Following my statement of 13 November, I would like to update the House on the actions that we are taking to address Security Industry Authority licensing checks and the issue of entitlement to work in the United Kingdom.

An SIA licence demonstrates that the holder has undergone training and that identity and criminality checks have been completed. An SIA licence has never constituted evidence of entitlement to work in this country, and it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that the people they employ are entitled to work.

Before my previous statement, steps were already being taken to prevent illegal working in the security industry. From 2 July 2007, the SIA introduced immigration status checks with the Border and Immigration Agency on all non-European economic area applicants as part of the security industry licensing process. That is not a substitute for employers meeting their clear obligations, but the SIA checks provide a double lock on illegal working in this area. Alongside the immigration status checks, my Department took steps to determine how many people who were granted licences prior to 2 July did not have the right to work. Plans were put in place for the BIA to check all the 39,885 non-EEA nationals licensed by SIA before 2 July. Manual checks had already started at the rate of 1,000 cases per week.

I wanted the process to be speeded up without compromising accuracy. I therefore ordered automatic matching between the SIA list of non-EEA nationals and databases operated by BIA and UK Visas. The BIA and SIA have now completed the checks on the 39,885 non-EEA nationals licensed by SIA before 2 July. On the basis of those checks, I am advised that the BIA is fully satisfied that 28,737 have the right to work in this country; the BIA believes that 6,653 do not have the right to work in this country; and, in 4,447 other cases, the BIA is not satisfied that the individual has proved the right to work. The balance of 48 represents duplicate records.

The following steps are being taken to revoke the licences of those found not to be entitled to work in this country. The SIA has written to all companies on their database to remind them of the need to check regularly on the SIA’s website the registers of licence holders and of revoked licences, to ensure that all their staff have the right to work. The registers are currently receiving more than 1,000 hits a day. Apart from a small number of cases whose SIA licence is close to expiry, the SIA has written to all of those individuals—more than 10,500—for whom checks indicate no right to work or where the BIA is not satisfied that the individual has the right to work. Those letters advise the licence holder that the SIA is minded to revoke their licence. The SIA gives recipients 21 days in which to respond with further information, and it expects that many will do so. If evidence is not forthcoming, the SIA will move to revocation. The law then allows the individual a further 21 days in which to appeal to the magistrates or sheriff courts. Once the SIA has completed the process, it will be in a position to determine the number of individuals who were not entitled to work but obtained SIA licences prior to the new double lock checking regime that is now in place.

The SIA expects that a significant proportion may yet establish that they have a right to work in this country. I am advised that, of the new applicants for licences initially considered for refusal by the SIA on the basis of checks with the BIA after 2 July, more than 30 per cent. have since shown that they have the right to work. The SIA will publish the final numbers of the pre-2 July group on its website when they are complete.

I repeat that it is important that all employers fulfil their obligations by carrying out all the proper checks before taking anyone on. We are also taking further steps to protect the public from those individuals whom we suspect have breached our immigration laws by working here illegally. First, all the cases where “minded to revoke” action is being taken against individuals have been passed to the BIA enforcement intelligence units to be assessed for further action. The BIA is screening those individuals against the police national computer and other databases so that we can target any individuals who may pose a risk to the public.

Secondly, the cases are being analysed for evidence of employers who appear to have a track record of employing people who do not have a right to work. The BIA tells me that a third of its illegal working operation is deployed on that employment sector. Visits to specific individuals and employers have already begun and swift action has been taken in those cases that merit it. A series of targeted enforcement operations will take place in the coming months, with a view to prosecuting employers and removing or prosecuting individuals in the worst cases.

Thirdly, in line with our enforcement strategy, we will continue to target illegal working on the basis of the risk of harm to the public. New powers which come into force in February will mean that we can more easily fine employers who break the rules. Now that we have identified a significant problem in the security industry, we will maintain a focus on its employers and staff.

We are taking other steps further to guard against illegal working in the security industry. First, the BIA has passed to the SIA the right-to-work expiry dates of all licence holders and recent new applicants. The SIA has agreed that in future it will send “minded to revoke” letters to all those licence holders shortly before their right-to-work status expires. Secondly, I have asked the BIA to work with the SIA to provide specialist advice to enhance its ability to spot fraudulent documentation.

Thirdly, the SIA’s licence application form does not specifically ask applicants to state that they have the right to work in the UK. I have therefore asked the SIA to review the application form to ensure that it contains all the information both the SIA and BIA may need, with a view to making changes as soon as possible. Fourthly, in January the SIA will run a joint seminar with the British Security Industry Association to underline the importance of employers’ meeting their responsibilities in that area. Fifthly, the taskforce that I set up to resolve the issue in September, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), will continue to oversee action.

I believe that the update that I have provided today demonstrates my determination, and that of the Government, to put in place effective systems and procedures to protect the public further. I commend the statement to the House.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

Last month, we were told there were 5,000 illegal foreign workers in the security industry. Then it was 10,000. Now it is up to 11,000. First, will the Home Secretary answer some simple factual questions? How many of the 11,000 people working in security positions without a work permit have had their SIA licence revoked? Is she telling us that so far there have been none after nine months? How many have been removed from their security posts? How many are still in place, and why? How many have been deported? How many of those illegal workers does she expect to be deported? Can she now answer the question that I asked her last month: how many have been engaged protecting police, military or Government posts or critical national infrastructure?

My next questions relate to how on earth the system went so badly wrong. The Home Secretary said today that an SIA licence has

“never constituted evidence of entitlement to work in this country”.

That is not what the SIA says, and nor is it what any reasonable employer would accept. In a document published by the SIA in 2006, and repeated on its website, it states:

“To obtain an SIA licence it is necessary to pass checks relating to competency and being a fit and proper person for the role.”

It goes on:

“The fit and proper person check is made up of the following checks”—

and No. 1 is the

“right to work in the UK”.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the SIA led the industry to believe that it checked immigration status?

The SIA required a range of documents including passports and driving licences. It held those documents for up to three months. In some 5,000 to 11,000 cases they were presumably forgeries. How was the SIA—I emphasise that it is the Security Industry Authority—able to miss up to 11,000 forgeries? Who is responsible for that failure? Will there now be prosecutions in every case where forged documents were provided?

Not just the SIA was fooled. The application form provides for the applicant to give a national insurance number. In how many cases were illegal immigrants given a national insurance number? What are the checks made before a national insurance number is given? Is there a check on immigration status, and if not, why not?

There is also the issue of the Government’s candour—or lack of it. In her November statement, the Home Secretary said that Ministers were informed about the problem in June, yet the Minister for Borders and Immigration told the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 27 November that he knew in April. Was he mistaken or did the Home Secretary accidentally misinform the House earlier?

The Home Secretary told the House in her last statement that she did not tell the Prime Minister until the weekend before. She said:

“I did not tell the Prime Minister because there was not a fiasco”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 538.]

I will pass over what it takes to constitute a fiasco in the Home Office these days. The problem we have is that when the Prime Minister was asked the very next day to confirm when the Home Secretary had told him, he refused to answer three times. When I asked him the next week by written question to confirm the account, he referred me back to his non-answer. When his spokesman was asked at the Lobby briefing, he replied that he would not get into internal government processes and discussions.

Let us be clear about what the Home Secretary has said. She was aware in July. However, in August, September and October, when the Prime Minister was actively considering an election, she did not tell him about the brewing scandal in the Home Office. Will she confirm that neither she nor her office and her advisers informed either the Prime Minister or his office before Saturday 10 November 2007? Yes or no?

First, the right hon. Gentleman’s point about certainty of information proves the point made in my last statement about the importance of ensuring that information is certain before reporting it to the House. He has just cited a series of figures, even though I made it clear when I made that statement that they were not certified and checked. That was why I argued as I did and have come back to the House to provide the detailed information in my statement today.

There have been 409 revocations of licences from before 2 July, when the new immigration checks were brought in. More than 10,000 letters instituting revocation have been issued, but as the revocation process involves a minimum period of 42 days, there will obviously be more. However, 409 is the figure at the moment.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me specific questions about enforcement. The Border and Immigration Agency has rightly focused its attention on working with the SIA to identify the scale of the problem so that further work can be done. At the same time, however, the BIA has also started investigations into 328 of the cases referred to it. It has carried out 101 enforcement visits and arrested 15 individuals, and plans to make at least 400 further visits by the end of January.

The right hon. Gentleman then spoke about the system as a whole, and I want to begin my response to that by repeating what I said in my previous statement to the House. The SIA was not failing to do anything that it was legally required to do. The legal requirement to check an employee’s right to work has always fallen on employers, but the SIA did carry out spot-checks on a sample. Along with the enforcement activities that took place in April, those spot-checks identified that there was a need to tighten the system even further by the application of what I have described as a double lock. That is what has happened. It is why, from 2 July, 100 per cent. of those applying for a SIA licence have been subject to a check of their immigration status. It is also why the evidence required for identity checks was upgraded from 1 October—a change that will impact on everyone with a SIA licence that comes up for renewal.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about forgeries. He will know that they can be very expert, but the BIA has considerable expertise in discovering them and winkling them out. That is why, as I said in my statement, I have asked the BIA to provide the SIA with advice on how to identify forgeries.

As for national insurance numbers, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that anyone applying for an employment-related NI number must supply proof of the right to work in the UK by providing a limited number of specified documents. I repeat what I said in my previous statement to the House on these matters: my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration told the Home Affairs Committee that we undertook an enforcement operation in April. In other words, that was precisely the sort of action in respect of the immigration system that we must take if we are to clamp down on illegal working. The operation identified a potential problem in the security industry, and led to the action that was taken subsequently.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about keeping the Prime Minister up to date about what is happening with this matter. In fact, in his response to my statement he quoted how we did just that.

I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement.

For some time now, I have been following the series of scandals that has disfigured the Government’s spectacular mismanagement of the immigration system. I thought that we had seen it all, but this latest, belated revelation of Keystone Cops incompetence truly takes the breath away.

For instance, we learned today that the BIA will

“work with the SIA to provide specialist advice to enhance their ability to spot fraudulent documentation.”

Why has something so basic not happened before? Why have we learned only today that the BIA is finally passing to the SIA the right-to-work expiry dates of all existing licence holders? Why has that not happened before?

We learned from the Home Secretary’s statement today that as many as one in four of the 40,000 individuals licensed by the SIA might be illegal. Does she therefore agree that equally estimable analyses should be published of illegal working levels in those other sectors—such as agriculture, construction and hospitality—where they are known to be high?

Finally, so many resources were diverted to dealing with the foreign offenders scandal that the number of failed asylum seekers being deported fell by a massive 40 per cent. in the space of a few months. That suggests to me that the BIA is incapable of performing more than one task at a time. We learned today that a third of its illegal working operation is being allocated to dealing with that particular mess alone, so will the Home Secretary tell us what she thinks will be the knock-on effect of that massive deployment of resources? What other scandals can we look forward to as a result?

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place this afternoon. I presume that he feels confident that he has achieved success and that he no longer needs to be out on the hustings.

The hon. Gentleman asked about forgeries. As I said, we are adopting a sensible approach and making sure that the BIA’s expertise in respect of forgeries is made available to the SIA, and it seems a little hard to be criticised for doing so. In addition, the action being taken over the expiry dates of people’s leave and right to work is another example of the double lock—the belt and braces approach—that the Government are putting in place. When employers employ a person, they have the responsibility to carry out checks of that person’s right to work, and to maintain those checks. Notwithstanding that responsibility, the Government are assisting the SIA by enabling it to issue “minded to revoke” letters in all circumstances when a person with a licence is coming to the end of the period when he or she has the right to work here.

The hon. Gentleman asked about illegal working. In our responses to parliamentary questions, the Government often provide information about our illegal working enforcement activities, including breakdowns of those activities by sector. The answer to illegal working is not simply to provide more information. We must also ensure that there is more enforcement, and the doubling of the BIA’s enforcement effort is an important contribution to that.

The hon. Gentleman asked a linked question about the enforced return of failed asylum seekers. It is true that we matched our record for enforced returns in the third quarter of the year, but we are also carrying out our promise to prioritise those who pose the biggest threat of harm. That is why I believe that we will be successful in achieving the targets that we have set ourselves for returning foreign national prisoners this year.

If he had his way, the hon. Gentleman would provide an amnesty for people who are currently working illegally in this country as failed asylum seekers. That could only make the problem worse, so his criticisms are therefore a little hard to take.

May I thank the Home Secretary for fulfilling her promise to return to the House and report back on the steps that she has taken? I warmly welcome what she and the Minister for Borders and Immigration have done to resolve what is a difficult problem.

I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted the point about the application form that was made at the most recent Home Affairs Committee hearing. It is blindingly obvious that the form should have contained the question, “Do you have the right to work?” We could not understand why the SIA chief executive refused to change the form.

However, will my right hon. Friend tell us what the endgame will be? She has updated us on the figures and told us precisely how many licences have been revoked. She has also confirmed that the taskforce will continue under the supervision of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), but when will she be able to tell the House that the matter has been resolved completely and that the licences have finally been revoked?

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the point about a positive declaration of the right to work on the application form. We have taken cognisance of it and I have asked the authority to redesign the form to ensure that all the necessary information is included.

On what my right hon. Friend describes as the endgame, I can say that the result of the action we have taken, particularly since 2 July, is to strengthen, on an ongoing basis, both the immigration checks made when somebody applies for a Security Industry Authority licence—there is now a 100 per cent. check—and, from 1 October, the nature of the evidence required to verify somebody’s identity, which will ensure, as I said in my statement, that any doubt about the veracity of identity documents will be dealt with as licences come up for renewal.

My right hon. Friend asked when we would know the number of revocations. In my statement, I said that the revocation process takes a minimum of 42 days. Some individuals will exercise their right to lodge an appeal in the magistrates courts or sheriff courts, but I have made it clear that the SIA should maintain a record of licences that are being revoked, so that when we complete the process it should be able to report on the total number of licence revocations.

Did the Home Secretary tell the Prime Minister about this particular calamity before 10 November?

I did not.

Does the Home Secretary accept that most people who take an interest in the Security Industry Authority—both of us—agree that it is doing a pretty good job? I am not uncritical, but it does a good job. If my right hon. Friend talks to people who have been around for a long time she will understand why the Conservatives are so aggressive: they never liked the concept of the SIA. Although they had the opportunity, between 1979 and 1997, to introduce such an authority they completely opposed the concept. There may be some sort of regression, so does my right hon. Friend accept that they have form in this area? When they held office there was no regulatory authority, so how many people slipped through the net in the absence of the SIA that they are now kicking?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When I read some of the reports of the Committee proceedings of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which brought in the SIA, I was struck by the wisdom of my right hon. Friend’s contributions. He has been interested in the matter for a long time, and he is right to note that a large number of people have come to it relatively recently with the intention of kicking the SIA, which has played an important role. The security industry, pre-SIA, was almost wholly unregulated in respect of its staffing, so regardless of whether a person had a criminal record or the right to work in the UK, or whether there were other slightly dodgy elements, they could get a job in the security industry. Thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend and others, and thanks to the Government’s willingness to introduce legislation, we have a regulated security industry, and members of the public and employers can feel more confident about the quality of the service they are offering and receiving.

The Home Secretary mentioned the words “double lock” about 14 times. Can she confirm that the doors being double locked were actually wide open? Is she aware that the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 brought under the SIA the regulation of private bailiffs? Can she tell the House how many private bailiffs are working without a permit and what steps she is taking to ensure that the regulatory regime for private bailiffs has at its core the prevention of any illegal work?

The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, tells me that work is under way to bring the regulation of private bailiffs within the purview of the SIA. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested, he might like to have a conversation with my hon. Friend.

The Home Secretary rightly reminds employers of their obligations, but what does she say to employers who do make the appropriate checks but cannot obtain licences for people who clearly have a right to work? One of my constituents was told recently that no new licences would be issued for two months, despite the fact that there had already been a considerable delay. One Scottish local authority had to switch off a CCTV camera system for six weeks because the licences had not arrived. Is it the case that there is chaos at the heart of the SIA, or is it that because resources are being redeployed to firefight this particular problem, other parts of the authority’s work are going by the board?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is talking specifically about the situation in Scotland, where the need for an SIA licence was implemented only on 1 November, although people have been able to apply for licences since 1 February, which is clearly a much longer period than two months. My understanding is that 80 per cent. of licences are issued within eight weeks. The only instances where there may be a short delay—perhaps one to two weeks—are in respect of applicants from outside the European economic area, where, as I have already said, we are making additional checks.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I am happy to say that the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to us recently to thank us and our officials for our co-operation in ensuring that the system works smoothly and securely.

May I suggest that the Home Secretary’s answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) about the granting of SIA licences was completely laughable? Her suggestion that checks will be tightened up clearly shows that the immigration system is a complete shambles in that regard. She suggests that employers can make the checks, but does she not accept that in granting licences the SIA clearly creates the impression that illegal immigrants have been checked and can work in the UK, given the stipulations in the SIA regulations?

I do not suggest that employers should check right-to-work status; it is the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 that suggests employers have a duty to check, and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 tightens up that requirement. Employers have a legal requirement to check whether somebody has the right to work, and now—to assist employers in the security industry—there will be an extra check by the SIA of people’s right to work before they are issued with a licence. That is the double lock to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was referring.