Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for having secured such an important and time-critical urgent question. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his previous work and advocacy in this important area.

The news of this flight comes just days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government, as we have heard, acted unlawfully in their treatment of the Windrush generation through the hostile environment. As Caroline Waters, the chair of the EHRC, said,

“The treatment of the Windrush generation as a result of hostile environment policies was a shameful stain on British history.”

There is no clear timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report, and with just 12% of applicants having received a payment and at least nine people having died waiting, the Windrush compensation scheme is failing badly. In his written response to me over the weekend, the Minister said that it is wrong and offensive to conflate this returns flight with the Windrush scandal, but I am afraid that given this Government’s track record, their failings on Windrush and the delays in the compensation scheme, we simply have no faith that this Government have done their due diligence in relation to those on this scheduled flight, and we would not be doing ours if we did not ask the questions.

Of course, we recognise that those who engage in violent and criminal acts must face justice. However, we also hear that at least one person on that flight has a Windrush generation grandfather; there is another whose great-aunt was on the HMT Windrush, and another whose grandfather fought in the second world war for Britain. It is clear that we have not yet established just how far the consequences of the Windrush injustice extend. With that in mind, what assessment has been made to ensure that none of those scheduled to be on the flight are eligible under the Windrush scheme, or have been affected by the wider immigration injustices that impacted the victims of the Windrush scandal? What assurances can the Minister provide the House that the mandatory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children left behind, who are innocent in this, has been considered?

It has also been reported that the Home Office has reached an agreement with the Jamaican Government that people who left Jamaica as children will no longer be repatriated. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case, and can he also confirm what age someone would need to be to have been determined to be a child?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady, the shadow Minister, asks about the Windrush scheme. As she will be aware, over 6,300 people have now been given citizenship, quite rightly, and 13,300 documents have been issued to those people who suffered terrible wrongs in the past. In terms of compensation, 226 people have now received claims totalling in excess of £2.1 million, with a great deal more to pay out. I can also confirm that all of these cases on the plane have been individually assessed, and none of them is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme.

The hon. Lady spent a great deal of time talking about Windrush during her question, but I say again—as I said in my letter to her—that it is completely wrong to conflate the people who were the victims of terrible injustice in the Windrush cases with these cases, who are nothing to do with Windrush, have no Windrush entitlement at all, and have committed terrible criminal offences. She also asks about the age eligibility. The Government are fully committed to discharging their obligation under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to remove anyone of any age who has been sentenced to a custodial term of over 12 months. That has been, is, and will remain our policy.

I am not going to comment on the individual operational circumstances surrounding any particular flight, but we are fully committed to the 2007 Act’s provisions. In relation to children, there is a well defined test around family rights and how they interact with removal. It is possible for people to go to the courts if they want to test their family rights against the Government’s obligations to remove them. But we are clear that our priority is protecting British citizens from dangerous criminals, and that is what we are doing.

Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2020

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 General Committees

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I say with all sincerity that it is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, as we consider this important delegated legislation.

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining with such clarity the purpose of the SI. As we have heard, in essence the order allows those who would lose free movement rights to be able to continue to use e-Gates at the UK border. I followed last week’s debate on this matter in the Lords closely. The Opposition see the merits in the order—it would assist in managing queues and limit the disruption at the border when free movement ends—but we want to explore some of the detail further with the Minister.

We must have faith that the systems in place at the border are welcoming where appropriate but robust enough to identify if a person requires further investigation. The Minister will be aware of the letter sent by the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Martin Hewitt, to the Home Affairs Select Committee, dated 11 November. He referred to UK law enforcement co-operation with EU partners from 1 January 2021, and the possibility of any impact arising from the loss of the EU law enforcement and national security measures, known as LENS tools, as part of the Brexit process and the end of the transition period. Martin Hewitt was very clear that in the event of a non-negotiated outcome

‘the UK will lose access to all LENS tools and capabilities and will rely on contingencies. As an overarching principle, the loss of some or all of the tools will mean that, even with contingencies in place, the fallback systems will be slower, provide less visibility of information/intelligence and make joined up working with European partners more cumbersome’.

That is a pretty desperate warning.

I hope that the Minister can tell me that there will be a negotiated outcome, but in the absence of clarity about to which security databases we will have access post transition, it is highly likely that we will not have access to the data that we once had feeding into our systems and checks at the borders. With that in mind, can the Minister reassure me that e-Gates will be sufficient in identifying any potential threats at the border?

If I am not mistaken, based on the Minister’s recent appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee, and having followed last week’s delegated legislation debate on law enforcement and security, we do not know whether we will have access to a range of LENS tools come 1 January.

The Opposition will not divide the Committee on today’s order, but we would welcome any updates from the Minister on the negotiations and, ultimately, we reserve judgment on the role of e-Gates until we have clarity about the overall package of measures to which the Border Force will have access. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens North (Conor McGinn), the shadow Security Minister, has written to his counterpart to seek urgent clarification on the issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister worked with his colleagues to ensure that we receive a response to my hon. Friend’s letter as soon as possible.

I note from the explanatory memorandum that the order forms part of the Government’s long-term plans to develop a new global border and immigration system that is digital by default. Such a move towards more digital checks will only work if we have access to the data to deliver that, and access to European databases will be crucial to achieving that.

EU citizens who are lawfully resident in the UK before 31 December 2020 will be protected by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The3million wrote to the Minister on 28 October to express its concerns that persons entering the UK after 31 December 2020, who are protected by grace period regulations but who have yet to make their application to the EU settlement scheme, will be inadvertently granted leave via the e-Gates for six months with the relevant restrictions attached, such as no right to work and no access to public funds. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified how that will work, and what measures will be in place to protect those covered by the grace period regulations? Should those protected by those regulations still be encouraged to pass through e-Gates? Would a person who has every right to work but has not yet had their application concluded under the settlement scheme encounter problems because it is recorded on their passports that they used the e-Gate and have six months leave as a visitor, and so prevented from working should they seek to do so?

I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make, and that he can offer clarity to me and the3million by explaining how those arrangements will work in practice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I have been speaking very regularly to people working with asylum seekers in Glasgow. Just last week, I spoke to Aileen Campbell, the Communities Secretary, and I have spoken—I think twice now—in recent weeks to the leader of Glasgow City Council. We are doing a great deal of work with those providing services to asylum seekers in Glasgow. We have managed to reduce the number of people accommodated in hotels from over 400 to about 200. It is regrettable that Glasgow City Council still has 600 people in hotel accommodation.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I am eternally grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker. On 1 October, the shadow Health Minister and I wrote to our counterparts in Government asking why it was taking months to process the one-year visa extensions promised to healthcare workers, leaving them without their biometric residence permits, which is exposing this country’s heroes to the hostile environment. We have not had a response to that letter, so I will ask again: now that we are in a second national lockdown, why was the visa extension scheme closed at the start of October and why are the permits taking so long to process, only compounding the pressures on healthcare professionals rather than alleviating them?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

We are happy to look at a proper review of the rules. Our current rules apply alongside Dublin for those who are within the EU. We think it is appropriate to take stock, as we are doing with the rest of our migration system, as our arrangements fundamentally change with the European Union. We are happy to make the commitment to review them for the future; that is part of the general stock-take we are doing. It is not unreasonable to highlight our record on resettlement and this country’s commitments and the actions it has taken, compared with the commentary we sometimes hear. I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Member does not see a review of the rules as the way forward, but I am sure that he and his colleagues will look to proactively and positively engage with the discussion that this amendment and the review will engender.

It is now essential that the Bill receives Royal Assent without further delay if key elements of the Government’s future border and immigration system, including the new skilled workers routes as well as social security co-ordination, are to be implemented as planned. Further delay would put at risk the ending of free movement at the end of the transition period, which means the UK would effectively continue to have free movement, but unreciprocated by the European Union, into 2021. We cannot accept a delay to that key manifesto commitment. I therefore hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined today, the House will now support our amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu, and the statutory commitments they contain, and disagree with the Lords in their amendment 4B.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for taking the time earlier this week to explain the Government’s amendments in lieu, and for writing to me and others today with further details. Although we do not have a problem with the Government’s amendments—on the contrary, we welcome the opportunity to review all the safe and legal routes available to those fleeing war, torture or persecution and who have grounds to seek asylum in the UK—the review offered still falls a long way short of the commitment that we have asked for in Lords amendment 4B.

The review is a welcome addition to the Bill, but the fact that it is to be introduced through an amendment in lieu of ours makes it feel somewhat hollow by comparison. The Minister will be aware that support for our amendment in the only slightly varying drafts in the other place, spearheaded so ably by Lord Dubs, has resulted in two significant Government defeats, and efforts in the Commons have consistently had support from Members on his own Back Benches. I want to thank them for their work on this, not least the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), through their work on the Home Affairs Committee, have championed the merits of continuing the routes for unaccompanied child refugees.

We ask the Minister one more time to reflect on why adopting the Dubs amendment in its entirely is not just critical but time-critical. We debate the amendment today with 56 days to go until the Dublin regulations end, and with them the lifeline they offer, and we fall back on the immigration rules. We also debate the merits of our amendment, as the Minister has already said, in the shadow of such tragedy in the English channel this year. The sinking of just one of those insecure boats just last week resulted in the loss of life of four people, two of them children who were just six and nine. A further 15 people were taken to hospital, and three more are missing, presumed dead, including the 15-month-old baby of the Iranian Kurd family who died. It is a truly harrowing reminder that people are making more and more desperate decisions as this Government’s squeeze on safe and legal routes continues. It demonstrates that the morally bankrupt traffickers, who allow children and adults alike to get into their dangerous boats and set off to sea in bad weather, will continue to exploit people in the worst possible ways unless we reopen and continue those safe and legal alternatives, family reunion being one of them.

The deliberations and ping-pong between the two Houses on the matter of family reunion or the question of accepting unaccompanied child refugees should not be politically contentious. We are a decent and humanitarian country that takes seriously the requirement, enshrined in international law, to consider asylum claims and offer refuge to those fleeing persecution and destitution, and the Minister has rightly spoken of our country’s proud record on that.

When the House previously considered Lords amendments to the Bill, the Government rejected Lords amendment 4—the earlier version of this amendment—citing financial privilege, as is so often the parliamentary way. I am inclined to agree with Lord Dubs when he said:

“Given the time we spent on the issue and its importance, to say that the technicality of financial privilege is sufficient to dispose of it…falls short of being humanitarian”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1595.]

I heard the Minister’s contribution and read his letter earlier today, and it remains the Government’s goal to seek new arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied child refugees. However, when he responds, could he update the House further? We understand that the Commission simply does not have a mandate from the member states to enter into negotiations on this issue with the UK, so those talks simply cannot progress as things stand. With that in mind, the Minister will know that his review does not commit to continuing the route, and he has offered no substitute to bridge the gap between the European co-operation ending and the possible restart of routes or any new routes that result from his proposed review. The Government’s rhetoric on the anticipated sovereign borders Bill has not given us hope on that front, but if he is serious about finding a way forward and continuing the family reunion co-operation that we are currently committed to, I urge him to support the amendment.

Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 General Committees

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. It is not often that immigration proves to be less contentious than the alternative debate that was perhaps being proposed by the Minister. I welcome being on solid footing with this draft statutory instrument this morning.

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. As he is aware, we are certainly uncomfortable with elements of the immigration skills charge and, in particular, how it applies to NHS trusts as employers. I will take this opportunity to ask him once again to reflect on how the skills charge affects NHS trusts, with some hospitals paying back hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Government every year.

The draft regulations, as we heard, bring the definition of skilled worker within the immigration skills charge regulations in line with the Government’s new proposed points-based immigration system. Again the Minister knows, because we have been through this at some length during the passage of the immigration Bill, that we have broad concerns about how the Government define skilled workers, in particular in relation to social care. That is an issue that will return to the main Chamber next week, when we debate the Lords amendments to the immigration Bill.

The draft regulations, however, are incredibly tight in scope, so it would be futile to oppose them in isolation. We will seek to address those wider concerns at other more appropriate opportunities.

Question put and agreed to.

No Recourse to Public Funds

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair for this important debate, Mr Paisley.

I start, as so many others have done, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, on not just securing this important debate and making a powerful opening contribution, but his leadership on no recourse to public funds throughout the coronavirus crisis. As he made clear, his Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, on a cross-party basis, unanimously called for the suspension of the “no recourse to public funds” restrictions for the duration of the pandemic. His questioning of the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee gave us what we later learned to be false hope that the Prime Minister himself was in agreement that they should be lifted.

My right hon. Friend spoke of his extensive efforts—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—and the difficulty of ascertaining exactly the information that we need about just how many people are affected by having no recourse to public funds. The latest figures produced by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, which others used during the debate, estimate that by the end of 2019, at least 175,000 children under the age of 18 in families were expected to have no recourse to public funds, and more than 1.4 million adults.

The Labour party has consistently asked the Government to lift NRPF as a condition on a person’s migration status to ensure that no one is left behind in the public health effort against the coronavirus. Writing to the Government on 21 April, I asked them to lift the “no recourse to public funds” condition for the duration of the pandemic, stressing that thousands of people could face impossible choices between staying safe and securing an income for themselves and their families. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke powerfully about how the length of time it takes to determine a person’s immigration status is at the heart of this debate.

The Minister will say that those with no recourse to public funds were eligible for furlough but, as we all know, not all types of work or employment conditions were eligible for the furlough scheme, which comes to an end on 31 October. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) spoke about those he represents—it is the same in my constituency—who are on zero-hours contracts and were not eligible for that support as a result.

Labour has pressed this issue throughout the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, both in Committee and on Report. The tight framing of the law changes in that Bill did not allow us to table amendments that would have lifted NRPF with immediate effect, but we did make the case again for why lifting the condition for the duration of the pandemic would be the appropriate and responsible thing to do in the circumstances. The Minister might remember that we pushed that to a vote on Report, as we felt so strongly about it.

As others have commented, it has been frustrating that the Home Office has dug in on the issue. Other Departments have simply circumvented Home Office obstinance. On 26 March, Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to all councils asking them to

“utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with no recourse to public funds who require shelter and other forms of support due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

It seems that the Government have understood in principle that NRPF is counterproductive during the pandemic.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the cost shunting. The principle was recognised, as she said, and yet the cost was shunted to local government, with a very small pot of money to cover loads of issues in a local area. She is right to raise that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch]

My hon. Friend makes a similar point to the one made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) in his detailed and articulate speech. The point about cost shunting is exactly right. We have asked local councils to use “alternative powers” to do something, but they are essentially being asked to fudge it.

A lack of clarity from the Home Office means that, in practice, people now face a postcode lottery, at the discretion of their local authority, in the absence of a clear steer from the Home Office. The Local Government Association has called for NRPF to be suspended on behalf of councils, giving them the best chance of delivering on their responsibilities to protect those vulnerable people. As we are sadly now well into a second wave of infections, I urge the Government to once again consider lifting NRPF. If the Minister cannot make that commitment this afternoon, I ask him to seriously reflect on some mitigations for this cohort of people.

As the Minister knows, people are now required by law to self-isolate if they are contacted by NHS Test and Trace, and they will be offered a test and trace support payment of £500 if they are on lower incomes, cannot work from home or have lost income as a result. As the Government guidance states, just under 4 million people who are in receipt of benefits in England will be eligible for this payment. It is not clear if those with no recourse to public funds will be eligible for that payment, but I suspect, in some cases, they would be those people most in need of it. I hope the Minister will clarify the situation and confirm that they will be eligible for that payment, should it be necessary.

As we have discussed, it is possible for individuals and families to apply for NRPF conditions to be lifted if their circumstances change and they face destitution. That can be a complicated and lengthy process, with families fearing that their application will be unsuccessful unless they turn to paid immigration advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) shared powerful stories from his constituency about the barriers to having those restrictions lifted.

In the first quarter of 2020, 843 applications were made to the Home Office but in the second quarter, 5,565 were made. The Government’s own figures show that thousands of people’s circumstances have changed and that they are facing destitution. I hope the Minister will give us a clearer answer to the question of how many people have no recourse to public funds. If he does, can he give an indication of what percentage of that group these applicants represent?

The latest data published by the Home Office covers quarters 1 and 2 of this year. Can the Minister give us an early indication of what the data says for the third quarter of the year, in terms of both the numbers who are applying to have their condition lifted and the time taken to process the applications? In the latest publication, there are early signs that the time taken to arrive at a decision is starting to slide, so I hope he will give us an indication of the average time and the longest time taken to determine those applications. Others this afternoon have talked about everything from five weeks to four months.

We know that children can be denied access to public funds because of their parents’ immigration status. However, an audit of families with NRPF undertaken between 2015 and 2018 found that 68% had a child or multiple children born here in the UK. These children have only ever known the UK, but they are not protected by the safeguards we put in place to ensure children do not face the types of poverty we are seeing.

The Child Poverty Action Group published a report last April that predates the pressures of covid-19, but it has shone a harrowing light on what life is like for low-income families when there is just no safety net due to NRPF. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham told us about the eight-year-old boy who was sleeping rough due to having no recourse to public funds. The study also found that some children, who came from the most severely deprived families with NRPF simply did not eat at all during the school day. One child interviewed as part of the study said:

“Sometimes you don’t have enough energy, you cannot cope in the classroom so you have to like try and rest a bit. You just put your head on the table and you end up falling asleep in the classroom”.

Children in families with NRPF are not routinely entitled to free school meals. While the Department for Education has extended eligibility for free school meals temporarily to include some groups with NRPF, when it is compounded with the existing pressures on those families brought about by the virus, the consequences of not extending the safety net to those children is surely not something we are prepared to tolerate.

It is worth reminding ourselves, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) did, that those with NRPF pay the same taxes as every other in-work person in the UK—income tax, national insurance and council tax—in addition to ongoing immigration charges and the immigration health surcharge. Like everybody who has spoken in the debate, I have some brilliant organisations, such as St Augustine’s Centre in Halifax, WomenCentre and Halifax Opportunities Trust, which dedicate so much time to working with people in desperate positions due to having no recourse to public funds. I wish to put on the record how grateful I am for their service.

I appreciate that it was the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who led on the passing of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. In Committee, our amendment asked the Government to produce an analysis of the impact of no recourse to public funds, with a particular focus on those with children, those with pre-settled status and victims of domestic abuse. Further to the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, it would be enormously beneficial to everybody if we had that analysis. It would allow us to shape better policy and give us the information we need to ensure we are not leaving anyone behind in our efforts to protect people over the course of this crisis and beyond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I was about to come to that point. I heard the right hon. Gentleman make that point in his speech. He had seen evidence saying that the data was held, but it had not been provided. That is another action for me to take away from this afternoon’s proceedings. I will go and ask that question about the data relating to in-country visa applications. According to the letter that he referred to, the data is held, so I will endeavour to ferret it out. It might sit in the portfolio of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), but I will certainly make inquiries in that part of the Home Office. If I am able to ferret out the information, I will certainly get back to the right hon. Gentleman. I will take that away as an action from this afternoon as well.

Finally, quite a few comments were made about coronavirus and our response to it. Clearly, everybody has access to the health service for coronavirus-related treatment. The shadow Minister asked whether the NRPF cohort are eligible for the payment if they have to self-isolate. I believe it is £500?

[Holly Lynch]

Yes.

[Chris Philp]

I do not know the answer to that question, but I will go away and find out because it is a very reasonable question to ask. More generally, people who are subject to NRPF are eligible for things such as the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, and the support given to people on zero-hours contracts, based on their previous income. Those funds are not classed as public funds. Those are available to everybody, including the cohort mentioned today.

Local authority funding has been referred to a great deal. It has been denigrated as “cost shunting” and as being a small amount, but it is £4.3 billion, which, even by the standards of public spending, is a pretty significant amount of money. It covers more than just NRPF cases—I understand that—but it is none the less a very large amount of money, much of which has found its way to supporting NRPF cases. A case mentioned by one Opposition Member ended up being helped in that way. We can debate whether it is cost shunting or whether that is the best way of administering it, but local authorities often have the best knowledge about how to help people in their local areas. We might debate the nature of that safety net, but what cannot be gainsaid is that that safety net—that £4.3 billion to local authorities—does exist. It is there and it does help people. For those with children, which applies in all of the cases we have heard about this afternoon, there is a route to lifting—

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

We have fulfilled our Dubs obligation in full: 380 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been brought to the UK from European countries, in addition to 3,500 who came here last year. That is higher than any other country in Europe. In addition to that, we are honouring our Dublin obligations to Greece. It is not 16; well over 100 people have been taken from Greece directly back here. Where we have further obligations, we will do everything we can to make sure we meet them. In addition to that, as I said in response to an earlier question, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is looking at ways that we can help to provide the kind of shelter that the hon. Lady referred to. There is a lot that the Government have done and will continue to do. If she would like to meet me to discuss that, I would be delighted to do so.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I understand that on 15 September partner agencies were notified that the Home Office was lifting a ban on asylum evictions with immediate effect. I appreciate that the pause in the system cannot continue indefinitely. However, to evict people into destitution and homelessness as we enter a second wave of infections completely undermines public health efforts to keep everyone safe from the virus, especially in areas like mine that have local restrictions in place. Can the Minister share with us the plan to ensure that these risks do not become a reality?

[Chris Philp]

As the shadow Minister says, on 27 March we paused cessations whereby people leave asylum accommodation when their decision is made positively or negatively. On 11 August, we resumed those for positive cases where they have been granted asylum, in a very phased, very careful, week-by-week, step-by-step way, moving them, where necessary, into local authority and other kinds of accommodation. We are now just beginning the process for the negative cases where asylum has not been granted, because clearly we cannot accommodate people at public expense indefinitely when their asylum claim has been rejected. We are doing this in a very careful, phased, week-by-week way to make sure that the sorts of risks that she describes do not come to pass. Where there are safe routes home to the country of origin for people whose claims have been rejected, we are working to make sure that those safe routes home are taken.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 General Committees

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Thank you ever so much, Mr Robertson; it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister, in the main, for his opening remarks on the statutory instrument. It will not come as a surprise to him that we shall oppose it. Before I discuss the reasons for that, I shall take the opportunity to flag up some concerns about version control. Because of the previous publication of the SI on 19 March, superseded by the later one taking account of the health and care visa, I think I have seen two versions of the SI and, if I am not mistaken, three versions of the accompanying explanatory memorandum.

I know how hard the Table Office staff and the Clerks work, but those documents have been circulated in various combinations, and even this morning when I asked for the latest copy at the Table Office I was provided with the version published on 19 March. I just ask the Minister to consider ensuring that the Opposition have all the information we need to do our jobs properly. It would certainly assist us in the constructive dialogue that we need to engage in on important measures such as this order.

I turn to the order itself. We cannot support the increase in the health surcharge at a time when access to healthcare is essential, in the middle of a global public health crisis. We need fewer barriers to healthcare, not more. That is particularly true in relation to those already in the UK. Also, the detail of the Government’s proposals to exempt health and care workers from the fees falls a long way short of what was promised.

The Minister referred to the discussion in the Committee that considered the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill; he and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, will no doubt recall much of the discussion with great fondness. However, to keep tightly to debating the SI, there is a theme of measures that do not reflect the spirit of “clap for key workers” and the genuine gratitude that we feel to those on the frontline. Many of those we are landing with an increased bill will be in lower-paid but essential work as part of those efforts.

We welcome the intention in the SI to exempt from the fees those who plan to come to the UK on the future health and care visa. We passionately made that case, and the fees were described as “appalling, immoral and monstrous” by Lord Patten, a former Conservative party chairman.

The explanatory memorandum states:

“There has been strong support for those working in health and social care to be exempt from paying the Immigration Health Charge.”

That is precisely the point—that for those currently working in health and social care the SI does little to remove the burden of the health surcharge fees. It fails to offer automatic exemption from the immigration health surcharge for migrants currently working in health and social care. Migrant workers still have to pay it, and have been promised a refund only down the line. We hear about significant variations in how long it takes people to get their money back from the Home Office. Some doctors I have spoken to have stated that they have had reimbursements only after sending multiple emails to the Home Office, many of which went ignored.

The refund approach is an excessively bureaucratic measure that illustrates the disconnect between policy makers and health workers. Like everyone working in healthcare right now, migrant workers continue to face those stresses on a daily basis while their own lives are on the line to help us to combat coronavirus. Within the care sector in particular, many of those key workers are on salaries that do not begin to reflect the immense contribution and value that their work provides for us all. The statutory instrument should be clear that all those working in health and social care are exempt and simply do not have to pay the fee.

The Prime Minister’s pledge on 21 May to abolish the immigration health surcharge for health and care staff as soon as possible was met with excitement and praise. Yet the prospect for many migrant workers of still having to pay an increased fee and face the exact same financial difficulties that they were experiencing before the announcement seems an incredibly unfair and unnecessary way of going about it. I will share the experiences of some real-life migrant NHS and social care workers to make that very point.

Mary is a healthcare assistant and a Unison member from Nigeria. She and her care worker husband work all hours possible to provide for their three children, aged 13, nine and three. Owing to their immigration status and having no recourse to public funds, the family is not eligible for any state aid, free school meals or child benefit. Despite that, Mary, her husband and her three children have all had to pay the immigration health surcharge individually and have not been told by the Home Office when they will receive a refund. When the increase comes into effect, that will only get worse for families such as Mary’s.

Helen is a nurse from the Philippines, working on a tier 2 visa. She came to the country two and half years ago on a hospital-sponsored three-year visa. She is currently on maternity leave expecting her second child, and is faced with the burden of paying the visa charges for herself, her husband and their children, including for the baby once it is born. The family have had to downsize to a one-bedroom property to be able to afford to pay the immigration health surcharge, despite the Prime Minister’s announcement. Like many, the family also has no recourse to public funds, so receives no free school meals or child benefit.

I have already raised in the House the story of Dr Ahmed Bani Sadara, originally from Pakistan. He had to pay the surcharge for his new-born daughter twice in a year—first, when she was born and again when he changed his role six months later within the NHS, in addition to paying the surcharge again for himself and his wife. We implore the Government to listen to those individual case studies and to devise a solution that offers immediate exemption of the immigration health surcharge for all migrants working in the NHS and social care.

The absence of such an exemption is just one reason why we cannot sign off on the increases. The current initiative does not work for people, and I am sceptical about whether it works for the Government or the Home Office either. Can the Minister share a sense of the administrative cost to the Home Office of issuing refunds in that way? Beyond the delivery of the exemption, we are concerned that the eligibility does not reflect the spirit of what was promised. All staff within the NHS and social care sector have played a front-line role during this crisis. Everyone from specialists in intensive care, allied health professionals, nurses and hospital porters have collectively pulled together, and as such should all be recognised for their herculean efforts.

Labour believes that every migrant worker in the NHS and social care sector should be exempt from the immigration health surcharge; however, on 15 July, the Minister told the House that only those who qualify for the new tier 2 visa will be eligible for automatic exemption, and that other health and care workers would qualify for the refund only if they had worked in the NHS for six months. The Government have failed to clarify how the refund will work in practice.

I heard the Minister say that colleagues in the Health team will provide some clarity, but it would have been incredibly valuable to have had that prior to discussing the SI. Paragraph 7.11 of its most recent explanatory memorandum merely promises the publication of another reimbursement scheme in due course. That is clearly a million miles away from what the Prime Minister promised, so we hope that the Minister can be clear with the Committee when that will be published and what the mechanism will be for delivering it.

The Minister will be aware that we face a clinical skills shortage in the NHS. Until there is a successful domestic training programme, that shortage cannot be resolved without migrant medical staff. Yet Government policy still acts punitively towards those vital workers. The UK has a world-beating system, I am afraid, for discouraging skilled migrants, which in turn threatens to compromise the quality of our public services at the time when we need them the most. The immigration specialist law firm Fragomen carried out international comparison analysis and found that out of 119 countries only the UK required an advance yearly fee payable upfront in one lump sum to the relevant country’s Government, as the SI does.

We place a significant financial burden on applicants, due to the payment of lump sums such as the immigration health surcharge. The Government should look to abate the up-front costs and could do so by making it possible for the IHS to be paid in yearly or six-month increments, rather than in one lump sum at the outset; again, that applies particularly to those who are already here.

Beyond the implications for healthcare workers, Labour rejects the proposed increase in the IHS from £400 to £624, and the rise from £300 to £470 for the discounted rates more broadly. Right now, people are in more vulnerable and precarious work than ever before—people with families, who could be key workers, who have come to the UK for good jobs, worked hard and paid into the system face uncertainty in the workplace, as almost everyone does right now.

To ramp up the costs for those who are already here, who might be changing jobs and who have to apply for a change of sponsor so that they have to pay the fees again, whether or not they will be reimbursed, and find the extra money to access healthcare, when the financial outlook is more precarious than it has ever been, is simply not the responsible thing to do in the middle of a public health crisis. It is wrong to increase the surcharge during this time, and it will further increase the financial burdens faced by lower paid migrants. Let us remind ourselves that they could include those working on farms and in shops, keeping shelves stocked and food on our tables.

This statutory instrument represents one step forward and two steps back for migrants in the UK. We agree that future tier 2 visa applicants should be exempt from the immigration health surcharge, yet the decision to make current healthcare and social care workers pay the fee and be refunded down the line is illogical and harmful, with some of them still missing out all together in the long term.

We would also welcome much greater clarity from the Government on who will be eligible in the future for exemption, and we make the case once again that the exemption must be extended to all healthcare and social care workers, as well as their dependents. We oppose the rise in the immigration health surcharge for all other migrants to the UK. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor stated that we are all in this together, but measures such as this SI suggest that some people are more in it than others. As a consequence, Labour will vote against it.

The Minister referred to some of the discussions that we had at the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. He knows that what I said then was that Labour is engaging in a huge amount of work to make sure that we have a radically different approach to immigration in the future. Of course, there are cost implications, and we are not in a position just yet to outline all of them the Minister, but he knows that work is under way and I look forward to sharing the results of it with him in the not-too-distant future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the members of the Committee for their valuable contributions.

I will start with the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I was pleased to hear him say that it was a fair point that, when someone steps off a plane, they need to have access to the NHS if they have the type of immigration permissions that we are discussing today. That is why the measure was introduced under the coalition. To reassure him, given his comments on wider charges in the immigration system, the fundamental charging criteria are still pretty much what they were back in 2014, when agreed during his own time in Government.

To come on to some of the wider points made, the first by both the SNP and Labour spokespersons, any confusion in the supply of the explanatory memorandum is concerning. I am certainly more than happy to pick that up through my private office. When we lay statutory instruments, I am also more than happy to ensure that copies of relevant documents are sent directly to hon. Members. I am conscious that an important part of scrutiny is to have those documents easily to hand, without having to rely on the Table Office. I will ensure that that is actioned.

I will also clarify a couple of comments made on the pandemic by the hon. Member for Halifax. To be clear, anyone who needs treatment for covid-19 may approach the NHS for it. Across the United Kingdom, there is no charge for that, and whether people are able to access treatment does not in any way relate to their immigration status. As I said in the Chamber in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), information supplied to the NHS will not immediately be supplied to immigration enforcement. Our priority is to ensure that people feel they can approach the NHS in this country if they have symptoms of covid-19, regardless of whether they have lawful immigration status or are undocumented. I wish to very clear on that point.

I will go into some of the other issues raised. To be fair to the hon. Member for Halifax, she was specific in her wording, probably for a reason, that other countries do not require payment to the “relevant Government”—the exact words used. That rather misses the point about the situation in other countries. We all know the situation in the United States of America, where a payment may not be required to the US Government, but in reality people take a risk with their own health and of potentially crippling medical bills if they do not have medical insurance. Thankfully, we do not have such surcharges for people living here in the United Kingdom, and never will. Talking about no payment to the Government also misses the fact that to get the type of cover provided by the NHS here, people have to spend a significant amount of money. That is true in other countries, such as New Zealand, which requires foreign fee-paying students to hold acceptable medical and travel insurance as a condition of their visa. They do not have to pay the Government, but they do have to buy something specific. In addition, they still have to pay for GP practice consultations, which would be free here in the UK.

[Holly Lynch]

That was a series of points about the fact that the way we ask people to make that fee—up front, in advance and in one lump sum to the Government—is very unusual. Even comparing it with insurance, which is slightly different but it is the point that the Minister is making, I would imagine there would be different payment plans to make it a bit more manageable for people if that financial contribution, up front and in one go, is a challenge and a barrier to healthcare. Can he reflect on that point?

[Kevin Foster]

Again, some of those costs are up front, then followed up by having to pay for healthcare treatment. One thing that is unusual and which is really good about this country is the level of free-at-point-of-need healthcare that we have across the nations of the United Kingdom, dating back to 1948 and the introduction of the NHS. That is not replicated in many other countries, where there is either a social insurance system or there is still co-payment for many areas.

Ireland was another example given and we have had a quick look at the position for someone who has moved there. In my understanding, there is a charge levied more generally, not just on migrants, where people pay €100 if they attend an accident and emergency department without a referral letter from the doctor. Again, we do not have those sorts of charges here and neither will we look to have them. Similarly, there can be charges for being an in-patient in a hospital in Ireland. Again, that would not apply to someone here who has paid the immigration health surcharge or who has indefinite leave to remain and therefore is exempt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I will contrast those comments with the comments on the immigration health surcharge from the Labour party during the Immigration Bill Committee. We are clear that our NHS offers fantastic free-at-point-of-need care and services, and it is not unreasonable to ask those who come to this country to make a contribution towards it until they achieve indefinite leave to remain or settlement, which means that they are making a long-term commitment to this country and are therefore exempt from the charge.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Further to the excellent questions already asked, Dr Sadara is just one of the hundreds of clinicians who have already had to pay the immigration health surcharge since the Prime Minister said that it would end, not just for himself and his wife, but twice in six months for his newborn baby daughter. We do not just want these medics to stay in the NHS; we need them to stay in the NHS. The new rules published this morning confirm that the charge will end, but they do not come into effect until January, so can the Minister update the House? When will the surcharge end for health and social care workers, and why do the details published this morning suggest that some will still have to pay it and then be reimbursed?

[Kevin Foster]

The details published this morning relate to the new system beyond 1 January. However, to be clear, we will refund those who have paid the charge since 31 March, not just since the time when the Prime Minister made the announcement. We expect to bring in the new health and care visa significantly before 1 January; we are planning to have it in place before 1 October, and people applying for it will not have to pay the surcharge.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Actually, the Government have said all along that that is their intention. I have had meetings with many Immigration Ministers over the last few years. I remember going to see the then Immigration Minister, who is now the Northern Ireland Secretary, after Baroness Morgan and I visited Athens with UNICEF. We visited some of the camps out there and saw some of the children who would qualify for this scheme. We were given clear undertakings that it was absolutely the Government’s intention to make sure that after we came out of the EU, when Dublin III no longer covered the United Kingdom, we would have a scheme at least as good as what there is now.

Again, we are talking about just a few hundred children. We are not talking about attracting thousands of children to this country; it is a few hundred specifically identified children—usually through some of our agencies operating in refugee camps and around the world—who have family links in this country. In some cases, those will be their only family links. They may have lost their parents in the civil war in Syria; they may be at the hands of people traffickers, fleeing abuse, fleeing war zones or whatever, and it may be that a brother, an uncle or an aunt is the only family member they have left and that that person is legally in the United Kingdom. Those are some of the most vulnerable children whom we have done a fantastic job of giving a safe home to in recent years, and it is essential that we carry that scheme on. It is a mandatory scheme, and it is a scheme of which we should be hugely proud.

That is why now is the time for new clause 29. We have had fob-offs, frankly, over recent years about why it would not be appropriate to put this in legislation. We need a very clear statement and intent from the Government today that there will be a scheme in operation on 1 January. I know that it depends on negotiations, but if all else fails, we can put in place our own scheme that is at least as good as Dublin. That is what the new clause tries to achieve.

We have a great record in this area. We have taken almost 20,000 refugees under the Syrian scheme. We targeted 20,000; we have actually taken 19,768. We have invested more than £2.3 billion in Syrian refugees—more than any other country in the EU. We have filled the 480 Dubs places. We have a great record, so why on earth would we not want to make sure that we continue that great record for some of the most vulnerable children fleeing from danger, whom we have been able to afford safe and legal passage to join relatives in the United Kingdom?

That is what the new clause asks for. We have to do better. I and my constituents will not be able to understand it if we fail to give a strong commitment that this country continues to want to do the best by those really vulnerable children. For that reason, I support new clause 29 as well.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to return to the Chamber for the Report stage of this important Bill and to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I will return later to the merits of new clauses 2 and 29, but I will focus my comments on the merits of new clauses 13 to 15, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I will also outline our support for several other new clauses that have appeal across the Labour Benches, not least new clause 1, the lead amendment in this group.

I am sorry that we could not persuade the Government to engage further with us on any of the amendments or new clauses that we tabled in Committee, but we have the opportunity on Report to make the case again for different approaches in certain areas. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke to new clause 13, which called on the Government to review “no recourse to public funds” with a focus on vulnerable groups, including those with children and victims of domestic violence. We had hoped that such a review would establish an evidence base allowing for a more informed parliamentary discussion on the broader issue.

In the immediate term, we have already called for “no recourse to public funds” to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. On 21 April, we asked the Government to lift NRPF as a condition on a person’s migration status, in order to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken to fight against coronavirus.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right. “No recourse to public funds” is one reason for what is happening in Leicester. Is she aware that both the Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, on a cross-party basis, unanimously called for the suspension of the “no recourse to public funds” restrictions for the duration of the pandemic?

[Holly Lynch]

My right hon. Friend, alongside the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, has done an awful lot of work in this area, not least with the support of the Prime Minister. In response to his question about NRPF on 27 May, the Prime Minister said:

“Clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support…we will see what we can do to help”.

My right hon. Friend was right to raise this important point. The Children’s Society estimates that about 1 million people and at least 100,000 children have no recourse to public funds. Although new clause 13 has been drafted to sit within the scope of the Bill, it would start to deliver on the spirit of the Prime Minister’s commitment.

Local authorities have already had instructions from central Government to this effect. On 26 March, Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to all councils asking them to utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with no recourse to public funds. People are, however, still facing destitution and a postcode lottery at the discretion of their local authority without a clear steer from the Home Office. With this in mind, we hope that new clause 13 will have the support of the House. It would prevent any extension of this condition to those who would lose their free movement rights for the course of the pandemic, and would ensure that NRPF could not be re-imposed without a proper parliamentary debate and a vote in both Houses.

[Tim Farron]

In addition to the imposition and the hardship that comes from “no recourse to public funds”, there is the burden that many asylum seekers face when it comes to being able to work. Does the hon. Member agree that it is right that we give asylum seekers the right to work while they wait for their application to be heard, not least because it would save the public money and give those people the dignity of work and the ability to provide for their own families and to begin to integrate much earlier?

[Holly Lynch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We spoke in favour of the “Lift the Ban” campaign, which would have given asylum seekers the right to work after six months of not receiving a decision on their asylum claims. He is absolutely right that that would restore a degree of dignity to those in the system who have skills and are willing to work and want to contribute to the communities that they call their new homes. He is right to raise that important point.

On new clause 14, we very much welcome the Government’s commitment to scrap the NHS surcharge for migrant health and care workers. However, given that the commitment was made more than a month ago and that, to date, no progress as to how it will be delivered has been forthcoming, we have tabled new clause 14, which has, once again, been crafted to sit within the scope of this legislation and would make a start on enshrining the commitment in law.

The fee was described as “appalling, immoral and monstrous” by Lord Patten, the former Conservative party chairman. The general secretary for the Royal College of Nursing, Dame Donna Kinnair, said,

“it is a shame it took this pandemic for the government to see sense.”

The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and Unison have all written to the Prime Minister to ask for practical clarification on his commitment. I also asked the Minister at Committee stage for an update on rolling out the policy change, but we are no nearer to having any insight into what progress, if any, has been made.

We worked with EveryDoctor, the doctor-led campaigning organisation to reach out to the 25,000-plus doctors on their Facebook group. It started a poll on Friday asking doctors to let it know if they had had to pay the immigration health surcharge since 21 May. So far, we have heard back from 55 doctors—all 55 have had to pay the charge.

I spoke to three of those doctors this morning. I thank them for their service to the NHS in our hour of need. Upon hearing their stories of what we make them go through in order to stay in this country and work in our NHS, I was genuinely embarrassed. They have each changed their roles within the NHS over the last three months. The automatic visa extension only covers those who are in the same job. If someone is moving to or from a 12-month specialist training post, for example, which is common in the NHS, they need to apply for a new visa, as they will be transferring sponsor, even though the move is within the NHS. They will not get a new visa without first paying the health surcharge.

I heard from Dr Olivia Misquitta, who is switching to a training placement role from paediatrics and who has been asked to pay the health surcharge twice in seven months—the last time being just last week, on 24 June. She hopes that eventually she will be refunded. I also heard from Dr Ahmed Bani Sadara, from Pakistan, who is working in orthopaedics but starts his GP training in August. His change in visa means that, on 1 June, he had to pay the health surcharge for himself, his wife and his six-month-old daughter, having already been asked to pay the charge for his daughter when she was born in this country just six months ago.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that social care workers and NHS porters and cleaners—those who do some of the most important jobs on the covid frontline—have not been included in the free visa extension and, as a result, are also being pressured to pay the immigration surcharge? Does she agree that the free visa extension ought to be extended to cover the lowest paid staff in the NHS and social care?

[Holly Lynch]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In her capacity as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she has pushed for this issue a great deal, and I commend her for that work. I agree with her wholeheartedly.

In the long term, we need to look at the sponsorship issue. If medical professionals had simply the NHS as a sponsor, rather than individual trusts, that simple step would transform the visa system and the fees for those working on the frontline of healthcare provision.

On the health surcharge, we seek to press new clause 14 to a vote, unless we are given a clear steer and assurances about how and when the changes will come into effect, and how those who have had to pay the fee since the announcement was made will be reimbursed.

New clause 15 would quite simply exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge. As things stand, NHS trusts pay the skills charge for those coming to work in the NHS from countries outside the EU, and they will be expected to pay those costs for those coming from the EU after free movement ends. However, in the context of the NHS, where certain clinical skills are simply not available in the domestic labour pool, levelling a tax on NHS trusts for having no choice other than to plug their staff shortages from the international talent pool is nothing short of an outrage. An NHS trust cannot unilaterally decide to train more nurses from the domestic labour force, for example; it needs Government intervention to deliver that uplift.

We have clinical workforce shortages almost right across the board in the NHS, and that is while we have had free movement. We submitted freedom of information requests to 224 NHS hospital trusts in England, asking them how much they were losing from their budgets to pay these charges back to the Government. To give an indication of what some hospitals are paying out, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust told us that in just one year—the 2019-2020 financial year—it paid the Government £972,000. It has paid over £2 million in immigration skills charges since 2017. Over the past three financial years, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust had to pay the Government £961,000 in immigration skills charges. Only 21% of trusts have responded to the FOI request so far, but this tells us that nearly £13 million has been taken back out of NHS budgets and handed over to the Government since 2017. That is nearly £13 million from just 21% of the hospital trusts in England. The fact that some hospitals could be paying out nearly £1 million in immigration skills charges in a single year must surely be a sign that the system is not working as intended, and this is all while people have been able to come and work in the NHS under free movement, where fees would not have been applicable. That is about to come to an end. I urge the Minister to adopt new clause 15, to mitigate any further detrimental impact on the NHS workforce and to ensure that NHS funding stays in the NHS.

I will briefly touch on the two other changes we have proposed. Amendment 39 would time-limit the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. These powers have been widely criticised by experts, and efforts from both Labour and the Scottish National party in Committee to curb the powers or to ask the Government to state explicitly on the face of the Bill what they would be used for have been to no avail. Amendment 39 would tie them to the end date of the EU settlement scheme.

I want to take this opportunity to say that we also support new clause 29, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), with cross-party support. This new clause would seek to continue the existing arrangements for unaccompanied child refugees and maintain our commitment to family reunion. I was reassured by the Minister’s positive response to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on this issue during the urgent question yesterday, and I hope that discussions can continue in that positive spirit. We also support new clauses 7 to 10, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which reflect the sustained cross-party appetite to ensure that immigration detention is limited to 28 days, bringing about an end to unfair and unjust indefinite detention.

We are also keen to support new clause 2, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has already given his very articulate explanation as to why it matters so much. We tabled new clause 58 in Committee to the same effect as his new clause, seeking to grant settled status to all those eligible children who are currently in the care of local authorities or who are care leavers. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has been able to share with the House some of the latest research from the Children’s Society, which foresees a bleak outlook if we do not take action on this important issue now, taking the responsibility from local authorities who are stretched as they have never been stretched before in order to make an application on behalf of a child. This is a cohort of children and young people who are our responsibility. We, the state, are acting as their legal guardians. They have already had the worst possible start in life, so let us do the best we can for them by at least giving them confidence in their immigration status.

As we have already heard through freedom of information requests, the Children’s Society identified a sample of 404 children who have had their status confirmed through the scheme, out of an estimated 9,000. Of those, 282 were granted settled status and 122 were granted pre-settled status. Given everything that those kids have been through, let us not sign them up for more years of paperwork and burdens of proof by giving them pre-settled status. Let us take all that uncertainty off the table for them by adopting new clause 2 and giving them indefinite leave to remain, as was so articulately outlined by the hon. Gentleman.

I very much hope that the Minister is open to the concerns that have been raised during the passage of the Bill and will no doubt be raised again this afternoon, but we are minded to take new clauses 13, 14 and 15 further if we are not satisfied that the Government are taking steps to mitigate the impact of the Bill and deliver on the promises that they have already made, not least to our brilliant NHS care workers.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will speak to new clauses 7 to 10, but before I do, may I add my support to new clauses 2 and 29 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)?  As an ex-Brexit Secretary, I see no reason whatever to wait on the negotiation in order to take his clauses forward.

Today there is no limit on the amount of time for which people can be held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom. We are the only country in Europe that takes this stance. At the end of 2019, the individual detained in a holding centre for the longest period had been held for 1,002 days. In earlier years those numbers were even worse. These people are detained without trial or due process, oversight or basic freedoms, and they are carrying the debilitating psychological burden of having no idea when they will be released.

This flies in the face of centuries of British justice. Its operation has been severely criticised by the chief inspector of prisons, the chief inspector of borders, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Law Society and the Bar Council—quite a bunch of radicals, I would say. As a result of this early criticism, the Home Office had to reduce the numbers in the system, for which it claimed credit in a briefing note issued this morning. This is an improvement towards bringing down the numbers, but is still nowhere near right. We need a 28-day limit on immigration detention, and that is the purpose of my new clauses.

The Government also claimed in that briefing note that 97% of the occupants of immigration holding centres are foreign national offenders. Well, that is technically true, since at the moment, under covid-19 emergency arrangements, we have temporarily put out into the community a significant majority of the people who were detained in holding centres, keeping in only the most serious cases. In fact, in normal times—to which we will presumably return when the covid-19 crisis is over—the average proportion of foreign national offenders who have been detained over five years is 22%. The figure is never more than 23% and is normally at 19% to 20%. That tells us that four out of five detainees in these centres have no criminal action against them whatever; they are innocent people.