Tag: Robert Jenrick

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the average level of funding per pupil in secondary schools in Newark constituency has been in each year since 2010.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Funding from the Department is primarily allocated at a local authority level, in this case the Nottinghamshire local authority. Since the introduction of the dedicated schools grant (DSG) in 2006-07, figures are no longer available to be shown split by phase of education.

    Figures for financial years 2010 to 2013 are shown below in cash terms:

    Average revenue per pupil funding (£)

    2010-11

    2011-12

    2012-13

    Nottinghamshire LA

    4,810

    4,750

    4,750

    Per pupil figures use DSG allocations plus other schools related grants, e.g. school standards grant, school standards grant (personalisation), standards fund, and pupils aged 3-15, rounded to the nearest £10. Most of the additional grants were mainstreamed into DSG in 2011-12.

    The changes to DSG funding in financial year 2013-14 with funding allocated through three blocks, namely schools, early years and high needs, means there is no longer a comparable overall figure with previous years. The table below shows the DSG schools block unit funding figures in cash terms for Nottinghamshire LA.

    DSG schools block per pupil funding (£)

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-2016

    2016-2017

    Nottinghamshire LA

    4,351

    4,351

    4,352

    4,355

    Since 2011-12, schools have received the Pupil Premium which targets funding at pupils from the most deprived backgrounds to help them achieve their full potential. In 2011-12, the premium was allocated for each pupil known to be eligible for Free School Meals, looked after children and children of parents in the armed services. In 2012-13 coverage was expanded to include pupils known to have been eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last six years. The amounts per pupil amounts for each type of pupil are shown in following table in cash terms:

    Pupil Premium per pupil (£)

    2011-2012

    2012-2013

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-2016

    Free School Meal Pupil Primary

    £488

    £623

    £953

    £1323

    £1320

    Free School Meal Pupil Secondary

    £488

    £623

    £900

    £935

    £935

    Service Children

    £200

    £250

    £300

    £300

    £300

    Looked After Children

    £488

    £623

    £900

    £1900*

    £1900*

    *Also includes children adopted from care

    Total Pupil Premium allocations for Nottinghamshire local authority and schools in the Newark constituency for each year are shown in the following table in cash terms:

    Pupil Premium Allocations (£ millions)

    2011-2012

    2012-2013

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-16 (prov.)

    Nottinghamshire LA

    7.380

    14.710

    22.903

    30.420

    30.163

    Newark constituency

    0.678

    1.404

    2.203

    2.899

    2.815

    Figures for Newark exclude the looked after children element as this is not available at a parliamentary constituency level.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-04-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of racially motivated attacks in England and Wales targeted Jews in each of the last five years.

    Karen Bradley

    The Home Office does not hold the requested information. The Home Office receive data on hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales for the five centrally monitored strands (race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity) but these data cannot be broken down by race or religion of the victim and cover all offences, not just “attacks”. The most recently available data relate to the financial year 2014/15 and can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2014-to-2015

    The Association of Chief Police Officers also publishes data on hate crimes for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These figures separate out the number of crimes that were anti-Semitic. Data for 2014/15 can be found at:

    http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_data_npcc_2014-15.pdf

    From April 2016, the Home Office will collect a breakdown of religion-based hate crime data from the police to help forces build community trust, target their resources and enable the public to better hold them to account. This information will be provided voluntarily in 2016/17, but we intend to make it mandatory from the following year.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the average level of funding per pupil has been in secondary schools in Nottinghamshire in each year since 2010.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Funding from the Department is primarily allocated at a local authority level, in this case the Nottinghamshire local authority. Since the introduction of the dedicated schools grant (DSG) in 2006-07, figures are no longer available to be shown split by phase of education.

    Figures for financial years 2010 to 2013 are shown below in cash terms:

    Average revenue per pupil funding (£)

    2010-11

    2011-12

    2012-13

    Nottinghamshire LA

    4,810

    4,750

    4,750

    Per pupil figures use DSG allocations plus other schools related grants, e.g. school standards grant, school standards grant (personalisation), standards fund, and pupils aged 3-15, rounded to the nearest £10. Most of the additional grants were mainstreamed into DSG in 2011-12.

    The changes to DSG funding in financial year 2013-14 with funding allocated through three blocks, namely schools, early years and high needs, means there is no longer a comparable overall figure with previous years. The table below shows the DSG schools block unit funding figures in cash terms for Nottinghamshire LA.

    DSG schools block per pupil funding (£)

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-2016

    2016-2017

    Nottinghamshire LA

    4,351

    4,351

    4,352

    4,355

    Since 2011-12, schools have received the Pupil Premium which targets funding at pupils from the most deprived backgrounds to help them achieve their full potential. In 2011-12, the premium was allocated for each pupil known to be eligible for Free School Meals, looked after children and children of parents in the armed services. In 2012-13 coverage was expanded to include pupils known to have been eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last six years. The amounts per pupil amounts for each type of pupil are shown in following table in cash terms:

    Pupil Premium per pupil (£)

    2011-2012

    2012-2013

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-2016

    Free School Meal Pupil Primary

    £488

    £623

    £953

    £1323

    £1320

    Free School Meal Pupil Secondary

    £488

    £623

    £900

    £935

    £935

    Service Children

    £200

    £250

    £300

    £300

    £300

    Looked After Children

    £488

    £623

    £900

    £1900*

    £1900*

    *Also includes children adopted from care

    Total Pupil Premium allocations for Nottinghamshire local authority and schools in the Newark constituency for each year are shown in the following table in cash terms:

    Pupil Premium Allocations (£ millions)

    2011-2012

    2012-2013

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-16 (prov.)

    Nottinghamshire LA

    7.380

    14.710

    22.903

    30.420

    30.163

    Newark constituency

    0.678

    1.404

    2.203

    2.899

    2.815

    Figures for Newark exclude the looked after children element as this is not available at a parliamentary constituency level.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-04-28.

    To ask the Attorney General, how many people were prosecuted for offences relating to anti-semitism in the UK in each of the last five years.

    Robert Buckland

    The Whilst the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does flag cases on its case management system that are identified as racial or religious hate crimes, it does not maintain a central record of prosecutions for offences specifically relating to anti-semitism. Such information could only be obtained through a manual search of records which would incur disproportionate cost.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate her Department has made of changes in the cash level of per pupil funding for secondary schools in the county of Nottinghamshire in each of the next five years.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    We have announced the per pupil funding rates for 2016-17. Nottinghamshire will receive £4,355 per pupil in 2016-17. We have protected these rates against 2015-16 levels, so that Nottinghamshire will continue to receive the additional £860,000 it received in 2015-16. Whilst the Department sets the level of funding received by each local authority, it is for local authorities, in consultation with their schools forum, to set their own funding formulae to decide how to distribute funding for pupils aged 5 to 16 in their areas, including the funding allocated to secondary schools.

    Beyond 2016-17, the Government is committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to make school funding fairer. We intend to introduce a National Funding Formula for schools, high needs and early years. We will set out, and consult on, our detailed plans for a National Funding Formula later in the year.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her Department has taken to work with the art and antiques industries to address the sale of ivory in the UK.

    Dr Thérèse Coffey

    My immediate predecessor met, and officials have had a number of discussions with, representatives of the arts and antique sectors over the past 18 months to discuss issues surrounding the sale of ivory in the UK. This included exploring issues that informed our announcement, made on 21 September, of plans for a ban on the sale of ivory items produced from 1947 to the present day.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Robert Jenrick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Robert Jenrick on 2016-01-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the level of funding per pupil at Southwell Minster School has been in each year since 2010.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    We do not estimate budgets at an individual school level for future years as they are subject to change depending on pupil numbers, characteristics and the LA funding formula. We do not hold the information requested, but we do publish the allocations at individual school level for the current academic year every October.

    The following table details the individual school budget and the per pupil funding rates for Southwell Minster School in Newark. These have been sourced wherever possible up to 2012-2013 from published Section 251 statements, which detail local authority spending at school level, and from published school and academy allocations for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

    Minster Southwell School

    Total pupils

    Total Funding (£)

    Per pupil (£)

    2010-11

    1,645

    6,701,451

    4,074

    2011-12

    1,623

    7,097,554

    4,373

    2012-13

    1,599

    7,172,496

    4,486

    2013-14

    1,622

    7,397,407

    4,561

    2014-15

    1,611

    7,187,045

    4,461

    2015-16

    1,591

    7,093,649

    4,459

  • Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Visa Processing Times

    Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Visa Processing Times

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate and to hon. Members from across the House who have joined us, no doubt sharing the hon. Lady’s concerns.

    My door is always open for individual cases. If the hon. Lady would like to give me the details of the cases she raised after the debate, I would be happy to look into them, but she is right that it should not take a request to a Minister to get the good service that the Home Office and our agencies should be delivering routinely. The concerns that she has raised are important to me and to the team behind the visas and immigration service.

    In my short time in the Home Office, I have been impressed by the good work that the team has done in recent months to turn around some of the delays that we have experienced in recent years. The hon. Lady very fairly mentioned that two huge events have affected the performance of UKVI. First, the pandemic affected productivity in all areas of the public sector and the private sector. It has taken us time, as it has other developed countries, to regain the level of customer service that we would like to offer. In most areas, the UK is actually in a better position than our direct competitors around the world, but of course we aspire to be in that position—or, indeed, to go further.

    The second factor is Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. My predecessors made the right decision to transfer a great deal of the workers in the Home Office and UKVI to work on the Homes for Ukraine scheme so that we could get those visas issued as expeditiously as possible, but that did come at a cost to some of our other visa customer standards. It is now our hope that we can quickly recover that lost ground and bring each of the visa categories into line with the service standard as quickly as possible. The good news is that in most cases that has now happened. In the small number of cases in which it is not happening, it will happen very soon. I have been meeting regularly with Marc Owen, who leads the service, and have been impressed by the work that he has done to turn it around in recent months.

    I will go through a couple of the principal areas that have been raised, just to give some comfort that we are very alive to these issues. Despite the need to take resource off the emergency situation in Ukraine and restore the service that the rest of the visas and immigration service needs to deliver, it remains important that we process applications under the Homes for Ukraine scheme quickly. If the hon. Member for North East Fife gives me details of the cases she mentioned, I will happily take them forwards, but we are generally processing applications in a matter of days. If some are taking longer, that is clearly concerning; it may be that there is something specific about those cases, but I will happily look into them.

    Before my arrival in the Department, an entirely reasonable decision was taken to make work and study our national priority. We need to get the economy going again after the pandemic, and we needed to get students who had left because of covid back into the country, in order for universities to get going again. Resources were put in place to ensure that those visas were decided quickly. The number of cases was very high, as can be seen from the net migration statistics, which were published recently. The number of foreign students who have entered the UK in the past 12 months has been exceptionally high, and more than 590,000 study visas had been processed by the end of September 2022.

    I am interested in the hon. Lady’s example from St Andrews University. The national statistics show that we are meeting the study route customer service standard. The 15-day service is being met. In fact, it is averaging 11 days for a standard study visa. For leave to remain—the more complex and longer-term settlement cases—we have an eight-week standard, and that is at six weeks currently. In general terms, therefore, we are meeting the standard, but that is not to diminish the cases that she raised, which again I will happily take up.

    Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate. I have had a case in my constituency of a sixth-form student who was already studying at a sixth-form college, but who ran foul of the visa rules and had difficulty re-entering to continue their course. It is not necessarily about the easy cases here; it is about how we deal with what was called the long tail of casework. Some cases are still taking several months to clear up, which is interfering with student studies and sometimes with the supply of staff. I wonder what the Minister might be able to do to address that issue.

    Robert Jenrick

    I will happily look into that. As I say, the overall standard is being met and indeed exceeded—that was not always the case, but it is where we are now—but my hon. Friend is probably right that there is a longer tail of complex cases, which clearly take longer. It is important that the Department looks after those individuals to the same standard.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I thank the Minister for giving way—he is being generous with his time. There is absolutely no doubt that the student situation has improved massively, and my casework team would acknowledge that, but the issue is the work visas of people coming for research or employment with the university. It will degrade the university’s reputation if people coming to deliver courses to students cannot get here.

    Robert Jenrick

    Without repeating myself, I am happy to look into those cases. There is a conflict here between the standard practice and the cases the hon. Lady is raising. Again, that is not to diminish what she is saying, because there are without doubt cases where we are not performing as we would wish.

    It is fair to say that the overall picture for work visas is mixed. For non-sponsored work visas, we are falling below the standard that we aspire to, which is 15 days; we are averaging 36 days, according to the latest statistics that I have seen. For the sponsored routes, which have been given priority by the Department for understandable reasons—this is where an employer is actively seeking for a person to come to the UK as swiftly as possible—the opposite is true. Our 15-day target is being exceeded; we are processing those claims in eight days on average. However, we would like to bring all those categories into line with our service standards as quickly as possible.

    For visitors to the UK, we are also now in a much better position that we were recently, which helps with the return of international tourism to the UK. Generally, we are now at or exceeding the customer service standard that we aspire to, which is between 14 and 21 days to turn around an application.

    The area where I think there is still room for improvement is family visas, which a number of hon. Members raised today. For the settlement visas, we are about in the position that we would like to be in, which is that we are turning cases around in 93 days. That is still a long time in the real world for someone who wants to get a loved one into the country for important reasons, so I appreciate that, although we might be achieving our customer service target, it is probably not the target that we as a country aspire to. We would like to improve on that.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    Will the Minister give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will, but let me just finish the point. For spouses and partners looking for either leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain, the overall picture is much better. For leave to remain, we have a target of eight weeks. We are currently processing claims in three weeks. For indefinite leave to remain, we have a much longer target, of 26 weeks, but we are processing those claims within 10 weeks. Overall, the team has done a good job of turning around those times, but I appreciate that the hon. Member for North East Fife has some examples that tell a different story. Perhaps in the time remaining she would like to intervene one last time.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I appreciate the Minister giving way for a final time. It is interesting that he admits that family visas are where the poorest performance is. That goes back to the very first point I made at the start of the debate: the Home Office does not have a target time for those visas. It is very good that the Minister is giving us data that shows that some tracking is happening, but perhaps if he agreed to set a target the performance would improve.

    Robert Jenrick

    We do have targets for those claims. I have been happy to read some of the targets today. For each visa category, we set our own internal customer service target, and as Ministers we push the team to deliver on it. Those targets can progressively be improved, now that we are out of the long shadow of covid and are able to move some of the resource that was on the Homes for Ukraine scheme back on to business-as-usual processes. I hope that, in the early months of next year, each visa cohort will be brought to, or will exceed, our customer service standard. Then I, as the responsible Minister, will be able to work with the team to set better targets that provide an even better quality of service to the hon. Lady and all our constituents across the country.

    Munira Wilson

    On the length of time the Minister cited for spousal visas, in our experience 26 weeks is much closer to the reality on the ground. Will he clarify for our constituents and caseworkers what the criteria for getting a case expedited are? The example I gave was not considered worth expediting.

    Robert Jenrick

    I do not have the exact criteria with me. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady to give her some further guidance, but it is fair to say that some of the cases that we receive cannot be expedited, even though they relate to what many of us would regard as important life events, such as an individual’s decision to get married. It is the Home Office’s advice that someone should get their visa before setting the date for their wedding. The issues that we take most seriously are obviously those of life and death, where individuals need to come into the country for a funeral or to see a relative or loved one just before they pass away. A high standard has to be applied, because we receive thousands of requests for expedited cases that relate to important life events and heartfelt issues. We have to set a high standard to ensure that we can truly prioritise important events.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife for raising this matter. As I said, I will be more than happy to look into the specific cases that she, or indeed other Members, raised.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking this urgent question. The Home Office recognises the importance of the UK food and drink sector, and the agricultural industry that supplies it. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme exists to support those businesses and ensure that they have the labour they need. The quota for 2022 was 38,000 workers for the edible and ornamental horticulture sector, and a further 2,000 for the poultry sector. That quota has not yet been met, and the Home Office’s management data suggest that about 1,400 places remain.

    An announcement on the 2023 scheme is imminent. My Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be making that statement very soon. In the meantime, workers already in the United Kingdom under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme can continue to take other work placements and to stay in the UK for up to six months, even if that involves remaining here into 2023. Further workers can avail themselves of the remaining 1,400 certificates and enter the UK this year—even if, again, that means staying into 2023—for the duration of their six-month placement. My Department is committed to supporting this important sector and to working with stakeholders to improve the delivery of schemes such as the one for seasonal agricultural workers.

    George Eustice

    The seasonal worker visa scheme has been a tremendous success—perhaps one of the most successful Home Office policies in recent years—and this year it has provided about two thirds of the labour needs of the horticultural sector. However, there have been some serious problems with administration. In particular, scheme operators need to be issued with an allocation of certificates of sponsorship now, so that they can recruit people and secure the visas necessary for workers to start in January.

    Last year, the Home Office allowed certificates of sponsorship in 2021 to be used as the basis for workers arriving in January 2022. This year, for reasons that have not been properly explained, Home Office officials have taken a decision not to allow that and have made it clear to operators that they cannot use that route. Indeed, I understand that they have closed the ability to issue certificates of sponsorship from the end of November, so that no one at the moment is able to issue them.

    There are two legitimate courses of action. One would be to allow the same situation to apply as last year, and enable the remaining certificates of sponsorship for this year to be used for workers arriving in January. The second course of action would be to make a provisional allocation of certificates of sponsorship on the sponsorship management system run by the Home Office. This could be done very easily and would enable operators to recruit staff in the next few weeks.

    That is of critical importance to the daffodil industry in my constituency. Daffodil growers currently have around a third of their staff from last year’s scheme, a third of them being settled EU citizens. At the moment they are going to have a gap of between 30% and 40% of their staffing needs, which will be catastrophic for the industry by the end of January. So will the Minister take immediate action directing his officials to put a provisional allocation of certificates for sponsorship on to the Home Office sponsorship management system?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who of course brings more expertise to this issue than anybody in the House. He rightly says that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has been a success and is an important contributor to the food and drink sector in this country, but he raises important issues, and I intend to take them up with my officials.

    Parts of the sector, such as the daffodil industry, require workers early in the year, meaning that we need to take steps to ensure that those businesses can make sensible recruitment decisions in good time, and not leave these decisions, as has happened too often, to the eleventh hour. I appreciate that last year the decision on the seasonal agricultural workers scheme was announced on Christmas eve, which no doubt was a cause of significant frustration for those working in the sector. I will work intensively with my officials to ensure that we get that decision out as quickly as possible.

    In the interim, two options are available to the industry: first, to make use of workers already in the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme who have been doing other work until now but might want to move into a sector such as daffodils as quickly as possible for the remainder of their time in the UK; secondly, new individuals could enter the UK under the scheme using the undercapacity within the 2022 placement, and stay into 2023.

    My right hon. Friend raises with me this morning the issue that the Home Office has frozen certificates, making it impossible for employers to bring people in and make use of the remaining certificates in this year’s quota. I have been informed by my officials this morning that nothing has changed from the way the scheme worked last year. If that is incorrect, I will change that today and ensure that the scheme is unfrozen so that important employers such as those my right hon. Friend rightly represents can make use of the remaining certificates before the end of the year. If it is correct that the Home Office has frozen these certificates, I apologise to businesses who have been inadvertently inconvenienced by that and I hope that the Environment Secretary and I can resolve this as quickly as possible.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2022 Statement on Manston

    Robert Jenrick – 2022 Statement on Manston

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Minister, in the House of Commons on 28 November 2022.

    May I extend my apologies, on behalf of the Department, to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—and, indeed, to you, Mr Speaker—for the delay in providing a copy of the statement? With your permission, however, I will now make a statement about the public health considerations in asylum accommodation.

    As the House will know, on the morning of 19 November an individual who had arrived in the United Kingdom on 12 November, and who had been staying at the Manston processing site, sadly died in hospital. Initial test results for an infectious disease were negative, but a follow-up PCR test was positive. We must now await the post mortem results to determine the cause of death, and our thoughts are with the individual’s family.

    There has been speculation about the wider health implications across the asylum accommodation system, so I wanted to come to the House to set out the facts, to outline the steps that have already been taken to protect migrants and the general public, and to reassure the public about the additional precautionary measures that we are now taking.

    The control and testing of infectious diseases is led by the UK Health Security Agency and the Department for Health and Social Care. The Home Office continues to work closely with both, taking their advice on all these matters and following it. As part of our ongoing dialogue, the Home Secretary and I were updated on the situation over the weekend by Dame Jenny Harries of the UKHSA, who confirmed to us that 50 cases of diphtheria had been reported in asylum accommodation. It is important to emphasise that the UKHSA has made it clear that the risk to the wider UK population from onward transmission of diphtheria is very low, thanks in no small part to our excellent childhood immunisation programme, and also because the infection is typically passed on through close prolonged contact with a case. The UKHSA confirmed that it considers it likely that these cases developed before they entered the UK.

    The Home Office has worked closely with the NHS and the UKHSA to identify and isolate anyone with a diphtheria infection. That includes providing diphtheria vaccinations and moving confirmed cases into isolation. While these robust processes and plans for a situation of this type are already in train, it is absolutely right for us now to be vigilant: that is what the public would expect, and that is what we are doing. There are, for instance, robust screening processes on the arrival of individuals at Western Jet Foil in Dover to identify proactively those with symptoms of diphtheria; “round-the-clock” health facilities at Manston, including emergency department consultants and paramedics; guidance in multiple languages on spotting the symptoms of diphtheria; and an enhanced diphtheria vaccination programme, offered to all those arriving at Manston. I can confirm that of those who arrived at the facility this weekend, 100% took up that vaccine offer. There is testing for those presenting with symptoms and for close contacts, and those testing positive are being isolated in a designated place.

    Today we are going above and beyond the UKHSA baseline by instituting new guidance on the transportation and accommodation of individuals displaying diphtheria symptoms. From today, no one presenting with symptoms will progress into the asylum accommodation system. They will either remain at Manston, isolating for a short period, or they will travel to a designated isolation centre in secure transport, where they will be treated until deemed medically fit. This is a well-practised protocol from covid times.

    We will also continue to ensure that all asylum accommodation providers are given access to the very latest public health advice from the UKHSA, and we will ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities for testing and isolating cases of infectious disease. We will continue working with the UKHSA to ensure that arrangements are of the highest standard and that the UKHSA has everything it needs from the Home Office. We are engaging with French counterparts to assess the state of infectious disease in the camps in northern France.

    I fully understand and appreciate the concerns that have been raised, and I assure the House that the Home Office is acutely aware of our responsibility both to those in care and to the British public. For me, the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole, public health is paramount. We will take all steps necessary to ensure that the public are protected. I commend this statement to the House.