I refer the honourable member to my response to PQ 47658, submitted to Parliament on 19 October 2016.

The cross-system Detention Gatekeeper has now been introduced to scrutinise all proposed detentions independently of an arresting team. Individuals can now only enter immigration detention with the authority of the Detention Gatekeeper, who will ensure that there is no evidence of vulnerability which would be exacerbated by detention, that return will occur within a reasonable timeframe and check that any proposed detention is lawful.

Separately, Case Progression Panels have been introduced to review all cases within immigration detention by a peer-led panel. These panels focus on ensuring that there is progression toward return for all individuals detained, and that detention remains lawful.

There is always a presumption of liberty and detention is only ever used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. For those individuals with no right to remain in the UK, we expect them to leave the country of their own volition and the Home Office has programmes to support voluntary return.

The Home Office expects that current and planned reforms, and broader changes in legislation, policy and operational approaches will lead to a reduction in the number of the most vulnerable detained and the duration of detention before removal.

The published service standard for the Employer Checking Service is 5 working days but the average processing time between 01/11/2011 and 28/02/2017 was 4.5 working days.

Through section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016, which came into force on 12 July 2016, we have placed a 72 hour limit on the detention of pregnant women for the purposes of removal, extendable to up to a week in total with Ministerial authorisation.

It may not always be appropriate for healthcare professionals to disclose confidential medical information that the patient has asked not to be disclosed. Subject to these limitations, Home Office management information indicates that 27 pregnant women were detained in the immigration detention estate between 12 July 2016 and 31 December 2016. This resulted in 5 pregnant women being removed from the UK.

The section 60 limitations, along with a new policy on adults at risk in detention, and other improvements to caseworking processes, represent a comprehensive package of safeguards for pregnant women in the immigration system.

As part of the Government’s response to the review of the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons undertaken by Stephen Shaw CBE the Home Office has introduced, or is planning to introduce, a range of measures designed to further minimise the length of time individuals spend in immigration detention. These include: a new internal detention gatekeeper function to monitor admissions to the detention estate; new case progression plans with a clear focus on the individual’s removal from the UK; and quarterly internal case progression panels to monitor progression of all detained cases and reduce the number of long-term detainees.

It is already the case that individuals detained under Immigration Act powers are held for the minimum time necessary to achieve their removal from the United Kingdom.

As part of the Government’s response to the review of the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons undertaken by Stephen Shaw CBE the Home Office has introduced, or is planning to introduce, a range of measure designed to further minimise the length of time individuals spend in immigration detention. These measures include: a new internal detention gatekeeper function to monitor admissions to the detention estate; new case progression plans with a clear focus on the individual’s removal from the UK; and quarterly internal case progression panels to monitor progression of all detained cases and reduce the number of long-term detainees.

The Government has no plans to introduce a maximum time limit on immigration detention.

All incidents of self harm are treated very seriously and every step is taken to prevent incidents of this nature. Staff at all centres are trained to identify those at risk of self harm so that action can be taken to minimise the risk. Notices in various languages are displayed in IRCs setting out that where a detainee is concerned about a fellow detainee this should be brought to the attention of a member of staff. Formal risk assessments on initial detention and systems for raising concerns at any subsequent point feed into established self harm procedures in every IRC. These are in turn underpinned by the Home Office Operating Standard on the prevention of self-harm and detention services order 06/2008, Assessment Care in Detention Teamwork (ACDT).

The Home Office does not comment on individual cases.

The Home Office policy is not to detain children. Where there is doubt as to the age of an individual. Immigration Enforcement will detain individuals who claim to be a child (under 18) until they are referred to a local authority for a Morton-compliant age assessment. Individuals who frustrate the age assessment and identification process may incur a lengthened period of detention. All three individuals were later identified as children and released into the custody of local authorities.

The Government will respond to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Report on the unannounced inspection of Morton Hall immigration Removal Centre in due course.

I am sorry, but data is not held in the requested format and to establish whether a migrant did not have the no recourse to public funds condition imposed due to exceptional circumstances would require individual examination of records. This would incur disproportionate cost.

Total grants of leave to remain can be found in table ex_01_q in the Home Office’s Immigration Statistics October - December 2016 release, available for download at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2016 with the data tables at

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2016/list-of-tables#extensions

Any individual detained within immigration detention is already subject to regular review, both on a scheduled basis and whenever there is any change in circumstances that might be material to the decision on whether or not to continue detention. Reviews are carried out at successively more senior levels the longer the detention continues.

Following publication of the Government’s response to Stephen Shaw’s Report into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons on 14 January 2016, work has been ongoing to design a more effective case management process to replace the existing procedure for reviewing detention. This includes a more proactive approach to the review of detention, through Case Progression Plans which show the monitoring and review of ongoing detention and with a focus on return or, if appropriate, release. Case Progression Plans are currently being piloted across the Home Office and are subject to evaluation.

The Home Office engages with civil society organisations at official and Ministerial level on a regular basis as part of the development of policy.

The published statistics on grants and refusals of extensions of leave by category can be found in table ex_01_q in the Immigration Statistics release.

The latest release Immigration Statistics October - December 2016, is available for download at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2016 with the extensions tables at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/593024/extensions-q4-2016-tables.ods

The published statistics do not differentiate between applicants with dependents and those without and so cannot accurately answer the MP’s question.

I am sorry but this information is not held in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

I am sorry but this information is not held in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

I am not quite sure whether I understand the right hon. Lady’s question, but there is not a fining system for migrants; what we say is that people who come to the UK as visitors should pay for their healthcare, or pay the visa surcharge if they coming for a longer period. There is an exemption for public health, because it is important for everyone that we make sure that we treat people for things like tuberculosis.

The Secretary of State will be aware that many migrants in the UK are not registered with GPs, yet now when they come to Britain they have to pay an NHS fine. What is he doing, with the Home Office, to ensure that migrants are registered with a GP and are aware of community health facilities?

Although the Home Office provides for exceptions to the need to pay application fees in a number of specific circumstances, these exceptions do not extend to those seeking confirmation of status, such as those who apply to transfer their existing status to a biometric residence permit. If we were to waive fees on this basis, it would result in a reduction in income that would have to be made up through charging other customers higher fees. We believe this would be unfair. The exceptions ensure that the Home Office’s immigration and nationality fee structure complies with international obligations (for example, in relation to refugees and persons deriving rights under European law) and wider government policy. .

The Home Office does not receive or hold data on the number of people who hold an expired travel document with a valid visa but need to provide

acceptable evidence of their right to work to a new employer. In these circumstances the individual is required to apply to the Home Office to transfer their conditions, as a result of which they will receive a biometric residence permit. While the Home Office is processing the application it provides a checking service for employers to verify someone’s right to work so that the ability to start work is not impeded. This change was introduced to simplify and strengthen right to work checks by employers to better prevent illegal working in the UK.

Although the Home Office provides for exceptions to the need to pay application fees in a number of specific circumstances, these exceptions do not extend to those seeking confirmation of status, such as those who apply to transfer their existing status to a biometric residence permit. If we were to waive fees on this basis, it would result in a reduction in income that would have to be made up through charging other customers higher fees. We believe this would be unfair. The exceptions ensure that the Home Office’s immigration and nationality fee structure complies with international obligations (for example, in relation to refugees and persons deriving rights under European law) and wider government policy. .

The Home Office does not receive or hold data on the number of people who hold an expired travel document with a valid visa but need to provide

acceptable evidence of their right to work to a new employer. In these circumstances the individual is required to apply to the Home Office to transfer their conditions, as a result of which they will receive a biometric residence permit. While the Home Office is processing the application it provides a checking service for employers to verify someone’s right to work so that the ability to start work is not impeded. This change was introduced to simplify and strengthen right to work checks by employers to better prevent illegal working in the UK.