The
Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil
Woolas): He does.
Damian
Green: I am sure Lord Mandelson would prefer that, but it
will be interesting to hear the Minister’s
views.
The Minister
will be aware that the restriction on the use of names is not without
precedent. Companies House has the right to refuse to register certain
words within a corporation name unless permission has been obtained
from the relevant authority that holds the power to authorise use of
that word. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
has to be contacted for permission to use in a company name any of 54
restricted words including “institute” and, slightly more
surprisingly, “Sheffield”. The various pieces of
legislation enabling that power could also ban the use of other
prescribed names without the permission of the relevant body. They
could include words that relate to education, including
“polytechnic” and “special school”. Another
bizarre example to go with Sheffield is “contact lens”,
the use of which also has to be approved by the Secretary of State. It
is an interesting field of legislation, but it seems slightly perverse
that we have specifically legislated to protect the name
“polytechnic”, because I am not aware of any academic
institutions that still refer to themselves as polytechnics, as they
have all changed their names, and indeed their purpose.
“Polytechnic” and “special school” are
protected but “college” is
not. The
Minister will be aware how important it is to protect the name
“university”, and in the modern world it is equally
important to protect the title “college”. I think that
that would be a significant step forward both for the education world
and in driving out the use of education as a means of circumventing our
immigration
controls. 4.15
pm The
Minister, in a sense, is pushing at an open door. I do not think there
is any opposition to the proposal—the Association of Colleges
wants it and the Scottish colleges want it. Clearly, he will want to
improve further the controls in that area. We have seen huge dangers
arise recently inside the security world, as some of the most difficult
cases of which we are aware have been related to educational
institutions, so it seems to me not only that that is a good idea, but
that it would be a good idea if it is done immediately. Even if other
parts of Government move to that at some stage in the next few months,
I advise him to agree to our amendments and new clause now, or engage
to come back at a later stage with something similar, because the
sooner we can get on with something like that and get those protections
on the statute book, the
better. Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Gale. I
rise briefly to speak in support of the comments made by the hon.
Member for Ashford on amendment 58. I am normally an assiduous attender
of the Home Affairs Committee, and I see other members of that
Committee here today. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Bill has
somewhat got in the way of my attendance in the past couple of weeks,
but the last sitting I attended focused on bogus colleges, and it was
clear that the scale of abuse is completely unacceptable. It was also
clear that that abuse has been going on for many years—10 years
was the figure quoted for contact with successive Ministers to try to
resolve the issue. It
would appear that it has not yet been resolved, and witnesses giving
evidence were able to provide the Committee with many examples of
so-called colleges operating above fish and chip shops or pubs and
clearly providing no education. They were a conduit for getting people
into the country to work illegally.
The
amendment’s wording might not be exactly right for achieving
what the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I support his intention to ensure
that only legitimate colleges can be sponsors and that simply opening
an establishment that has nothing more than a letterhead and a sign
outside stating that it is a college is not acceptable. I hope that the
Minister will respond positively to the proposals. He might see a way
of refining the amendment to make it in order, if it is not currently
in order, but I hope that he will at least accept that there is a
significant problem and that the amendment is a sensible and friendly
way of trying to address
it.
Mr.
Woolas: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship
once again in a Bill Committee, Mr. Gale—I think for
the third time. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford for moving the
amendment and will try to address the issues directly. We have had an
introduction to the amendments, looking at the wider range of issues
relating to colleges and students in the immigration system. Clause 52,
and therefore the amendments to it, is restricted to a particular
point, but with your agreement, Mr. Gale, I should like to
address the general point
first. The
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who has followed the Home
Affairs Committee, to which I gave evidence on this issue, has
mentioned the scale of the abuse that is going on. However, I hope he
recognises that, with the introduction of tier 4 and the points-based
system, particularly the requirement for people to have a sponsor
licence—a student can only get a visa on the basis of an offer
of a place from a specific sponsor, not on a more flexible basis, as
previously—this problem in the system, which I recognise has
been abused in the past, is being addressed. I prefer to debate this
problem by referring to the past. Of course, there are students working
their way through the system who came in under the old system, but the
figures given to the Home Affairs Committee, which I will not repeat
here, Mr. Gale, because you would not let me do so even if I
had them at my fingertips, show that we can demonstrate that the number
of institutions that are now able to bring in overseas students has
fallen
dramatically. The
clause supports the new system by addressing the issue of students
wanting to transfer from one sponsored college, university or
institution to another. Under the new system, a student cannot come
into the country on a visa for study at a sponsored institution and
then transfer to a non-sponsored institution, because that is not
allowed. The clause states that, if a student wants to transfer to
another sponsored institution, they can, but they must first seek
permission. That will enable the UK Border Agency and the institution
concerned to ensure that we can properly monitor whether the fact, or
otherwise, regarding the purpose of the visa—that is,
study—is being adhered to, because the abuse of the system in
the past has been, partly, that students came in, started at college
and then disappeared, and in some cases no check was
made. The
amendment is in line with what the Minister for Further Education,
Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer
Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan),
has been saying this morning in the Home Affairs Committee. That
sequence of events follows my appearance, and that of my colleagues at
UKBA, in that Committee, where, to offer a caricature, the Chair and
the Committee were supportive of the system that we have put
in place but thought that the definition of a college needed looking
at. Indeed, the further education colleges have been campaigning on
this point—there have been articles in the specialist press
about this—to try to protect the name and reputation not just of
the college, but of the UK as a whole, as the hon. Member for Ashford
said. Of
course, we have, through the points-based system, been able to
introduce a sponsor-register system, backed up with accreditation from
the approved bodies, to ensure that for immigrations purposes only the
proper colleges, as they might be called colloquially, are now able to
take in overseas students. Quite right too, and as some including me
would say, about time too. However, the definition of a college is
wider than that, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Apart from the
drafting points that I could mention, if Committee members wanted me
to, an immigration Bill is not the place to consider that definition,
although I appreciate that there is concern about this matter and I
admire the ingenuity of bringing across the Company and Business Name
Regulations 1981 in the
amendments. The
intention behind the amendment is narrow to allow it to address the
matter of transferring across, but it goes much further than that. The
new clause will allow us to impose on a migrant a system in relation to
his or her studies. It will operate in much the same way, with the
immigration rules specifying where the restrictions will apply to other
categories, so that the purpose of the visa is met. In other words, a
person will not be able to transfer across from a work visa to a study,
spousal or family visit visa.
A further
obstacle to the amendments lies, as I mentioned, in the detail of
subsection (1A), which amendment 58 suggests adding to the clause. It
appears to seek to use an immigration Bill to introduce a power to make
“college” a protected term under the current Company and
Business Names Regulations 1981, which as the hon. Gentleman says,
already protects the names “university”,
“institute” and “royal”. I understand the
motivation behind that and personally support it.
The new
powers that the UK Border Agency has for a register of sponsors now
provide a significant level of protection for institutions. They have
significantly strengthened previous arrangements, by requiring all tier
4 sponsors to be independently audited, inspected and accredited by one
of a limited number of approved accreditation bodies before they can
qualify as sponsors. We are talking about non-EU students, if I can
bring in that thorny subject. One of the issues that my hon. Friend the
Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer
Affairs deals with is that of students from the European economic area,
which he must take into account. That can include language colleges and
so on, as well as other issues that we in the Home Office are
particularly concerned about.
In addition,
a new offence is due to come into force with the Company and Business
Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2009—I kid
you not, Mr. Gale—which will take effect on 1
October. That is
part of the tranche of regulations that, quite rightly, are part of the
new regime. The new offence relates to carrying on business in the UK
under a name that gives such a misleading indication of the nature of
its activities that it is likely to cause harm to the public. Under
that offence, the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and
Skills, acronym BIS—no comment—will be able to direct an
organisation to change its name. That may include removal of the term
“college” if that is considered to be
misleading. In short, the
purpose of protecting the name seems to make sense. My colleagues are
putting forward ideas, and have given evidence to the Select Committee.
A regulatory power exists there, so I do not believe that it is
appropriate for the immigration Bill to undertake that change. However,
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s wider
point.
Damian
Green: I thank the Minister for his explanation.
Mr.
Woolas: And the
honesty.
Damian
Green: Always the honesty. When he responds to questions,
that is always a relief.
[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Get on with it.
Damian
Green: I will carry on. The serious point is that the
sensitive names and words order contains a test of public harm. I
imagine that will have to be tested in court, and precedents will need
to be set as to what constitutes public
harm.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is right. To be fair to him and
the Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education,
Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs told the Committee that he
would look again at whether the term “college” should be
protected, and if so, whether there ought to be a link with
accreditation of some form, to ensure that the system of registration
as a college is tightened up further, so that it would not rely just on
that regulation. That was his
commitment. 4.30
pm
Damian
Green: That is very helpful. It would be a small but
significant step forward. There might still be a problem, because it is
clearly only after the fact of regulation. If someone sets up a bogus
college, over time people will realise that it is a bogus college, so
it might be possible to close it down—if it passes the public
harm test, or whatever has to be done—but nevertheless it seems
likely that in the intervening period, if it has taken on students,
either it has been used to evade immigration regulations or it is being
used to take fees off people, with all the consequent damage to the
educational reputation of this country and, indeed, the reputation of
and confidence in the immigration system that we have all talked about.
As explained by the Minister, I am not sure whether the regulations
will do what is
required.
Mr.
Woolas: Just to re-emphasise, it could not happen for an
immigrant student now, because of our system. My hon. Friend the
Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer
Affairs is looking
at the regulation that the hon. Gentleman referred to and at
accreditation as well, to meet the point made by the hon.
Gentleman.
Damian
Green: I am delighted. I look forward to seeing it in
Hansard that the Minister is claiming that that could not happen
to an immigrant student. We cannot have any bogus colleges taking in
immigrant students—that is what he has just said. I am not sure
that he wants that read into the
record.
Mr.
Woolas: Not bogus college—bogus
students.
Damian
Green: No bogus colleges at all is quite a strong claim
that the Minister is trying to make. In the spirit of good will, we
shall take him at his word. We accept that the Minister has assured us
that there will be no more bogus colleges and that there will be no
more students being scammed by those bogus colleges or using them for
purposes of illegal immigration. We can return to the subject in the
months to come, to see whether that promise has been fulfilled. In that
spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), That the
clause stand part of the
Bill. Question
agreed
to. Clause
52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
53Fingerprinting
of foreign criminals liable to automatic
deportation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas: Clause 53 is a minor amendment to the UK Border
Agency’s existing powers to take fingerprints, to ensure that
the agency can take fingerprints of all foreign criminals subject to
the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007 at the
earliest possible opportunity. The House and the country want us to
deport foreign national prisoners in an efficient and effective system.
We seek the power to ensure that we have the fingerprints at the
earliest possible
opportunity. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
