EU citizens?
Sajid Javid: The net migration target is an objective, an ambition. I think it is correctly referred to, if you look at the Conservative Manifesto—
Q454 Chair: It is not an objective any more, it is an ambition?
Sajid Javid: It is very clear. It is in the Manifesto and it talks about it as an ambition for this Parliament. That is what it is. The future immigration system—as I have referred to earlier in terms of timing—once you have a Bill and it comes into place after the implementation period, it leads you into the next Parliament and that will be a decision from them about what a target may or may not be.
Q455 Chair: You have EU net migration of 90,000 at the moment. What does that need to fall to in order for your EU migration system to contribute to the net migration objective by the end of Parliament, or ambition by the end of Parliament?
Sajid Javid: I am not going to get into any numbers and what the numbers may be or should or should not be, partly because no Government—because we do not have full control of immigration today and also we do not have control of migration, this is a net number. I think it is sufficient to say that clearly the Government have been working towards getting net migration down to more sustainable levels, and that objective continues. That will continue in a new immigration system as well about having immigration in the long term at sustainable levels, but I am not going to get into any numbers about what that may or may not look like.
Q456 Chair: You do have numbers. You have a net migration target, and that is numbers.
Sajid Javid: But you asked me specifically will it continue in a new immigration system, post 2021 when the new immigration system comes into place, and for years and years beyond that. They will be decisions for any future Government to make, but what we will be working towards is the target that was set out in the Conservative Manifesto, which is to get it down to the tens of thousands. We want to have a system that is working towards that but—as was recognised within that commitment—it is not something that can be done overnight. It takes years to work towards that and that is what will continue.
Q457 Chair: Is it an objective of the post-Brexit migration system to meet that net migration target?
Sajid Javid: It will be an objective of the post-Brexit immigration system to bring down immigration, in the long term, to sustainable levels.
Q458 Chair: Therefore, it is going to be a pretty massive cut in EU migration that you are going to need to meet that net migration target?
Sajid Javid: I am not going to get into numbers.
Chair: You have got into numbers; you have set a target. You set the target, we did not. You set the target.
Sajid Javid: It will be an objective to bring net migration down to sustainable levels. I think it is fair to say that as we set out in our White Paper what that system may look like, at that time, especially once we have the MAC report, which will be very important, then we can start talking about what numbers might look like, but not at this point.
Chair: It is a massive chain around your neck, this net migration target, is it not? Don’t you really want to ditch it?
Sajid Javid: Next question?
Q459 Alex Norris: All that we are talking about around immigration will not work unless the borders work. HMRC said it thinks that by exit date, by March 2019, we are going to need 5,000 extra border staff. How many will we have in place?
Sajid Javid: The Permanent Secretary will have the latest numbers. I think we are aiming for 300 already and most of those we have already recruited. When we talk about border staff, we are not talking just about, for example, the ports and airports but also for individuals as well because of some of the changes that will take place even with the implementation period.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Shall I add a bit of detail to that? The Home Secretary is absolutely right. We already have extensive recruitment underway to strengthen the border, to increase the capacity and capability of the Border Force. We announced some time ago the recruitment of an additional 300 Border Force officers as a readiness taskforce. That is essentially complete and the new staff are being brought in, in tranches, between now and the end of the year. Many of them are already in post and there is an extensive training programme associated with that.
The previous Home Secretary announced in March a recruitment campaign to bring in up to 1,000 additional staff. That is also underway. We have attracted, I think, something over 10,000 applicants for those up to 1,000 roles. Those applicants are being interviewed and sifted as we speak, so that is also well underway. We have also investment in systems and additional resources, additional financial resources going into Border Force, coming out of the Brexit funding that the Chancellor announced for this financial year.
Q460 Alex Norris: Was that 5,000 figure wrong? You have said 1,300 and HMRC said 5,000.
Sir Philip Rutnam: I think HMRC is referring first to the longer term. I am talking about our recruitment plans for the near term. Secondly, I think HMRC will also have been talking about not just what happens at the border but also inland away from the border, where, of course, it is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and they employ a significant number of staff, I am afraid I do not know how many, to do customs activities, enforcement activities, for example, inland.
Q461 Alex Norris: Of course, Home Secretary, this is already a stressed system. British Airways has been very public that so far in 2018 alone, 3,500 targets for clearing immigration have been missed, 70,000 passengers have been delayed. Before we make any changes, this is a stressed system. Why is it so stressed?
Sajid Javid: I think some of the challenges for the system have been the big increase that we have seen, both in terms of visitors—which is ultimately a good thing in terms of tourism—and also increasing flows of trade as well, which is also a good thing to have. The system has been responding to that in terms of resources, both in terms of individuals the Home Secretary referred to but also investing in technology, better data. For example, when we are looking at the security aspect of borders, making sure there is better sharing of information, and that has helped.
To the extent that visitor numbers continue to grow and trade continues to grow, something we do want to see—it is in our national interests clearly—is that the system needs to keep responding and we need to keep investing. I think the plans that we have in place are dealing with that. What we have shown, for example in hiring 300 more people in what was a relatively short space of time, is that resources can be increased.
Q462 Alex Norris: Would it also be fair to say that, as you say, passenger numbers have gone up but also that the Border Force’s budget has gone down and that has contributed to the stresses?
Sajid Javid: Clearly when a budget is changing in that way, you have to work harder to find efficiencies and maybe work with other Government agencies as well, such as Customs, and see what more you can do together. It does, of course, put on more of a burden to try to find those savings when you are trying to respond to that as well. What we have today in terms of resources that are promised, the extra funding that we are receiving—some £395 million this financial year—for Brexit preparations, much of it related to the border, I think makes a big difference as well. When you talk about funding going down, I do not think you have included the extra funding that we have received for Brexit preparations. You may have but I do not think it had.
Q463 Alex Norris: I am talking since 2010. We did not know we were leaving for much of that period.
Previously we have seen mooted—and this might be a good opportunity for you to rule this out, Home Secretary—the idea that there might be a supplementary special volunteer force for our borders. Is that something that interests you as Home Secretary?
Sir Philip Rutnam: That was mooted. I am not sure that that is being taken forward at the moment. There is an interesting question I think there, perhaps not for this time and place, as to whether there is any scope for activities akin to, say, that of special constables in the police, or reserve forces, for example. I think there may be the germ of an interesting idea there but I do not think it is being pursued at the moment.
Sajid Javid: It is not something I have looked at.
Q464 Alex Norris: Would it be fair to say that as we get to our arrangements for exit day and post-transition, it is not being considered as part of the exit at this time?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Our priority in terms of boosting capacity and capability is around recruiting fully qualified Border Force officers and across a range of disciplines that would support Border Force.
Q465 Alex Norris: Thank you very much. Secretary of State, your colleague, the Secretary of State for Business, in May—and this was while there were two proposals in the public domain around Customs—said whichever one was chosen, having the requisite infrastructure would take two or three years after transition before we could be sure we would have it. After Chequers and after now this third way, as it were, is that still the case?
Sajid Javid: The proposal that the Prime Minister presented yesterday in Parliament, which was in the Chequers’ statement on 6 July, envisages that—the lead on that has been the Department for Exiting the European Union. What that envisages is that that new arrangement will be in place at the end of the implementation period. The plan is it is in place at the end of the implementation period, in other words from January 2021 that is the new arrangement that will work—
Alex Norris: All the infrastructure will be ready?
Sajid Javid: That is the plan.
Q466 Alex Norris: Why did the Secretary of State for Business say that it would take two or three years after transition? Do you not recognise that at all?
Sajid Javid: First of all, as you alluded to, I think he was referring to the two previous proposals and not this proposal. Secondly, just to be clear, when I say “in place”, it is something that could be phased in, in different ways. The idea is that it begins from January 2021 but there could be different phases to that as it comes into fruition, the entire plan.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Could I add something to that? The Government’s plan as set out in the Chequers’ statement is for a customs relationship between the UK and the EU that would preserve frictionless, or as near frictionless, trade at the border as possible, which would minimise the requirement for additional infrastructure. There have, of course, been a number of customs proposals that are being discussed, including what was known as the highly streamlined customs arrangement, which would require more by way of infrastructure. You mentioned the Business Secretary. I think HMRC has also talked about the time that would be required to put that in place.
There are also real logistical, practical issues. In many of our ports there is very limited space, very limited land, at Eurotunnel or Dover for example. I think that was probably the context of the Business Secretary’s comments: earlier proposals, not the proposal that has been put forward now.
Q467 Alex Norris: Thank you, that is very helpful. Moving on to space, we know that the Airport Operators Association has said that it has been asked for—certainly as it considers developments at airports—different airports have been asked to earmark extra space by the Border Force. Are those active conversations going on an airport-by-airport basis? How long are they going to be expected to hold this space, what do we think the cost is to them or indeed to the Border Force in doing so? How far along are our plans?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Shall I say something on that? We are indeed in conversation with port and airport operators, jointly with HMRC. As you may know, within Government we have a cross-Departmental, a cross-Government Border Planning Group, jointly chaired by the Permanent Secretary of HMRC, Jon Thompson, and by my Director-General for Border Force, Paul Lincoln. Underneath that is the Border Delivery Group that brings together all the many Departments with an interest in the border.
As I say, jointly with HMRC we are in discussion with a number of port and airport operators. I have to say that those are confidential discussions. Going back to our earlier exchanges, I can imagine you may raise questions but they are confidential discussions because obviously there are a range of commercial issues for the operators.
Q468 Alex Norris: The final question from me, Secretary of State, relates to an act of considerable and admirable bravery on your part.
Sajid Javid: I am worried when you say that.
Alex Norris: I know, so am I. Big Government item projects have a chequered past, shall we say, certainly when it comes to delivery on time. Through the replacement of the very elegantly named CHIEF with the less elegant Customs Declaration System, that system is being brought forward, in terms of the implementation date, to next January. How is it doing?
Sajid Javid: Is that more HMRC rather than—
Alex Norris: Yes, but it will have significant consequences for your ability to get things through in the Border Force.
Sajid Javid: Yes. It will be. Sir Philip, am I right that HMRC is the lead on that?
Sir Philip Rutnam: It is an HMRC project. You are quite right they have said what you have said and I know that there is immense effort going in on the system. I am also told that the work is in trial at the moment and it is going well. Everything I have picked up has suggested a good level of confidence around the replacement of CHIEF by CDS. You are right it has implications for my Border Force officers, but it is one of a number of factors that we are taking into account in our planning.
Q469 Alex Norris: I have misallocated the bravery; I should give that to the Treasury instead. Nevertheless, you would recognise what the Controller and Auditor-General said when he said that this could become a horror show. What sorts of contingency plans do you have for the Border Force on that first day, the system going live and not working?
Sir Philip Rutnam: We are of course doing extensive contingency planning. We are not assuming that everything will go well. We have enough experience to do contingency planning, I think to a very high standard. That is something that is right at the top of the Border Force’s management agenda.
Q470 Chair: Will there be additional border checks under the facilitated customs arrangement?
Sajid Javid: The new proposal?
Chair: Under the new proposal, yes, the facilitated customs arrangement.
Sajid Javid: No, I do not think there is any need for any additional checks.
Q471 Chair: No additional border checks. There will be a big increase in the number of customs declarations, right?
Sajid Javid: I am not sure there will be a big increase. Remember, the way the proposal works is because we will be, under that arrangement, following EU rules on goods and agri-foods, that is why it anticipates a complete free flow in the same way as we have today through borders.
Q472 Chair: Presumably you will still have a massive increase in the declarations, because presumably you are going to need—if we are outside the common external tariff, then if you are importing from the EU you are going to need a declaration to show whether those products have come from the EU or originally come from China, if we have different tariff from outside the EU. Or if they have come from outside the EU you are going to need an additional declaration as to whether those products are coming for a UK market or whether they are heading straight across to France or Ireland. As I understand it, there is going to be a substantial increase in customs declarations.
Sajid Javid: There will be a lot more detail on this, first of all, in the White Paper. It will focus on this and it is another HMRC lead because the issue is mostly around tariffs and differential tariffs and then how is that differentiation made and, if there is a difference, how is that collected or recognised. It will not mean additional customs declarations. That is not part of the plan.
Q473 Chair: It will not mean any additional—how will you get the information?
Sajid Javid: It will not mean a significant increase in customs declarations, because if it did—if it did, for example—it would not be a free flow of goods, in much the same way as you have today. There is obviously some information that was provided both by the Prime Minister yesterday and also in the statement at the weekend, but in the White Paper it will go into it in much more detail.
Q474 Chair: This seems to be a massive contradiction. The declarations could be made online, the declarations do not have to be at the border, but, as I understand it, there will have to be a massive increase in the information that you collect. If you have a couple of containers of Nike trainers that are coming from wherever else it is in the world into Northern Ireland, and half of them are going across into the rest of the UK and half of them are going into Ireland and there is a different external tariff on those Nike goods, then somebody somewhere is going to need to have the information, or to record or to submit the information, about where those are coming from.
Sajid Javid: That is a customs issue. It is not a border issue. In terms of the free flow across the border in that example that you have used, it would be no different to what it is today. Of course, for that importer, let’s say, in that case—a proportion, as you say, will be consumed in the UK, a proportion in the EU—there is clearly going to be a customs component to that. HMRC has developed a proposal about exactly how it would deal with that, using technology as well, newer technology. That will be set out in the White Paper.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Just at the replacement of CHIEF by CDS is an HMRC responsibility, so this is also an HMRC area of policy.
Q475 Chair: It is going to collect some additional information about where these two Nike containers are heading to. How are you not going to have any border checks to make sure this is not being abused?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Can I expand on the role of Border Force here? Border Force is responsible at the border in relation to movements of goods, protecting the UK’s security—security is a top priority—and for risk-based and targeted inspections of goods for other objectives, including ensuring compliance with tariff and other regulations. Border Force’s role is essentially an operational role, subject to tasking in this area by HMRC.
Q476 Chair: Indeed, but you have to do the operational operations and you also have to decide whether you, as the Home Secretary, can sign up to those proposals and say, “Yes, this is workable”. I am still stuck on when you have those two containers, these Nike trainers, one heading to Liverpool, the other one heading to Dublin and both come in via Northern Ireland. I do not understand how you have no physical checks on a small proportion. At the moment the non-EEA goods that come in, 3% of them are checked at the border just to make sure the system is not being abused. Are you going to have no physical checks at all to make sure this system is not being abused?
Sajid Javid: It is not going to be about the physical checks. To take your example, those trainers will have to meet our rulebook, the goods rulebook, which will be the same as the EU rulebook in this proposal. First of all, as far as today, checks are done on incoming cargo, audits and things, to make sure they are meeting our rulebook. That will continue with any goods, whether they are coming from anywhere outside the EU. That will continue in the normal way.
The issue then becomes about making sure the right duty rate has been charged. That importer—to take your example, because they have imported something that some will be consumed in the UK and some will be consumed in the EU—will be making a customs declaration regardless. They will be doing that anyway because they have imported them from outside the EU. In that declaration there will be a system, which will be set out in more detail in the White Paper, where, in declarations they already have to make, they would set out what portion of that import—let’s say it is 50:50, for argument’s sake—is going into the EU and what portion is not. That will then set the basis for the customs duties that they will pay.
Q477 Chair: Excellent, so they have submitted that, but you still have a system at the moment where 3% of goods, maybe based on intelligence, maybe based on random sampling, are checked to make sure that the system is not being abused. Are you saying there are going to be no physical checks at all on these Nike containers? What is to stop this business saying, “Having declared that half of them are going to Liverpool and half of them are going to Dublin, we are now going to send all of them down to Dublin”? What is to stop them doing that?
Sajid Javid: They will be breaking the law.
Chair: Indeed, but you currently have checks to make sure that people do not.
Sajid Javid: When you discuss this it is worth keeping in mind, even today, the current situation today is that we have varying duties on certain products—alcohol, for example, cigarettes and things—within the EU. Those products, as you know, flow freely across borders today but there is a system of checks, based on intelligence and in other ways, both within the UK and with some of our EU partners, on trying to police that system. You will know that anyone importing, for example, cigarettes today, in the current system, from Poland, there are certain duties that they have to pay. The products can flow freely.
Q478 Chair: That is why you have 1% checks on your EU goods and 3% checks on your non-EU goods.
Sajid Javid: That is right, and the checks on EU goods will continue.
Chair: My question is for all of the non-EU goods and all of the checks—are you saying you will only maintain that much lower level of checks on EU goods, despite the fact that the common external tariff will provide an additional incentive to smuggle?
Sajid Javid: You will always be following a risk-based system, which is what we follow today, on different duties between EU countries on certain products. That is policed because it can lead to significant loss of revenue, with alcohol for example. It is a risk-based approach and that kind of process will continue. I still think that under the proposals there will not be in any way a significant increase in the number of checks that are required across borders with the EU.
Q479 Chair: No additional checks. You are going to say to all of these importers, “You are going to have to fill in these forms to tell us where the goods are going, whether they are going to Liverpool or whether they are going to Dublin. You are going to have to tell us but we are going to do no physical checks on any of that”. How plausible do you think that is going to be to the EU Commission that we have a robust system that is going to collect its tariffs for it?
Sajid Javid: I do not think we are saying no physical checks. As I said, even today, across our borders with the EU, there are checks, a very limited number of checks. There are some checks that take place, all risk-based, often based on intelligence, some random stops. That is to try to prevent and deter people from trying to take advantage of differing duties that exist today. That system that already exists today, in the way that it works, can be used to work inside this new proposal. My point is not that there will not be any checks at all, but they will be building on the system that already exists.
Chair: There might be some increase in checks?
Sajid Javid: There might be some increase in checks but it is not—
Chair: How will they be done at the Northern Ireland border?
Sajid Javid: Today that border is completely free and open and under our new proposal it will remain exactly the same way.
Q480 Chair: There will be no additional checks. For the Nike things coming in, there will be no additional checks on anything that comes in through Northern Ireland, even if some of it then goes into the Irish Republic and some of it goes to the rest of the UK?
Sajid Javid: There will not be, and the reason there will not be is because even today, when checks for those people who might be smuggling goods—by that I mean trying to avoid duties on those products like cigarettes, for example. Even today, when we talk about checks in the case of the Northern Ireland/Irish border, they are all done away from the border and they are done based typically on intelligence and police work. That will continue.
Chair: Are you saying there will be no additional checks on any of these goods coming in through Northern Ireland? There will be absolutely no additional checks?
Sajid Javid: There will be no additional checks.
Q481 Chair: Do you accept that being outside the common external tariff and having different tariffs for goods coming in through Northern Ireland or coming in through the Irish Republic does create an incentive to smuggle? It may be against the law but it does create an incentive to smuggle, especially if there are no checks?
Sajid Javid: In the same way that there is an incentive today with differing duties.
Q482 Chair: You will be aware that there is obviously concern that the existing difference in duties does fuel smuggling that also contributes to extremist activity around Northern Ireland. Are you worried that you are creating, with this arrangement, an incentive to smuggle that could end up helping finance some of the dissident and extremist activity?
Sajid Javid: No, I am not. I will tell you one reason. Existing smuggling that unfortunately does happen has gone on decades under successive Governments, despite efforts on both sides of that particular border to try to deal with that. The incentives that exist there can be quite substantial in terms of differing duties. The difference in duties—for example, for cigarettes into the UK versus Poland or Hungary—is huge. It is in the multiples of 100%. I do not have the figures off the top of my head but the differences are huge, even with France and the UK, a much nearer neighbour. On alcohol the differences are huge; on petrol and other types of fuel the differences are huge.
I do not think, reasonably, anyone would anticipate that big a difference on duties. If you look at the average WTO tariff today, or WTO terms, I think—and this is just from the top of my head—it is around 4% on manufactured goods. The idea that you are going to have these massive, huge differences in tariffs in multiples I do not think is realistic; notwithstanding, of course, you will have differences in tariffs, as we do our own free-trade agreements, which will help trade. The real focus, I think, will remain on the big differences in duties that exist on certain classes of products. Clearly, cigarettes and alcohol will be leading that.
Q483 Chair: Do you anticipate difficulties persuading the EU Commission of the credibility of our processes to collect its tariffs if there are no physical checks?
Sajid Javid: I do not. Part of my confidence comes from what is in the White Paper. I think when you see it you will share my confidence.
Q484 Rehman Chishti: The first question to ask you, Sir Philip, is this: you were in play on 21 March 2018 when this Committee published its report on UK-EU security co-operation. This Committee has not had a response from the Home Office since then. Is it because you have lost the report, is it because you do not have time or is the matter not important enough for you to respond to the Committee in the due time that it is required to do so?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I am aware of the report, of course, and also aware of our duty to respond. I am sorry that we have not responded to date. I expect that we will respond shortly, although I have to say I do not think it will be before the White Paper is published on Thursday.
Q485 Rehman Chishti: Can I ask for clarification? Why is it that you have not responded in the time that you were required to respond?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Your report raises a whole range of issues, very helpfully so. Considering those issues and how to respond is a matter for both officials and Ministers in the Department. We have been considering the report very carefully and have not yet reached the point of publishing our response.
Q486 Rehman Chishti: Are you able to say, now that you are here before us, which particular areas of that report concern you the most?
Sir Philip Rutnam: No, I am not. I am not going to go into detail on the response. The report was very thorough and it covered a whole range of different instruments that exist under the co-operation between the EU under law enforcement and national security. It raised a whole range of different issues. I am not going to pick out any particular issue that has caused us not to respond yet.
Q487 Rehman Chishti: When, roughly, do you estimate the Committee will get that report?
Sir Philip Rutnam: As I said, I believe that the Department should be in a position to respond shortly but I do not expect it will be before the White Paper is published on Thursday.
Sajid Javid: If I may add to that as well, first of all I regret that we have not responded to your report yet. I think your report is very thorough and requires very valuable scrutiny on what is clearly a very important issue, so I welcome that. Because it raised a lot of good points I want to make sure the response is thorough enough.
One reason that it will not come before the White Paper is simply in the White Paper there will be a chapter on this and there will be information and discussion around security as well. I can talk a bit about it now if you wish. I hope that as soon as possible after that, we can give a more thorough response to your report.
Q488 Rehman Chishti: For clarification, a couple of questions on security co-operation and our discussions that we are having and negotiations with our European partners. What is your current assessment in relation to moving forward on our security co-operation with our European partners post-Brexit?
Sajid Javid: First it might be helpful to mention very quickly what we have already said. I have said quite publicly on a number of occasions, and it will be reiterated in the White Paper, that what we want is a new, comprehensive internal security treaty that will cover practically all the areas of co-operation that we have today, the practical international co-operation on things like arrest warrants and multilateral co-operation with agencies such as Europol and also on data and things like the SIS II system, a very comprehensive, broad-ranging treaty that creates that legal framework.
In terms of the response today, it depends who you are speaking to at the EU. You will no doubt be familiar with the many different parts of the EU. The response from the Commission so far—that, as you know, has been leading, at least publicly—its negotiations, has been not very good in the sense that it has been very much down the line of, “When you leave you will be a third country. Of course, we want to work with you on security but you will have to co-operate in the same way as any other third country that works with the EU today”, which is, from our point of view, completely unsatisfactory. It has not been, let’s say, a positive response from the Commission.
When I discuss this with any of my fellow interior Ministers in Europe, and I have discussed it with many of them already on a number of occasions, it is an overwhelmingly positive response. I have yet to meet any interior Minister in any EU country who does not want this kind of comprehensive approach. The idea of having this treaty that we would negotiate in more detail during the implementation period as well, and make it active during that period, has been very warmly welcomed by interior Ministers. I think you see this difference between the Commission’s response and a much more positive response from Governments within the EU.
Q489 Rehman Chishti: I know what you say about a comprehensive treaty and, also, the comments you made previously that the EU should not be reckless and wrong when dealing with security and co-operation between our countries. You have the dilemma between the interior Ministers saying one thing to you and the Commission on the other hand saying you cannot have a separate arrangement in relation to the Arrest Warrant and in relation to access to the database. With the difference of opinion between the Commission and interior Ministers, what is the likelihood of getting that new comprehensive treaty?
Sajid Javid: I feel very positive about it. I am not surprised by the Commission’s reaction, in one respect. Even with the non-security issues the Commission has taken a view that, “The UK will become a third country, so therefore you need to work with us on that basis”. I am not surprised, first of all, with the reaction. When it comes to security, given that what we have proposed is completely unconditional in the sense that we are, rightly, not linking it to other things we discussed today—we have discussed immigration, we have discussed borders, we have discussed trade—we see this as something that is quite separate and we are not making any link with that. We are saying it is a completely unconditional offer.
Security is something that should not be linked to any of the other discussions. It is clearly in the mutual interest of the UK and our EU friends. I think for that reason it is why we have made good progress with the respective Governments of the member countries and it fills me with confidence. The more I discuss it with them, the more positive the reaction has become.
We have seen some Ministers in countries, for example the interior Ministers in Germany, recently being much more positive publicly about it as well, which is new. As I say, with the support of the interior Ministers and the Governments they represent, it is something I feel very positive about. I do not want to be complacent in any way. I think we need to prepare for all eventualities but it is something that I feel positive about.
Q490 Rehman Chishti: Linked to that, you wrote an article on 8 July in which you said, “In the past 12 months GCHQ has helped break up terrorist plots in at least four European countries”. In relation to that and what we are talking about now, access to the database, was that linked to access to the database or was that other intelligence sharing between our countries?
Sajid Javid: It would be inappropriate for me to give more, if any, information on what it may or may not have been linked to. That was an example from GCHQ. Our security services, for example what the MI5 does, all work with their European partners, and our police here through Europol and prosecution services through Eurojust. All of that taken together, there are many cases we can demonstrate—we do not have to work too hard to do this because it is well recognised by our EU friends that the UK has helped not just with terrorist plots but with serious organised crime, with modern slavery, with trafficking of children, child sexual offences. In a whole host of areas we are helping, as they are helping us.
To give you a sense of how in many cases we are recognised as being at the forefront of contributing to the EU security infrastructure, as it were, since 2004 European Arrest Warrants have enabled the UK to surrender over 10,000 individuals who have been accused of a number of offences and surrendered them to member states. That is something that is well recognised.
When it comes to Europol, I recently went to Europol and met the new head of Europol as well. I was told that the UK is recognised as one of the top five contributors of data and information to Europol. That is something certainly that Europol does not want to lose. There is good recognition of our contributions, both in the EU agencies, both through data and through our intelligence services, and it is something that I think, as we proceed with negotiations—you can understand why people have been very focused on the economic side of negotiations, but I think as more attention turns to security, we are in a good position to get a positive outcome.
Q491 Rehman Chishti: Can I seek a couple of clarifications, first in relation to Europol and ECJ jurisdiction and secondly in relation to the Prime Minister’s comment? She said, “When participating in EU agencies, the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”. What did she mean in practice?
Sajid Javid: What she means by that is that Europol, to take that as the example, is an EU agency, by definition. It obviously works under certain rules. Those rules are ultimately governed through the ECJ if there are any disputes. We have said that where we choose to join an EU agency like Europol—you could equally say the same about Eurojust, for example—then we will recognise the ECJ has jurisdiction over that agency. We would like to stay members of Europol after we have exited the EU, under the terms of this treaty, and we would recognise the ECJ’s jurisdiction over Europol.
Q492 Rehman Chishti: Apart from Europol, is that also looking at ceding jurisdiction to do with matters in other forms of security co-operation?
Sajid Javid: No, not in all forms. It is specifically about agencies. The Prime Minister was referring to agencies. Eurojust would be another example of again a well-defined, understood EU agency in the security arena. We would then work with them on a similar basis as Europol.
Q493 Rehman Chishti: Further clarification on a couple of points that have been touched on. Having recently attended a conference at the end of last week on security and intelligence sharing, one of the key issues that come up in relation to terrorism is terrorist financing.
The question that arises is, with the increase in virtual currency and the potential threat it has to funding terrorist activity and criminal activity here in the United Kingdom, in Europe and around the world, does your Department have a rough estimate in relation to the scale of the virtual currency in use and also in relation to the potential percentage of that that may be used to fund terrorist finance? If that is the case, the same threat also applies to our European partners and also around the globe. Are there discussions that have taken place, are taking place, will take place, to address the challenge?
Sajid Javid: First of all, it is an important area in terms of the rise of virtual currencies. Very clearly they will be used. Given that they can be used anonymously, you can see why they appeal to certain groups of criminals, whether that is terrorists or serious organised crime or other types of crime.
It is not just an EU issue, of course. This is, by definition, a very worldwide issue. It is something, as a Department, we have been looking very closely at and working with Treasury as well on this and discussing it with our international partners. Obviously, we are particularly concerned about it where it might be used for terrorist purposes. If your question was: has it formed part of our security discussions with the EU in the context of Brexit? Not specifically. That is not to say it is not important but it has not been a specific part of the discussion.
Q494 Rehman Chishti: The question was while you are having these discussions with our European partners on security and terrorism, the question naturally comes in relation to wider issues that are being discussed. The wider issue is at this point in time we have a security threat, like every other country in the world, on terrorism. Terrorism works because it gets funding from somewhere. On that basis, are there discussions at the moment, irrespective of discussions in Brexit, in relation to how to address this challenge on terrorist financing?
Sajid Javid: There are with EU partners and with non-EU partners, particularly with the United States. More broadly, there is a lot more we want to do on illicit finance, not just with virtual currencies but more broadly with illicit finance. It was something that I presented to the National Security Council two or three weeks ago, and we will shortly be coming forward as a Government with further measures we expect to take in this area.
Q495 Rehman Chishti: Can I ask this question, because I raised it earlier and nobody knew the answer? In relation to the virtual currency that we have in play around the world and here in the United Kingdom, do we have an estimate of the scale of the virtual currency in play? Also do we, through our own intelligence, have an estimate of how much of that virtual currency—some of it is legitimate but some of it is being used in areas where it should not be? What is the percentage that is being used in areas it should not be?
Sajid Javid: I do not have any numbers I can share with you right now, but I know the security service has looked at this. What I am happy to do is go back and see if there is information we can share publicly on that, particularly on numbers, and come back to you and come back to the Committee.
Q496 Rehman Chishti: On illicit finance, should we be doing more to monitor investments by monitoring state investments to the UK, more closely?
Sajid Javid: We will be doing more. That issue, in particular, of investment in the UK linked to particular states. There is work that is being led by the Business Secretary. That is also something that I have discussed with colleagues, including the Business Secretary, and we will be coming forward with new proposals.
Q497 Rehman Chishti: Along with the discussions with the Business Secretary, is there also a cross-Departmental approach? For example, you mentioned earlier to the question from the Chair on illicit trade, tobacco costs £2 billion to this country in illicit trade. You also have, from a report in Europe, £83 billion a year on illegal betting.
The report also says that was being looked at in 2012 with representatives from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It was represented at that because a criminal organisation maximised its legal profits of strategic betting in sports activities. Is there a cross-Departmental activity with the Treasury, with your Department, the Home Office, and other Departments to say there is a coherent strategy to address a lot of the challenges on illicit finance and trade connected to it?
Sajid Javid: Yes, there is. Much of that kind of criminal activity is undertaken by serious organised crime groups, some of them well known to policing authorities or others being investigated. There is, from what I have seen, a high degree of co-operation across Government with other Departments. It is something, though, that I am looking to improve even further.
That is why I will be coming forward with a new serious organised crime strategy that, among other things, also looks at how we can enhance that kind of co-operation, not just with Government Departments but between Government agencies as well and, in particular, how we can do a better job with all the data that exists between those Government Departments and the agencies and analyse it in a way that leads to quicker action against these criminals.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Perhaps I could mention the Government’s decision in the last year to support the establishment of a new National Economic Crime Centre, located in the National Crime Agency, but bringing together in one place a whole array of different regulators and expert bodies. It is precisely in order to increase the law enforcement focus on illicit finance, because one thing that all the illegal activities you mentioned have in common is that they are done for profit, and profit has to be realised by, at some point, handling the money and passing it into the financial system.
Sajid Javid: That is right. The National Crime Agency will lead on this new National Economic Crime Centre but it will involve HMRC, Treasury and a number of other Government agencies and Departments.
Q498 Kirstene Hair: Home Secretary, do you believe an industry worth £1.2 billion to be of importance to this country?
Sajid Javid: Say that again, sorry?
Kirstene Hair: Do you believe an industry that is worth £1.2 billion to be of importance to this country?
Sajid Javid: It sounds very important. I am intrigued now.
Q499 Kirstene Hair: Obviously I am speaking about soft fruit.
Sajid Javid: I would never have guessed.
Kirstene Hair: As you know, in Angus, you have visited, and we produce over 30% of Scotland’s soft fruit and last year we saw a 15% to 20% decline in the workforce. That decline had a profound impact last year. We saw fruit left to rot in the fields at the end of the season in September. We are now halfway through this season and there are many farmers who are turning their backs on their crops. They do not have a workforce to pick them and they are having, essentially, to pile up the crop.
We had a SAWS scheme in place until 2013, and there are a number of countries across the world that have schemes in place, such as Sweden, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia. There has been a decline in this workforce since prior to the 2016 referendum. I know many people and parties want to stick it to the Brexit vote, but absolutely it was the case prior to that decision. Also, you can see from that list there are countries within the EU that have schemes in place. Do you believe, from that information, that this is in fact not a Brexit issue, and an issue that has been occurring since before June 2016?
Sajid Javid: First of all, I very much believe that industry and other parts of our agricultural industry are a very interpret part of our economy. They make a huge contribution that is very valued. I think it helps to diversify our economy as well, which is equally important. In terms of access to labour for those industries, nothing has changed at this point. We know essentially what exists today will stay in place during the implementation period.
I have asked—or more correctly, my predecessor has specifically commissioned—the MAC, when it reports back to us in September, to look at European labour and specifically at those industries where it might be more relevant. I think that will include the agricultural industry, so we are going to be looking at that evidence. I want to make sure, again touching on the immigration discussion we had earlier, that while we cannot set out exactly what that system would look like—and there will be a White Paper—the industries, such as you have mentioned, we are determined that we make sure that in our future immigration system their needs are listened to so these industries continue to thrive.
Q500 Kirstene Hair: That is what your letter to the Committee said, that the Government would not implement the MAC recommendations or decisions about our immigration system until 2021, but as was identified and what I tried to clarify in my previous point is that it is not a Brexit issue, so I am not fully understanding why we therefore have to wait until potentially 2021. By that point, we could be at least 20,000 workers down in the United Kingdom. That means more fruit rotting, profits falling, livelihoods jeopardised. There are already farmers that are choosing not to invest further in their farms because they do not have the workforce. I just feel that the Government needs to take action, not in 2021. You have introduced emergency measures for the NHS and I just do not understand why you can’t do similar for our agriculture industry.
Sajid Javid: You mentioned the tier 2 changes, for example. I have always wanted to—and this will be the same here—look at the evidence and then see what we can practically do. You are quite right to say that this is not necessarily an issue around the future immigration system, but I do think at the same time we want to make sure all aspects of the future immigration system is taking into account these types of concerns.
But if you are specifically talking about is there any action that can be taken sooner rather than later, as I have made clear already in this job, I am ready to listen to arguments and respond where we can. It is something where I have been providing information and we are looking at that. It is something I am looking at sympathetically.
Q501 Kirstene Hair: I think we also need to be open to the argument of including non-EEA workers into a potential scheme, because my deep concern is that if we do not import labour to pick our produce, then we will just need to import the produce. I know for sure that everybody in this room would rather pick up a British blueberry on the supermarket shelves than a Polish blueberry, for example. I think that, as outlined before, we need to have this discussion sooner rather than later, because if farmers do not have that clarity by October, when they start recruiting for 2019, we will have significant issues in the soft fruit industry and to a point where we will see it starting to diminish.
Sajid Javid: Yes. I think what you highlight is not just about the economic output of these industries. I think we all want to see a well-diversified economy; we want to see a well-diversified food sector as well. Also I very much agree with you that nothing beats a British blueberry.
Chair: I think Rehman has two further questions. If I can just bring in Stephen Doughty and then come back to Rehman; I am very conscious of the generosity of your time, Home Secretary and Permanent Secretary, but we are almost through all the questions we want to put. Stephen Doughty.
Q502 Stephen Doughty: I will try to be as brief as I can, Home Secretary. I was pleased to hear what you just said about wanting a comprehensive security treaty, European Arrest Warrants, Europol—
Sajid Javid: I thought you were going to say about the blueberry.
Stephen Doughty: No, not about the blueberries, but what you said about Europol and European Arrest Warrants and so on. I went back and I looked at your own voting record, because I wanted to see where you stood on some of these issues when you were given the position of Home Secretary. I was pleased again to see that you voted for close work with the EU on a number of occasions on these areas. But there was one member of the Cabinet who voted against close working with the EU on criminal justice and associated data protection, and indeed against closer police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters. Do you know which member of the Cabinet that was?
Sajid Javid: No. I am sure you are going to tell me.
Q503 Stephen Doughty: It was the new Brexit Secretary. He broke the Government Whip, in fact, voting against you in 2014, again a week later on those matters and again on a number of other occasions against co-operation with a small group of, I would say, more fringe elements in the Conservative Party. Is he completely signed up to getting a security treaty? Has he now changed his position?
Sajid Javid: The first thing, he will be completely signed up to the Government’s position since he is now part of the Government. If you are asking have I discussed this with him, in the time that he has been in the position as Brexit Secretary, I have not had the opportunity.
Q504 Stephen Doughty: You think it is important for him to clarify his position, given his previous voting record on these issues and comments he had made?
Sajid Javid: I am sure that he will be fully supportive of the Government’s position. I think I mentioned earlier that in the White Paper this week it will also refer to security, in much the same way I have talked about it a moment ago with Mr Chishti. He will be 100% supportive of that.
Q505 Stephen Doughty: That is very good to hear. I am sorry I was late for the session this morning; I was on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill with the Security Minister. You will be pleased to hear that has now made its way through the Committee and is going back for report.
Sajid Javid: Good. Thank you for your support.
Q506 Stephen Doughty: But given what you have said, why did the Government vote against amendments that were down to keep us in the European Arrest Warrant and Europol, given that you have said you would like to stay a member of Europol?
Sajid Javid: Sorry, amendments to the Bill—
Stephen Doughty: Yes. Why did you vote against those amendments?
Sajid Javid: I would not have the detail of those particular amendments, but I know that we looked at all amendments that were being tabled in advance of the Security Minister. If it is something that was going to enhance our border security and our counter-terrorism, I am sure we would have wanted them, but I would think that the reason that we voted against them is because it would not have been any additional value to what we have set out for the purposes of the Bill.
Q507 Stephen Doughty: You just said earlier on to the Committee, “We would like to stay members of Europol. A very simple amendment here, nothing controversial, it seeks the United Kingdom’s continued participation in Eurojust and Europol’s activities relating to preventing acts of terrorism”. It is a very simple thing, so why did the Government vote against that?
Sajid Javid: Probably because that would have put it on the face of the Bill, if that amendment would have gone through. This is part of a negotiation and I do not think it helps in a negotiation to have lots of different pieces of primary legislation that set out exactly what should and what should not be achieved. I think you do it through a process that is run through one Department, which is the Department for Exiting the European Union, and it is part of your overall negotiations, so I would just think it—
Q508 Stephen Doughty: Run by a Secretary of State who doesn’t believe in participating in those measures.
Sajid Javid: But we have just covered that. The Secretary of State that you referred to of course is going to be supportive of the Government’s position. He is the Secretary of State; he will represent that. I am sure he will take a leading role, for example, when the White Paper is published and Parliament no doubt will have an opportunity to talk to him and question him too on that or any other aspect. But I think it would be wrong to suggest, if you are, that just because the Government did not back that particular amendment that that in any way reflects on the proposal that we have put to the UK for this comprehensive internal security treaty.
Q509 Stephen Doughty: You are very clear we should stay involved in Europol; we should stay involved in the European Arrest Warrants?
Sajid Javid: Yes.
Q510 Stephen Doughty: Absolutely, and that is the objective of the negotiations?
Sajid Javid: Yes.
Q511 Stephen Doughty: Absolutely. Given that we are hearing that the preparations for no deal are being stepped up, can you just be clear: would a no deal make us less safe?
Sajid Javid: Certainly the best position for our security is the current position in terms of co-operation. No one is anticipating failure in these negotiations, but it is prudent to be ready for all eventualities, including the security, so we are preparing for contingencies in security arrangements, but in many areas it will be suboptimal. You have just mentioned the European Arrest Warrants. Clearly if we did not have this treaty or something similar with the EU and were not members of the scheme for European Arrest Warrants, we will then have to fall back on other arrangements and that would probably mean the 1957 Council of Europe Convention.
It is possible, of course, to have an attrition matrix under that, but I do not think anyone is pretending it would be as straightforward and as efficient as the current arrangement that exists, so that is not something that we want to see. That is why I think it has been important to recognise the reaction of my counterparts in Europe. They have been very positive about this, because it is not something that they want to see.
Q512 Stephen Doughty: You may, Home Secretary, with respect, want to speak to some of your colleagues in your own party who are actively advocating no deal. In fact, the Brexit Secretary also advocated no deal and said it would lead to some sort of wealth of riches, so it is not clear that that is the position shared across the Government.
I wanted to ask a very practical question about the issuing of biometric residents’ permits to EU nationals or whatever is going to be issued to them. Are they going to be issued with some sort of proof of residency when they have paid that £65 fee and they have completed those three tests? Will they have some sort of physical document? I assume a biometric permit or something?
Sir Philip Rutnam: It is not a physical document that will be issued. It is a digital status, which can then be checked online, checked by whoever needs to check it with the authorisation, but we have decided not to issue a physical document. Instead it will be a digital status.
Q513 Stephen Doughty: It will be a digital status. Will that be able to checked by landlords, by others who want to check the status of an individual?
Sir Philip Rutnam: With the right authorisation, yes.
Q514 Stephen Doughty: With the right authorisation? What do you mean?
Sir Philip Rutnam: The individual will need to give the authorisation to a third party to check it.
Q515 Stephen Doughty: Would this be equivalent to, for example, going in to rent a car and they can check the DVLA database?
Sir Philip Rutnam: Indeed. With the right authorisation, it will be available to third parties to check.
Q516 Stephen Doughty: What are you charging the £65 for if it is just purely an electronic process? The Home Office has been profiting essentially from other immigration things, eight times the cost of the cost of implementing them. Why are you charging £65? Isn’t that just a tax on EU citizens who might have been living here for 30 or 40 years?
Sajid Javid: First of all, we are not profiting from this. Per head it is going to cost a lot more than £65. That discussion about whether there should or should be a charge was had back in December with our European colleagues. It was agreed not just for us, but EU member states, they could choose to charge a reasonable amount as well. Also I think in terms of fairness, if you have someone from outside the EU that has come to the UK and applied for settled status, there would also be a charge for them. Therefore I do not think it is unreasonable to have a charge, something that is quite small, £65 for an adult, £32 for a child.
Q517 Stephen Doughty: I can understand that for new applicants. For people who have been here maybe 30, 40, 50 years with some sort of settled status, often married to British people, who have not previously felt the need to get British citizenship or otherwise, now suddenly being told, “You have a bill of £65”, for some people that is quite a lot of money. Do you not think that it is worth looking at whether this is required?
Sajid Javid: No, I think it is a perfectly fair and reasonable charge, because people from non-EU countries that may have been here five, 10, 15, 20 years, they are making applications for immigration-type documents all the time and there will be charges, so I think it is a perfectly reasonable charge.
Sir Philip Rutnam: There is no charge of course for those who already have permanent residence cards under the historic system for European nationals.
Sajid Javid: For certain vulnerable types of people there is no charge.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Children in care, for example.
Q518 Rehman Chishti: Just a quick question for the Home Secretary. With regards to foreign fighters, the United Kingdom has had around 800 individuals go to fight with Daesh and Europe has had many thousands and also other countries around the world. Our close ally, Australia, are bringing forward legislation on declared areas, where if an individual from that country goes to fight or enters an area that is known to be infiltrated by terrorist organisations, they can get up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Is that something that you are looking at or what are your views on that?
Sajid Javid: Yes, it is. My plan is to bring a similar change to UK law forward through the Counter-Terrorism Bill that was referred to earlier by way of a Government amendment.
Q519 Rehman Chishti: When is that likely to be, do you know?
Sajid Javid: Very soon. It is during the Committee stage of this Bill.
Q520 Rehman Chishti: Just a further point—I know I am running out of time—with regards to extremism, both non-violent extremism and violent extremism. Looking at an article published by Julia Ebner from the Institute of Strategy Dialogue, she says, “The main argument is that far-right extremism and Islamist extremism feed off one another and therefore if we don’t combat them both, the situation will deteriorate because they create a vicious cycle of escalating divisions and hatred within our society”. Countering far-right extremism and those inspired by Daesh and Al Qaeda is a very much in play in the United Kingdom; we saw the horrific attack in Finsbury Park and also in Manchester. What are we doing to counter both of these evil ideologies?
Sajid Javid: I have not read the whole article that you refer to, but that sounds to me like a very sensible comment that has been made. I think it is right also to say that they do feed off each other. Sadly, we have seen evidence of that. They learn from each other as well. If you look at the Westminster attack and the use of a vehicle on Westminster Bridge as a weapon and then what happened in Finsbury Park as well, I think it is demonstration of how they even learn from each other. In my Department in the Home Office, we have, through both our hate crime strategy and counter-extremism strategies, much work done to counter extremism, working with a number of partners.
I was also conscious when I had my previous role as Community Secretary that there was more co-operation that could take place within Government, because of the building cohesive communities' responsibility of the MHCLG. That is why we set up a joint group, which will continue now with me as Home Secretary and the new Communities Secretary. We will continue to work together on that as well, because it has links in, for example, to part of the integration strategy that was published by my old Department.
Lastly I would mention the Counter-Extremism Commissioner as well. I thought that was a very good idea when that was put in place by my predecessor, to have someone who is independent, has separate support, has Commissioners to support her—in this case Sara Khan—and there is much work. I met with her recently, just two or three weeks ago, and I have been impressed with the work that she has been doing already, and especially with the meetings that she has been having across the country, including with former extremists, reformed extremists, to try to learn from that. I look forward to the work that comes forward from that Commission, which I think then gives the Government more to build on.
Q521 Chair: Home Secretary, we are very grateful for your time and patience. Can I quickly just clarify a couple of the things that you said earlier so that we do not have the record wrong? Did you confirm that your intention is that EU citizens will be able to use the same e-Gates and passport queues as UK citizens in response to Alex Norris’s questions earlier?
Sajid Javid: During the implementation period or—
Chair: Whichever. I just want to be clear what it was you said.
Sajid Javid: During the implementation period, there is no change at the border for EU citizens, so during the implementation they will continue to use the e-Gates in the same way they use them today.
Q522 Chair: And after the transition?
Sajid Javid: What I would like to see is as easy an arrangement for EU visitors as we have today with e-Gates. The difficulty that exists—that is why I just hesitated a bit—is because of this issue about leave and how you get leave. We will try to address that in a future Immigration Bill, but I would like to see that simple arrangement. By the way, I would like to potentially look at other countries such as the United States or Japan, who are also using e-Gates.
Q523 Chair: That is helpful. Are you heading to a passport queuing crisis this summer?
Sajid Javid: I do not think so. We have been doing a lot of work on this. We have had a number—
Q524 Chair: Do the airports think you are?
Sajid Javid: —of discussions and actions that we have already taken. As you know, what is out of our control is how many people are travelling. Obviously there is a—
Q525 Chair: You should be able to predict though. You know how many people got on the plane.
Sajid Javid: We do, but what has happened, the issues in the past have been forecast and they have not always been right. What I have been trying to do is trying to get much more what you might call robust forecasts. Already we have taken action. For example, we have brought in extra staff on a temporary basis through the summer. Many of them have already joined the border teams and we are increasing that number as well.
Q526 Chair: You are confident that it is sorted?
Sajid Javid: I am confident that we have done everything we reasonably can at this stage, but it is something that I am continuously monitoring, including throughout the summer.
Sir Philip Rutnam: Two hundred and twenty additional staff.
Q527 Chair: We will keep an eye on it, certainly. Then my final question: just to go back to the Windrush issues at the start, we asked you several times to set up a hardship fund and so far you have refused to do so. We have been contacted about a series of I think very serious cases, including a man who was prevented working for four years, who has run up huge debts, who cannot open a bank account, cannot get a mobile phone contract, cannot get a contactless card and he is facing huge hardship as a result; a woman who is still getting bailiff’s letters because of debts while she could not work for two years; a man who lost his job as a security guard, for three years could not work and is now having to retake the qualifications, and while he retakes the qualifications, is really struggling financially. These are all people that the Home Office has wronged, that the British state has wronged. Surely you should set up a hardship scheme for them to get them some urgent help, so they do not have to wrestle with these debts.
Sajid Javid: It is something that I have considered very carefully and I welcome the work that the Committee and others have done on it. The difficulty is as follows: we will be setting up a compensation scheme, a compensation fund, and I think that information is well-known. We have the call for evidence and Martin Forde QC is independently overseeing all that work. Very shortly I will be publishing the consultation document that I have been discussing with Parliament and I want everyone to input into that.
The difficulty is what is the difference between a hardship and a compensation fund, because if you had a hardship fund, by definition you would have to set out the rules and who can access it and what hardship is and how they access it, how much they get paid. When you start looking at those questions, you clearly would need to have rules around it—I think everyone would accept that—and then it starts looking very much like the compensation fund.
To set up the hardship fund we believe would also, like the compensation fund, require legislation; it will have to be brought forward to Parliament. There will be the issues around do you have to consult on it; have you had proper time to discuss it; there would be possibly room you would have to make for debates in Parliament. I felt by going for a hardship fund, you would slow down the compensation fund and that is ultimately, I think, what is going to be very important to so many people. I want to do everything we can to get that right.
That said, we have already, in some instances—in quite a few instances, actually—had individuals that were wronged through the Windrush-related issues that we have already paid compensation to. Certainly you could call it hardship, you could call it compensation, but we have already done that for certain individuals and so it is possible still today for someone that feels that they have been wronged to approach us. They can come to the taskforce and we will make it as easy as possible. They can pick up the phone or visit or e-mail the taskforce and we will call them back. If they can show that it is hardship, in the sense that there is no possibility that they can wait for the compensation scheme, then we would look at that. There are individuals that have already received some type of compensation that were wronged because of Windrush-related issues.
Q528 Chair: So you have a kind of hardship fund, you have just not told anybody about it?
Sajid Javid: No, it is not. Already today, even before the Windrush-related issues became apparent, there already exists a system for people, for example, that have been wrongly detained. There already is a fund—a compensation arrangement—that exists today for people that have been wrongly detained. There is nothing to stop an individual that thinks they have been wronged to approach any of the existing schemes that already exist in the Home Office—and many have for a number of years—and they can do that, if they wish, or they can—
Chair: Or if they have wrongly lost their job.
Sajid Javid: —choose to wait for the Windrush-specific compensation scheme.
Q529 Chair: If they have been denied the ability to work, if they have been wrongly stopped from working, might they be eligible for any of these existing Home Office schemes?
Sir Philip Rutnam: We understand the issue. What we are trying to do through the taskforce is to see whether we can help people in situations you have described. Very close liaison with DWP—which has certain funds available in streams—and I have to say quite successfully so in the cases I have seen with local authorities. We have relationships with a number of third sector organisations, which may also be able to help, and then finally, as the Home Secretary has said, there is an extant and existing ex gratia compensation scheme, which if we can make it—
Q530 Chair: Only if you have been detained or in other circumstances as well?
Sir Philip Rutnam: I do not think it is just for detentions, but it does cover detentions. Where the Home Office has made an administrative error, we are able, in some circumstances, to pay ex gratia compensation without waiting for the new scheme. What I would say is, as the Home Secretary has said, we are very grateful to the Committee for the work done on this. Please can you refer any cases to us and to the taskforce and we will lean over backwards to find a way if we can help?
Sajid Javid: That is already happening. We have already been clear about that. I have been clear about that with a number of people, whether they have written to me or to the Immigration Minister, and we have been clear that there are existing schemes.
Q531 Chair: But people do not know about this. If we do not know about this, then you can be pretty sure there are an awful lot of people in the Windrush generation who do not know about this. This sounds incredibly arbitrary. If they happen to be lucky enough that they happen to have their case come across the right person’s desk, maybe your desk personally or something like that, then they might get a bit of additional help or be channelled into the right system, but most people have no clue where to get this support.
Sajid Javid: The taskforce, the members of the Home Office that administer the taskforce, they are all aware if they approach any cases of hardship or difficulty, they know how to channel that through the system and they have reacted to that.
Chair: Okay, but none of these cases, the woman with the bailiffs—
Sajid Javid: It is not something that you need to just write in to a Minister to be aware of. The taskforce is aware of this. But it comes back to this whole point: what I want to make sure is that we have a proper, full, fair compensation system that is independently overseen, everyone who wants to input into it, both the call for evidence and now the consultation, they can do that. That ultimately is what people are going to be looking for. In the meantime, as we have said, it is that if there are genuine cases of hardship, we have had a number of people, completely unsolicited, approach us at the taskforce and we will look at each of those cases sympathetically.
I have absolutely recognised from the start there are a number of people that have been wronged through the whole Windrush situation in many different ways, whether it is through jobs or detention or whatever and every single one of those we will be working to help those people and of course every single time I have apologised when I have come across a case like that. It has been unacceptable and we want to right the wrongs that have happened. Part of that is going to be financial and that is what we will be doing.
Q532 Chair: I think if you are serious, though, about righting these wrongs, first, we do still need obviously the crucial information that we have asked for on things like the number of people detained. It is still a bit shocking that we do not have those basic figures. But I think secondly, perhaps most important of all, you need to be able to deliver on your commitment to supporting the people who have been wronged.
It would be really helpful if you or the Immigration Minister was to write to us by the end of the week with something that sets out what this pseudo-hardship kind of system is that the taskforce is operating so that it is transparent, so that people know, because I think there are an awful lot of people, like the people who we have been aware of, who have the bailiffs sending letters and so on and who are really struggling with their debts, who ought to know if there is some support available and ought to know what is available. It would be really helpful to have that transparent.
There is a bit of a sense that the initial answer you gave as to why you cannot even provide some kind of intermediate hardship support in these serious cases otherwise just sounds a bit like “computer says no” and it sounds like the Home Office is reverting back to its old ways rather than taking a new approach to the Windrush generation that I know you have said you are committed to doing.
Sajid Javid: As I say, I will happily write to the Committee before the end of the week with more information on this, but as I have said and want to make clear, already we have been helping financially people that have been affected by the Windrush situation. In some cases compensation rather than hardship, it might be described that way, and in some cases, confidentially by their request. They have a right to that. They do not want us to disclose who they are or how much they might have received and we respect that.
I say that just to reassure you, Chair, and the Committee that when I say things have changed at the Home Office, they have. I am not saying that all the changes that I wanted have taken place in the short timeframe that I have been there, but I have been trying to make sure that we are doing everything we can to help those people, but particularly, as I said when I became Home Secretary, Windrush was my number one priority and it remains that way.
Chair: We look forward to the update either this afternoon or tomorrow morning, or whenever you are able to give it to us. I do hope it will also set out for us how many of those who have been deported that you have been able to contact and what arrangements are in place for them as well. We will look forward to receiving that information.
Home Secretary, Permanent Secretary, we are very grateful for your time. You have been extremely generous in terms of your time this morning. Thank you very much.