Oral evidence: Work of the Home Secretary, HC 434

Oral evidence, 10 July 2018.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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—

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.

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.

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—

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.

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—

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—

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.

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—

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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—

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

John Woodcock

But you are, aren’t you?

Sajid Javid

No. What I am—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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—

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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—

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.