Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 18th May 2020
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The House divided: - Ayes: 351 / Noes: 252 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must inform the House, as I have just done in the previous item of business, that Mr Speaker has not selected any of the reasoned amendments. I am delighted to call the Home Secretary to move Second Reading. The Home Secretary is asked to speak for no more than 20 minutes.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We meet here today in extraordinary circumstances. Our way of life has changed beyond anything we could have imagined just a few months ago. The British people are making extraordinary sacrifices as we pull together to combat this deadly pandemic. Coronavirus is the biggest crisis this nation has faced in my lifetime, and we must do everything in our power to control the virus as we reopen society and support the United Kingdom’s recovery. Our national recovery will reflect many new norms, including how we look to the future as a confident, outward-facing, global Britain, open to the world now that we have left the EU.
The Bill will play a vital role in our future recovery plans. It will end free movement and pave the way for our new points-based immigration system: a firmer, fairer and simpler system that will attract the people we need to drive our country forward through the recovery stage of coronavirus, laying the foundation for a high-wage, high-skill, productive economy; a system that works in the interests of the British people, allowing us to attract the very best talent from right around the globe; a system that will revolutionise the operation of the UK border, tightening security and keeping criminals out while also making the experience of coming to the UK transparent, smoother and simpler; a system that, for the first time in decades, allows us, as an open and democratic country, to set our own controls and to count people in and out; a system that will attract the most talented people from around the world to boost our economy and support our public services to rebuild and thrive, including our outstanding NHS.
Since publishing the details of the new points-based system in February, our world has undoubtedly changed, but what has not changed is the Government’s unwavering support for our NHS and its incredible professional staff. They are the very best of Britain. That is why we are introducing a new fast-track NHS visa, to prioritise the qualified staff needed to provide high-quality and compassionate professional care. During these exceptional times, it is right that policies that affect our NHS workers are kept under review, including the immigration health surcharge. That is why I recently announced a free automatic one-year visa extension for those with six months or less left to stay on their visas. Our EU settlement scheme enables EU citizens who made our country their home to continue to build their lives here, including those working in the NHS.
As Britain fight back against coronavirus, controlling the virus to save lives remains the Government’s top priority, but it is also our duty to continue to serve the public by delivering on the people’s priorities so that when these darker days are behind us, we can focus on building a brighter future—a brighter future for people in cities, towns and villages across all four nations—and, as we have promised, on levelling up right across the country, especially in those areas that have been left behind in economic renewal in the past and communities that placed their trust in us back in December last year.
It is almost four years since the British people voted for independence from the European Union. This Government have already delivered that sovereignty, and we have been clear that there will be no extension to the transition period with the EU. We promised the British people that we would end free movement, take back control of our borders and restore trust in the immigration system. This Bill delivers on that.
The story of immigration in the UK is woven into our national fabric. It is at the core of our national character and has defined many traditions and characteristics of our country. It is a testament to British society that, notwithstanding the past struggles of race, ethnicity and class, today in this very House so many descendants of migrants are now representing every region of the United Kingdom. Equally, our national fabric continues to be enriched by EU citizens who have made the UK their home. From day one, despite scaremongering from those in the Labour party, we have been clear: we say to EU citizens in the UK—to all of them—“We want you to stay”.
Our successful EU settlement scheme has now seen over 3.5 million applications, with over 1.3 million concluded. This is a fantastic example of a digital and data-led project delivering real results, despite many of those who have sought deliberately to campaign against the scheme and undermine public trust and confidence in protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our immigration system, and we are determined to get it right. Through our extensive engagement programme, we have consulted the British people, business leaders, employers, civic groups, local government, academia and specialist organisations such as those working with vulnerable migrants. Our proposal to lift the cap on skilled workers has been supported by the CBI. The decision to widen the threshold for skilled workers has been welcomed by the Construction Industry Training Board, and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has spoken favourably about the plans for the salary threshold.
This responsive, people’s Government have listened to the evidence and designed an immigration system that meets the needs of our businesses, our economy and our country. To ensure that it works from the start, our extensive engagement programme continues. We are working with employers to make it a success for them. We are supporting them every step of the way to ensure that their economic needs and business needs are supported, so people know that global Britain is open for business. The Government will work with employers to develop a UK-wide labour market strategy, enabling businesses to move away from their reliance on the immigration system as an alternative to investing in the domestic labour market, and encouraging employers to invest in people, their skills and development, leading to an economy that is fit for the future, with higher productivity and wider investment in technology and skills.
The current crisis has shone a light on how we value those who provide compassionate care across health and social care. The Government’s long-term solution for social care is focused on investing in those who deliver that compassionate and high-quality care. An additional £1.5 billion has already been allocated for adult and children’s social care in this financial year, and the Government are working with the sector on a plan for the long-term recruitment, investment and training of those who are dedicating their careers to care. As the Migration Advisory Committee identified in its own report published earlier this year, the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector.
I will now set out for hon. Members exactly what this Bill does. First and foremost, the purpose of this Bill is to end free movement. From 1 January 2021, all EU and non-EU citizens will be treated equally. The Bill repeals all EU immigration legislation retained under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. This means that European economic area citizens, including EU and European Free Trade Association citizens, and their family members will become subject to UK immigration law, and they will require the same permission to enter and remain in this country as people from the rest of the world—levelling the playing field and giving everybody the same opportunity to come to the UK regardless of which countries they come from.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Nick Thomas-Symonds, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking the Home Secretary for our briefings in recent weeks, which have been very important throughout this crisis. I look forward to them continuing in the weeks and months ahead. We meet today during a public health emergency that has shone a light on deep inequality and unfairness in our society, and that has shown the extraordinary value of what so many workers do for our families and our communities.
The Bill fell at the general election and has now been brought back to the House for the second time. Looking at the text of the Bill, we see that little has changed—it now has nine clauses rather than seven—but what has changed dramatically are the circumstances in which we debate it.
On a Thursday evening at 8 o’clock, we clap for our carers. Millions of people come to their doorsteps to say thank you. Quite rightly, we are showing our appreciation for our NHS workers, our care workers and all our frontline workers—police, fire, all our emergency services, those in our shops and those out on our roads driving supplies up and down the country—who are putting themselves in harm’s way day after day to keep us safe. They are making sacrifices in order to help others. We are rightly proud of them and we honour their bravery and courage, yet in the midst of this crisis, the Government are putting forward an immigration system containing a salary threshold of £25,600. That sends a signal and tells people that anyone earning less than that is unskilled and unwelcome in our country.
We on the Opposition Benches know that people are not being paid the value of what they do, and that what our frontline workers earn does not reflect what they contribute to our society. Many of us did not need reminding of that, but it seems that the Government do need reminding. Those who clapped on Thursday are only too happy to vote through a Bill today that will send a powerful message to those same people that they are not considered by this Government to be skilled workers. Are our shop workers unskilled? Our refuse collectors? Our local government workers? Our NHS staff? Our care workers? Of course they are not. Government Ministers who were out clapping for the 180,000 EU nationals in the NHS and the care sector on Thursday night are sending a message tonight that they are no longer welcome. That is not fair, and it is not in the national interest.
A labour force survey by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 69% of EU migrants who currently work in the UK would not be eligible for a visa under the Government’s new immigration system. It found that 66% of EU workers in the whole health and social work sector and 90% of EU workers in transport and storage would be ineligible—the very people who are keeping this country running right now. Four in five EEA employees working full time in social care would be ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary threshold the Government want to impose. The average salary for care workers is £19,104, leaving many short of the cap, and there are 115,000 workers in our care system who are EU nationals.
I will give Members an example. This is somebody who did not want her name mentioned, but these are her details. She is an EU migrant, and she is 62. She came to the UK in 2013 and has been working as a live-in carer ever since. She is a 24-hour live-in carer for a 96-year-old lady with dementia. On her earnings last year, she would have no chance of coming to the country under the Government’s new rules. Are we to believe that a 24-hour live-in carer is in low-skilled work? That is what the Government want us to believe.
The care sector in England was not properly prepared going into this crisis and it seems that no lessons are being learnt from that lack of resilience and that lack of proper preparation before the crisis began. One would think the Government would have learned the lesson about not leaving people vulnerable in our care homes, but it seems they have not. Indeed, they want to create conditions where the situation could become even worse. In England alone, 66,000 NHS workers are EU nationals and there are 40,000 nursing vacancies, which will be exacerbated by the income threshold.
The Home Secretary talks about a fast-track visa, but it is not on the face of the Bill and, in any event, it does not include social care. No wonder the Royal College of Nursing says that the Government’s current proposals for the immigration system will exclude some health and care workers from entering the UK, primarily social care staff, and will have a devastating impact on the health and social care sector. No wonder the British Medical Association says:
“Any changes to the UK immigration system, which could deter those who may want to work in the UK, risks having significant implications for the staffing of health and social care services, quality of care and patient safety in the future.”
The truth is that the Government have not won the trust of our most vital service at this crucial time, yet rather than reflect on that they are attempting to rush this through Parliament and ask that we trust they will do the right thing by the health service. We all know that you cannot trust the Conservatives with the NHS. When it comes to the health service, if asked to choose between the RCN, the BMA and Unison on the one hand, and the Conservatives on the other, I know who I would choose every time.
Let us be clear: the Bill allows the Government to create a new system through statutory instrument. Ministers are asking this House for a blank cheque, for the trust of Members to go away and implement a new system, and for an Executive power grab that reduces the role of this House in shaping it. The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the 2017-19 Bill expressed concerns about the wide scope of the powers:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with part 1, however tenuous”.
The words “in connection with” are in the new version of the Bill and the situation is unchanged.
In recent weeks, we have seen the confusion and chaos caused when the Government act like they are giving Executive orders outside Parliament without proper scrutiny. The Government should not make the same mistake again when it comes to an issue as important as our future immigration system. Scrutiny makes for better Government decisions and should be welcomed, not shunned.
Let me take this opportunity to say that the 1.2 million British-born people living in the EU27 should be protected and that the 3 million EU citizens living in this country are welcome and are valued here: our families, our friends, our neighbours. They are a central part of our communities and our society. They have brought great benefits and make us a richer, more diverse society. But I am only too aware that warm words are not enough. The deadline for the EU settlement scheme will fast approach. The default position is that anyone who has not applied by the deadline will lose their legal residence status here in the UK unless they have a good reason not to have applied. The Government must act, be open on the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the system, and do all they can to ensure that those who are eligible for the scheme apply and have their applications swiftly processed.
The Government plan for the future immigration system was first set out in the White Paper published in December 2018. How different things were then. The Government talk of a points-based system; what they actually propose is an income-based system. Salary is not a proxy for the level of skill and a salary-based system will not work for incentivising high-skilled migration.
The Government have deliberately held down public sector wages for a decade, and if they do so again, the gap between what people are paid and the value of their contribution to our society will only widen. This does not reward work and is unfair. Try telling the careworkers in my constituency or, indeed, any in the land that their work is unskilled.
Fairness will be at the heart of the amendments that the Opposition will press in Committee. We know what happens when a Government lose sight of fairness and the national interest in our immigration system. Wendy Williams’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” was published only a short time ago. The Home Secretary referenced the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). That review makes for sobering reading, saying:
“Members of the Windrush generation and their children have been poorly served by this country. They had every right to be here and should never have been caught in the immigration net. The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families.”
Never should we let something like that happen again. Indeed, there is such mistrust that the3million and other campaign groups want physical proof of settled status for EU citizens because they simply do not trust the Government’s assurances about everything being digital.
Where the system is not working as it should, the Government must act. Take, for example, looked-after children in local authority care. Currently, there have to be applications for pre-settled or settled status on behalf of eligible children by hard-pressed local authorities that are dealing with the coronavirus crisis. Given those pressures, the Government should just do that automatically, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider that. On immigration detention, we will be putting forward proposals for fairness, including an all-important time limit of 28 days.
In my first letter to the Home Secretary last month, I raised the issue of the injustice of continuing with the policy of no recourse to public funds during the coronavirus crisis for victims of domestic abuse. The Government must look at the issue of those left with no recourse to public funds. We are in a public health emergency—it is in the interests of all of us that people get the help they need.
There are also issues around NHS charges during this crisis. Nobody should have barriers placed in front of them when their work is essential in helping us all. I was appalled by the revelation over the weekend that, after all, NHS staff will not be exempt from these charges, despite their hopes having been raised by the Home Secretary, who mentioned a review. The issue has been mishandled by this Government from the start of the crisis. Additional fees for NHS staff to access the very healthcare that we are thanking them for providing is no way to mark their extraordinary service throughout this crisis. I ask the Home Secretary to think again about that review.
Having left the EU, and with the transition period coming to an end, we must have an immigration system that is fair and in the national interest. Handing over sweeping powers to the Government to create a system that labels so many of those workers who are keeping our country running day by day as unskilled is the wrong thing to do. If the Government are confident in their arguments, they should not be afraid of parliamentary scrutiny of their proposed new system. If they truly value what our frontline workers do, they will not send out a powerful signal that those who earn below £25,600 are unskilled and unwelcome. Instead, they should think again, and that is why we will vote against the Bill tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Caroline Nokes, who has five minutes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate from a more nuanced perspective than I would have been permitted just 12 months ago. I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his new role. The last time he and I debated immigration, it was in a debate on the previous iteration of this Bill, when he had the opportunity to intervene on me frequently—an opportunity denied to him today.
The hon. Gentleman said that we are rushing the Bill but also pointed out that it is just two clauses different from the previous Bill, which we well debated. I argue that we are not rushing the Bill. It is something that we must complete before the end of the transition period on 31 December this year. He also commented on the use of statutory instrument to change the immigration rules. That has ever been the case and often can be used for good; I highlight the example of Afghan interpreters, on which I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary there is still more to be done.
Returning to the iteration of the Bill in front of us, there is no doubt that we must turn off free movement. We must uphold the outcome of the 2016 referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly pointed out, but I would argue that we must do that with caution, and a phased approach might give us more flexibility. This time last year, matters were very different. I was an immigration Minister seeking to find a route through a minefield at a time of record employment. I have grave fears that my right hon. Friend will find herself doing it at a time of record unemployment. Perhaps those roles that British workers have been able to choose not to do over the past 10 years will be more attractive than they were, but the omens do not look good.
We heard calls for a British land army that were repeated yesterday by Waitrose, and many thousands have responded, but few have chosen to pursue the option. One in six of the brave care workers on the frontline of the battle against coronavirus are non-UK nationals. I commend the Home Secretary on her commitment to extend visas to doctors and nurses, but what of care workers? Are they to be the Cinderella service, forgotten once again? What of ancillary staff in our hospitals, who are crucial in a war against the virus in which repeated deep cleaning is an absolute imperative. We cannot open hospitals if we cannot clean the loos.
Many in the House have experience of the Home Office —I think that no fewer than six immigration Ministers since 2016 have had a hand in trying to introduce a Bill to end free movement—but it is a machine that moves slowly. Sometimes the best laid plans to revolutionise our immigration system do not work well when introduced in a big-bang style. That is in the best of times; we are not in the best of times. We know from Home Office press releases that there are backlogs in the settled status scheme; that visa application centres are closed; and if someone wishes to renew their indefinite leave to remain, or obtain a new biometric residence card they cannot do so currently. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) responded to me on 16 March that the Home Office was planning an engagement programme for employers that would start that month, explaining that those who were not already tier 2 sponsors should consider “applying now”.
Small businesses that have no experience of the visa system need to become registered sponsors by January, or they will not be able to sponsor the visas of new employees. That includes care homes—the people on the frontline of this crisis. I wonder whether that engagement programme, which was supposed to begin in March, did indeed do so, or has it understandably been delayed? We know from news emanating from the Home Office that it is very much not business as usual, so can care-home owners, freight transporters, retailers, food processors, au pairs and childcare providers have confidence that their applications will be processed, even if they know that they need to apply “now”—that is the Minister’s word, not mine?
I hope that the Home Office has in place the resources needed to process the many thousands of applications to become sponsors that may be made by businesses that have never had any previous contact with the system whatsoever, but I would ask what bandwidth the care-home manager, frantically trying to put a ring round her home to keep residents and staff safe, has suddenly to think, “I had better apply to become a sponsor—just in case.” This is a crucial Bill, but I would like more than two words from the immigration Minister on how it can be delivered in a big-bang fashion in just seven months’ time, when history has proved that that is perhaps not the best way to deliver bold, new immigration systems.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now go to Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Stuart McDonald, speaking for the SNP, who has 10 minutes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid to say that this is a dreadful Bill that will destroy opportunities for future generations and will split even more families apart. It will result in many thousands of EU nationals losing their rights in this country overnight; it will extend the reach of the hostile environment still further; it will drown thousands of businesses and key industries in red tape and massive fees; and it will deprive our public services of talented and desperately needed workers. It will push different nations and regions of the United Kingdom towards depopulation and drive a wedge between us and our European neighbours. In short, it brings to an end the one part of the UK migration system that works well—the free movement of people. Instead, it expands the reach of the UK’s domestic rules—a complicated mess of burning injustice and bureaucracy—and that is why the SNP, without any hesitation, will be voting against this awful Bill. But this awful Bill was made even worse by its appalling timing. Pushing ahead with it in the midst of a public health and economic crisis, and without paying heed to the recent Windrush review, is spectacularly misjudged and shows that the Home Office remains totally out of touch with reality, and completely out of touch with public opinion.
I turn first to the coronavirus pandemic and I join others in paying tribute to those on the frontline. I pay particular tribute to the migrant workers who are there, including too many who have lost their lives—consultants from Sudan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Uganda and Pakistan, a hospital porter from the Philippines, doctors from Germany and Iraq, nurses from Zimbabwe, Trinidad and South Africa, support workers from India and Ghana, and many, many more. Each and every one deserves our tributes and our gratitude, but the more fitting tribute would be a coherent and robust response to the crisis—one that genuinely seeks to ensure that we are all in this together and doing whatever it takes, but that is not what the Bill provides.
We should have had a Bill that makes it easier, instead of harder, to recruit the NHS, social care and other staff we need, and not one that uses an ill-considered financial threshold as a poor proxy for skill, talent or contribution. It is right that the Home Office has ditched its earlier rhetoric about cheap, low-skilled labour, but it is now time to drop the accompanying policies, too. We should have had a Bill setting out a comprehensive and generous system of visa extensions for those frontline workers and their families, not the piecemeal, back-of-the-envelope scheme that the Home Office has so far cobbled together.
We need a Bill that scraps the minimum income requirements for family visas and suspends other financial thresholds, acknowledging that migrant families and workers have had their incomes slashed, just like too many others. More than 100,000 NHS workers and a huge percentage of care workers are prevented by Home Office financial requirements from being able to sponsor their husbands, wives and children to join them here in the UK. Is it not quite outrageous for the Home Office to say, “Thank you for your hard work, but no thanks to bringing your family”? There is absolutely nothing fair about that.
We need a Bill that uprates the pitiful sums of money that we are providing to asylum seekers in this time of crisis and which ensures that, whatever stage of their asylum journey they are at, they can be properly protected. We need a Bill that ensures that all migrants have at least some form of temporary status and which ends the no recourse to public funds rules that deprive people of the support and accommodation they need to get through this crisis. It is impossible for someone to self-isolate if they do not have a roof over their head or food to eat.
We need a Bill that automatically protects all who are at risk of accidental overstaying until coronavirus is over, that gets people out of immigration detention, and that ends data sharing with the Home Office so that the NHS and other vital services are not places that people in need are afraid to attend. We need a Bill that recognises the absurdity of the NHS surcharge and scraps it for good. We need a Bill that postpones any new immigration system until this pandemic is over and we know the reality of the huge economic challenges ahead.
Employers are justifiably aghast at the fact that the Home Office is attempting to foist a whole new bureaucracy on them now, in the middle of a public health and economic crisis. The Government took four years to finalise their immigration proposals, yet they are giving employers little more than four months to adapt—four of the most difficult months imaginable. The Bill undermines, rather than helps, our response to the coronavirus.
However, it is not just the public health crisis that the Home Office has totally ignored in the Bill—staggeringly, it pays no heed to Windrush either. The Windrush lessons learned review is an incredible indictment of the Department. It talks of Ministers failing to “sufficiently question unintended consequences.” It refers to
“an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race”
that reveals a Department that does not listen to contrary opinions or learn lessons, and where the political culture and pressure to be tough has caused harsh treatment, poor decisions and an absence of empathy for individuals. The Windrush case studies presented by Wendy Williams are enough to make people shake with anger, yet the Bill has not a single trace of recognition of Windrush in it and there are alarming signs that the Department has failed to learn lessons. Its crass and insensitive defence of the discriminatory right-to-rent policy almost makes me wonder whether the review has actually been read. Meanwhile, many of the same voices that warned about Windrush are warning about the fate of tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of EU citizens—old people, young people, looked-after children, care leavers and others—who may not appreciate the need to apply for settled status.
If they truly have learned the lessons of Windrush, the Government should protect EEA nationals properly. They should provide them with automatic rights, not rights contingent on their applying by a certain date; they should provide all with fully settled status and abandon the precarious pre-settled status; they should provide EEA citizens with a physical document as proof of their rights, and they must scrap the right to rent and other discriminatory hostile environment policies. Just as before, the Government seem to be ignoring the warnings; instead, the Bill seeks to give Ministers a blank cheque on future immigration policies. The last thing we should do is give the Home Office any more powers until the lessons of Windrush are properly learned.
There are so many other areas of immigration, asylum and nationality laws that need fixing. There is nothing in the Bill to address the injustices of nationality law, such as the disgraceful fees charged to children who simply want to register their British citizenship, to which they are entitled. There is nothing to fix our broken asylum system —the poverty support rates, the chaotic accommodation contracts, the shambolic move-on period, the ban on work, the restricted family reunion rights, and the loss of Dublin III participation. There is nothing here to address our addiction to immigration detention and the shame of being the only country in Europe without a time limit on detention. There is nothing to address the decimation of appeal rights and legal aid, which has contributed to many injustices, including Windrush.
Time and again, the Home Office has shown that it is so obsessed with numbers that it has totally lost sight of individual workers, students and family members, and the contributions that they make. More and more people will be asking, “Why did we leave immigration policy to the Home Office at all?”
Of course, on the question of who should make migration policy, with every single day of Home Office incompetence and injustice, the case for migration policy for Scotland being made in Scotland grows stronger. We have been reasonable, pragmatic and thorough in building the case, publishing papers and pointing to international best practice, but the Government simply refuse to engage in a grown-up discussion about migration policy being tailored for Scotland.
The risk of population decline and a shrinking labour force and tax base are real and grave issues for Scotland. The future system that this Government have designed is nothing short of a disaster for health and social care, tourism and hospitality, food and drink, agriculture, our universities, and many other key sectors of the Scottish economy. I recognise that it is not just Scotland that the Home Office is throwing under the bus, but other nations and regions of the UK too.
Instead of issuing soundbites and slogans about a system working for all, the Home Office must engage seriously. It must recognise that any system that has the express aim of reducing migration does not just fail to work for Scotland but actively works against Scotland’s interests. This is a rotten Bill, introduced with rotten timing. It is beyond repair and it does not deserve a Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now have to introduce a formal time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I should remind hon. Members who are speaking from home to have some way of ensuring that they do not exceed five minutes in case they cannot see the time on their computer or device while they are speaking, because I will have to enforce the five-minute limit very strictly.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Parliament has an opportunity to seek a broader consensus on what immigration and citizenship means for our country. However, we must recognise that immigration is a question of balance. It may bring pressures, but it also brings significant gains. Finding that balance is crucial.
My party’s manifesto talked about control, which was a cornerstone of the 2016 referendum. However, a country’s having a sovereign say over its borders should not be confused with its being anti-immigration; as my party’s manifesto set out, it is more about offering a balanced package of measures that are fair, firm and compassionate.
The importance of the new immigration system is to identify and welcome the skills our country needs. The proposed NHS visa is a good case in point. The ongoing health crisis has underscored the tremendous contribution and commitment that many healthcare workers from overseas make to our care; without them, our nation and our brilliant NHS could not cope.
Further, we have a commitment to the 3 million-plus EEA nationals who call Britain home. We have rightly made a promise that no one with legal status should lose out, and we likewise rely on an important reciprocal arrangement with our European friends that they safeguard the rights of over 1 million British citizens living and working on the continent. Only a few days ago, my friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the European Commission to highlight the issues some of our fellow British citizens are encountering in seeking to guarantee their rights—issues that I reasonably foresaw and gave prior repeated warnings on to both successive UK Governments and the EU, for example during my meeting with Michel Barnier last July.
The immigration debate today also focuses on the new points-based system and visas for work immigration. That is, of course, a central and key part of the new immigration policy, but it is not the only aspect that warrants and deserves our attention. I encourage the UK Government to think more about what happens after the points-based system: what is in store for those who come here, who build their lives here, who pay their taxes here, who reside here and who make significant contributions here? Just as the Government’s points-based system draws on the experience of Australia and Canada, there is much to be learned from their respective approaches to citizenship. For example, the Canadian handbook for new citizens opens with a warm message of welcome from the Queen and has a positive tone throughout. We could simply and easily emulate that welcoming, positive tone. But how do the costs of becoming a British citizen compare with those of Canada or Australia? It is estimated that the cost to the Home Office to process a citizenship application is about £370, yet the fee charged to an applicant is £1,330-odd, the highest amount in the western world. The combined cost for citizenship in Australia, Canada, France, Denmark and the United States is still less than the cost of an application for one British citizenship. This serves to highlight the huge disparity between our nation’s costs and those of nations such as Canada and Australia, whose immigration systems we are about to emulate.
I am currently chairing an inquiry involving colleagues from across the House and experts outside it, with the highly respected non-partisan think-tank British Future. The inquiry seeks to promote a new, proactive, measured approach and making citizenship fully part of our new perspective on immigration, and some of the practical ideas that could make that a reality. Therefore, in supporting this Bill today, I make this very modest request of the Government: to conduct a review of citizenship policy, to assess the current policies and processes from the perspective of the value of integration and shared identity that can be gained by encouraging the uptake of British citizenship.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The cross-party Select Committee on Home Affairs that I chair has repeatedly called for us to build a new, positive consensus on immigration in place of the polarisation of previous years, and this should be the time to do that: right across the country everyone can see the immense contribution of immigration to our nation and our public services, most of all our NHS and social care system. More than half of the NHS and careworkers who have died from coronavirus were born abroad; they could not have given more to this country, and we owe them so much.
We are also at a time when we need to move on from the old Brexit divides: Brexit happened in January and as a result European free movement rights end in December, so we need new legislation and the UK has to choose what to do next. We have to choose well and build a positive system that recognises and welcomes the contribution people coming to Britain have made for many generations and will make in future, too. We have to choose well and build a positive system that recognises and welcomes the contribution that people coming to Britain have made for many generations and will make in future, too. That means that the Government have to ditch the divisive rhetoric of recent years and recognise that the hostile environment, and the treatment of the Windrush generation as a result, demean us and can never be part of a new consensus. Meanwhile, Labour will need to make a start on the commitment we made in our 2017 manifesto to draw up new fair immigration rules for EU and non-EU migration in place of the EU free movement system.
I heard from Labour supporters concerned about the gulf, for example, between the rules for EU and non-EU citizens. I heard from others who opposed EU free movement, because they could see employers exploiting it to keep wages down, and who rightly pointed out that there is a difference between a free-market approach to immigration and a progressive approach to immigration. There are many different ways to draw up a left-of-centre, fair approach. It is time to look afresh at how we build a new positive consensus on immigration, but there are significant problems with the Government’s approach.
First, this is only half a Bill. It removes the old system, but it does not set out a new one. It gives Ministers major powers. In fact, we should be rejecting the old approach through successive Governments of only doing things through secondary legislation by making things more transparent and putting the bones of a new system in primary legislation instead.
Secondly, by default, the Bill extends rather than repeals the hostile environment. As we have seen from the Windrush scandal, that shames us. The hostile environment should be repealed rather than extended in this way.
Thirdly, there will be considerable problems with the Government’s White Paper proposals for social care. A quarter of a million careworkers have come from abroad —half of them from Europe—and we should be supporting them, yet the Government’s £25,000 salary threshold for overseas workers will turn those people away. Those careworkers should be valued and paid more, and I will campaign for them to be so, but the Government must heed the warning from the Health Foundation, which said:
“The government’s new immigration system looks set to make our social care crisis even worse.”
We cannot do that at this time.
The Bill should also do more to support careworkers. Rightly, the Home Office has introduced free visa extension for overseas doctors and nurses and has also said that if they die from covid-19, their families will be given indefinite leave to remain, but why exclude careworkers? Why exclude NHS porters and cleaners—those who wash and clean sick residents, those who scrub the door handles and the floor and those who do laundry for the covid wards? It is also time to lift the NHS surcharge for NHS staff and careworkers, instead of charging families maybe £10,000 when they renew five-year visas, on top of their taxes, to fund the NHS they are already working incredibly hard for and, in some awful cases, giving their lives for, too.
I believe this Bill is flawed, but I recognise that legislation on immigration is now needed. As Select Committee Chair, I will table amendments that I hope will receive cross-party support. In that cross-party spirit, I will not vote against the Bill tonight, although if the Government’s approach does not change, I expect to oppose it when it returns to the House, because it is immensely important that we try to build that new consensus. I urge the Government to do so, because they have the opportunity to do so now. There will always be disagreements on different aspects of immigration, but right now at this point, particularly in this coronavirus crisis, we should be looking for the areas where we can find agreement, and find a positive way forward.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
It is always a privilege to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and I will pick up on one or two of the things she said.
The core purpose of the Bill is to deliver on the 2016 mandate of taking back control of our borders, so it is no surprise that I wholeheartedly approve of that policy, although I say to those on both Front Benches that I have always presumed that control of our own borders allows us to create policies that protect the interests of sectors such as care homes and their dedicated workers, and I trust we will do that.
The House should also use this opportunity to put right some deep and long-standing injustices at the heart of our immigration system. As it stands, illegal migrants can be held and detained indefinitely in psychologically inhumane conditions. Detention is meant to facilitate deportation, but we routinely detain people for extraordinary lengths of time without deporting them. By the end of 2019, the individual detained for the longest period had been in a holding centre for 1,002 days —nearly three years. These people are detained without trial or due process, without oversight and without basic freedom, and they are carrying the destabilising psychological burden of having no idea when they will be released. This flies in the face of centuries of British civil liberties and the rule of law.
For the most part, these detainees are not hardened criminals—they are frequently the victims of human trafficking, sexual assault and torture—yet we treat them as criminals, with little compassion at all. Let me tell one story, that of Anna, a Chinese woman who speaks no English. She had fled her home in China after her husband was sentenced to death for drug offences. She was told that she was being taken elsewhere in China. After days of travel, when the doors of her vehicle finally opened, she was not in China, but in rural Britain, where she was forced into prostitution and several years of unpaid work—slavery by another name—under threat of being reported to the immigration authorities. She was then arrested during a raid, taken to Yarl’s Wood and held indefinitely. Anna’s story is not an isolated case; as a country, we detain about 25,000 individuals each year for immigration purposes. Any situation in which the state strips people of their liberty requires the highest possible level of scrutiny and accountability. The purpose of any incarceration should be clear. Conditions and a time for release should be set. That is why I intend to table amendments limiting migrant detention to 28 days and providing robust judicial oversight. This was backed before, at the last turn of this Bill, by a cross-party group of MPs, as well as by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I will finish by saying this simple thing: the UK has a proud tradition of civil liberties and the rule of law, and it is time to honour that by bringing an end to this damaging and unjust policy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
If the covid-19 crisis has taught us anything, it is the value of key workers, so many of whom are immigrants to this country, as we see when we look at the names of the NHS and social care workers who have tragically died. They came from every corner of the globe to care for us and have given their lives for us. So many of the key workers in the UK are immigrants: about 180,000 workers in the NHS and social care sector are from the EU alone, and they are highly represented among the doctors and nurses in our NHS; and, of course, we also have the agriculture workers, food production workers and other key workers, who are keeping our country going at a time of crisis. For decades, we have undervalued them, but now we applaud them in the streets. When the applause dies, we cannot return to business as usual; we cannot go back to the hostile environment, the racism and xenophobia, the “go home” vans and the scandal of Windrush.
We understand that the world economy is about to fall off a cliff, so we must invest domestically, in skills, education and jobs for our constituents, to ensure that they do not face mass unemployment and hardship, but we will still need new immigrants to help us fill skill gaps, where they exist. Now is not the time to put up barriers because, as we have heard, if we do so, the NHS and social care system will be on its knees. The new global Britain must be open for business, welcoming those who want to roll up their sleeves and help us, just as previous generations did, including my parents’ generation, who made a contribution to this country as new Commonwealth migrants. So let us not forget the proud history of supporting and encouraging immigration appropriately to rebuild after the post-war period. This Bill does not meet our economic needs after covid, nor does it protect the NHS or the social care system. The major flaw in the Bill is the conflation, as others have said, of skills and salaries. Lots of low-paid workers have a huge range of skills; yet the Government are setting a bar of more than £25,000, which, as we have heard, will block many NHS and social care workers.
Unison has predicted that we will need an extra 1 million careworkers by 2025. Many of them earn between £16,500 and £18,500. We should be recruiting an army of carers so that we honour the generations that raised us, who should be supported and cared for in their later years. That will be put even further at risk if we do not ensure that we meet the skills gap and shortages. We need to ensure that we have a pragmatic policy on immigration. The Bill provides nothing of the sort.
Finally, I want to turn to other areas where the Bill does not address the challenges. In other countries, such as Portugal and elsewhere, Governments are looking at how to ensure that undocumented migrants—we have some 800,000 to 1 million undocumented migrants—are given the healthcare that is needed during the pandemic, where there could be a wider risk.
When the Prime Minister emerged from hospital, he thanked staff, especially the two nurses from New Zealand and Portugal. Despite his praise, it is his Government’s policies that are making them suffer. The proposed surcharge on NHS workers coming to the UK could be as much as £8,000 for a family of four on a five-year visa. That is a huge amount of money, and it is an absolute disgrace that the Government are considering that surcharge. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that that does not happen.
There are many flaws in the Bill, as others have pointed out, including the power grab by Ministers. Why should anyone trust Ministers who presided over the “Go Home” vans and the Windrush scandal? For those reasons, the Bill is not fit for purpose and does not recognise that we need a new settlement and a new consensus, having seen the contribution of migrants to our national health service in protecting and saving lives. The Bill is not fit for purpose, and for that reason I will vote against it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
For decades, people in this country have talked about immigration. When it comes to EU migration, that national debate has been entirely academic, as the UK had so little control over it. In 2016, the British people were asked their view on membership of the EU. Some suggest that immigration was the main driver in making their decision to leave. I think that there were several reasons, but without doubt, immigration was clearly a key driver—the control of our borders and the ending of free movement.
A question was asked; a question was answered. Although too many Members of the last Parliament did not get it, today we can put the dilly, dally, dither and delay to an end. I understand that some are concerned by what they see as a bizarre concept: the end of free movement. To me, it is rather simple: a UK immigration system created and developed by the UK’s elected Government; a system devised in our national interest, determined by the needs of our economy; a system that treats immigrants from every corner of the globe on the same basis, which is all about what they are bringing to our country rather than where they are coming from.
The Bill means that the nurses, doctors, engineers and scientists from the Philippines, Canada, India or the USA will be treated equally to those from Germany, Italy or France. The Bill is not anti-immigration; it is about fair immigration. It will mean that applicants will be judged on their skills and talents, not just their country of origin. The European backdoor will be closed, but Britain will be very much open to the brightest and best, wherever they come from. It is absurd that someone from outside the EU might be denied access to this country based on criminality, while someone from the EU who met the same threshold would be free to enter. It is wrong and it must end.
Very often, the country has chosen to import huge segments of its workforce. Actually, we need to look at why we fail to find the right people with the right skills domestically. The success of this system will be determined by the adaptability and flexibility of the shortage occupation list, coupled with a renewed effort to train, incentivise and invest in our domestic workforce. At the same time, I am glad that the Government are working to welcome the migrants who make such a valued contribution to our NHS, extending the visas of frontline NHS workers and introducing a new NHS visa with fast-track entry and more generous terms.
I am happy to be talking about our borders because it is a subject that concerns many people in my constituency, but also because it is crucial at this time to secure our borders. I have discussed this issue with the Home Secretary and look forward to hearing her express our shared concern to deliver a swift and active solution. Let us give the people what they want and what they voted for: a country in control of its own borders, with a fairer, firmer points-based system that will welcome the brightest and the best based on what they can contribute to this country and not on where they come from.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Today, with this Bill, the Government are seeking to grant themselves powers to reshape our immigration system, with little scrutiny and with little regard for the rights of people who, sadly, they dismiss as low-skilled simply because they do not earn a high salary. These Government plans are built on the right-wing neo-liberal myth that people’s salary determines their skills and their value. Well, the coronavirus crisis has shown all of us whose work actually is essential to keeping our society running, and many of those workers earn far less than the Government’s proposed salary threshold of £25,600. Let us be clear: workers earning under the threshold are not low-skilled; they are low-paid. All of us have a moral responsibility to recognise their contribution, and not to introduce rules that restrict the rights of low-paid workers even further, because it will be our communities, and often the most vulnerable members of our communities, who will pay the price for this.
Our care system is facing an unprecedented crisis, and our Government, shamefully, are seeking to make it harder for careworkers to come to this country to contribute. The founder of our national health service, Aneurin Bevan, once remarked that we could manage without stockbrokers, but we would find it harder to do without miners, steelworkers and those who cultivate the land. The 21st-century equivalent is that our society could cope a lot longer without hedge fund managers, fat-cat landlords and billionaire tax avoiders and tax evaders than we could without bus drivers, bin collectors, supermarket workers, carers and other low-paid workers who under these rules will face tougher restrictions than the top earners.
Our approach to the Bill today cannot be divorced from the record of this Government over the past decade. This Government, with their hostile environment, have used their narrative on immigration as a way to scapegoat one part of the working class for problems the working-class as a whole face due to austerity, cuts and free market fundamentalism. This Government are wilfully scapegoating migrants to let off the hook those who are really responsible for the economic failings of the past decade.
Just the other week, an NHS physician in my constituency who came here from Egypt wrote to me distraught because, as he put it to me, if he were to die in service of our NHS due to coronavirus, his dependent family would be booted out of this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the Government have shifted on this, but they should not have had to be asked in the first place—and why can they not extend that change in position to careworkers?
How can we trust a Government who oversaw the hostile environment? How can we hand over powers to the Government to create a new immigration system with far less scrutiny than previously? How can we trust that there will not be a second Windrush crisis affecting many thousands of EU citizens who came to make their life here but have not yet been granted settled status? How can we trust that, under political pressure, the Home Secretary and this Government will not make immigration policy that is designed not to serve the interests of working-class communities or diversity, but to chase headlines in the right-wing newspapers?
I was one of the sponsors of a reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). It was not selected, but I nevertheless want to reiterate demands made in it. I want the Government to think again about this immigration Bill. We need the Government to think again and to protect the rights of British citizens to live, work and study in other EEA member states. We need the Government to think again and grant EEA citizens currently living here in the UK automatic permanent settled status. We need the Government to reflect long and hard on the history of the Windrush scandal and of “Go Home” vans touring estates, making a hostile environment for people in our communities. The Government need to reflect on that. They need to reflect on who really contributes to our society.
The Government also need to reflect on the need to end the scandal of indefinite detention, which makes us, in a very shameful way, stick out like a sore thumb in Europe—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his five minutes. We now go to Dr Jamie Wallis in Bridgend.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is clear that when some people in Bridgend voted for my party for the first time, they did so knowing that this Government would take them out of the European Union and that we were going to take back control of our borders. One of the loudest messages that some of my constituents raised with me during the last general election campaign was that immigration needed to be under this Government’s control. They rejected the plan on offer by the Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has shown that she is absolutely on the side of British people and their priorities.
Immigration is essential to our culture, economy and way of life. Immigrants have powered and often created many of our businesses. We should also thank them for their continued contribution to our great public services, and our appreciation should never waver, especially now, during the covid-19 crisis. But this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way our immigration system works for the better. For the first time in decades, the UK will have full control over who comes to this country and how our immigration system operates. I welcome the Government’s commitment to build a fairer, single global immigration system that considers people based on their skills rather than their nationality. I also welcome the commitment to replace free movement with the UK’s very own points-based system. This new system will prioritise those with the best skills and the more-needed talents, including scientists, doctors, nurses, engineers, academics and innovators.
I have always believed that the new system is about more than simply controlling the numbers. While I am glad that the Government are committed to reducing the overall levels of migration, I am more glad still of their commitment to attract the best and brightest from across the world. This will benefit businesses, including those within my Bridgend constituency. This process is about helping to create a high-wage, high-skill, high-productivity economy. I welcome this approach. Our country cannot become dependent on cheap labour and must focus instead on investment in technology and future industries, such as the space industry and clean energy.
The current covid-19 crisis will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the British economy, and it is imperative that our immigration policy facilitates those businesses looking to future industries as a way of supporting our recovery. We must ensure that our policy is focused on building a future where we level up Britain and focus on what is best for all our futures in the coming months. Our common aim should be to invest in and mobilise our UK workforce.
We also need to take into account the fact that within the United Kingdom we are going to have regional variations in demand for certain skills. Take Wales, for example: we have a high dependence on a limited number of sectors such as steel and manufacturing. Where there is a shortage of certain skills within specific industries, the Migration Advisory Committee should be set up to acknowledge and report on those differences.
Just before I close, let me say that the economy, especially during these uncertain times, has the potential to change quite dramatically over the next few years. We need to make sure that, rather than looking at the current output of certain industries, our immigration policy is looking to respond proactively to their potential. For example, sectors such as clean energy and robotics may make up a small part of Britain’s economy today, but they have the potential to make a much larger contribution in the future. It is therefore important that we have an immigration policy that is set up to support the future growth of these sectors in particular. By ensuring that we take this proactive approach, we can ensure that our immigration system can withstand significant changes to the way our economy may work in the future and that we continue to attract the brightest and the best in their respective fields.
Finally, stopping the unfair disadvantage that some people outside the EU face when trying to come to this country is a sound argument. I say that as someone who has parents and grandparents who were born outside the EU, but who made Britain their home and built their lives here. Talent is spread across the whole world and is not concentrated in any one region. That is why, with this fair immigration Bill, we will be able to ensure that our friends and partners across the whole world have the opportunity to come to this great country and help make a success of post-Brexit Britain.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Like my good friend the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I shall be voting against this Bill. It is a bad Bill. It is bad in principle, bad in practice and it sends a terrible message to migrants and the children of migrants. The Bill does indeed abolish freedom of movement—although once this country voted to brexit, freedom of movement would have fallen in any event—but the Government are doing it in such a way and in such a manner that it seems to ignore the effect of this on around 890,000 British nationals in the EU. We feel that there was a better way of achieving the same effect.
The Bill gives the Government a blank cheque to construct a new immigration system through statutory instrument. Anybody that has had to deal with the immigration system knows that one of the problems is ill-thought regulation piled on top of ill-thought regulation. The idea that the Government can construct a new immigration system without proper parliamentary scrutiny will make anyone who has ever tried to help anybody with an immigration problem fear for the consequences.
The Bill is a slap in the face for the thousands of migrants, including EU migrants, who have been working so hard for the NHS and the care sector in this time of covid crisis. The idea put forward by Ministers that £25,600 is somehow a proxy level for skill is absurd. We know that the skills, the concern and the devotion that migrants are currently showing at this time of covid crisis cannot be measured by money, but Ministers seem to think that we can measure somebody’s value to society by an arbitrary financial threshold.
EU migrants play a vital role not just in the NHS and the care sector, but in construction. In fact, they play a big role in construction, not because they are unskilled but because, as any developer would tell us, they have very important construction skills that developers are unable to recruit here. They play an important role in hospitality. They should have been granted settled status automatically. They should have physical documents, not a digital code, and we should not be moving towards extending the hostile environment towards EU migrants.
The Bill represents a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity on the NHS surcharge. It is quite wrong that migrants working for the NHS pay three times over: once through taxation; once through the surcharge; and, in some cases, with their lives. It should have ended the no recourse to public funds system. It should have brought in a 28- day statutory time limit for immigration detention. It should have brought back legal aid for article 8 immigration cases, and it should have reformed the law on deportations so that people who came here as children cannot be arbitrarily deported.
When the House debated Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review, there was a lot of hand-wringing on the Government side of the House about the Windrush scandal, but the review had some quite specific recommendations about immigration, including that the Home Secretary introduce a migrants commissioner; that the immigration department should re-educate itself fully about the current reach and effect of immigration and nationality law; that there should be a programme of training and development for all immigration and policy officials; and that Ministers should ensure that all policies and proposals for legislation on immigration are subject to rigorous impact assessments.
The Home Secretary has said that the Bill is about a brighter future. A brighter future for whom? For EU nationals, who face a period of great uncertainty? Is it a brighter future for the old, the sick and the infirm, because the institutions that they rely on will have enormous difficulty recruiting people when there is an end to freedom of movement? Is it a brighter future for society, when we pass a Bill that sends a signal to wider society—and to migrants in particular—that you are only as valuable as the amount that you earn, and that we will clap for you on a Thursday and put forward a Bill like this a few days’ later?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in these proceedings, as they represent another important step in this Government delivering on what people in Crewe and Nantwich voted for, and that is for us to take back control. That is why the Bill is important. I relish the fact that we are now once again having a full and healthy debate about the details of our immigration policy—not just a yes or no to the freedom of movement. We are having these debates because our Government are once again fully accountable for immigration policy. The Opposition have every right to scrutinise and propose alternative approaches—that is how our democracy functions.
How did we ever think that on such a complicated issue we could simply tick a box saying yes? Deciding who can visit, work in and live in our country is a matter of fundamental importance that should never have been simplified to such an unsophisticated approach as freedom of movement. There are so many different factors that we need to balance—the needs of business in the short and long term; the goal of providing the best possible job opportunities for British citizens; the obligations we have to provide safe refuge to individuals in need; the impact on our housing market; and the effect of large-scale immigration on social cohesion. Those are just a few of the things we have to think about.
All of those factors will ebb and flow in importance over time, and any effective immigration system needs to be able to ebb and flow along with them. Instead, we have had a fixed policy, direct accountability for which sat offshore. A multifactorial issue became a binary one. People were either pro freedom of movement or against it. I am afraid that that did not work, and was never going to work. It became a touchstone issue in relation to our EU membership, because voters could sense it was not right. That is fundamentally why I want freedom of movement abolished. It is policy making on the cheap, decision making without decisions—the multitude of views on all the different ways in which we should change our policy that we will hear in the Chamber today are a testimony to that.
I want to talk about what I think has been a shameless attempt to distort the meaning of the term “low-skilled”—a phrase that has been used cross-party across multiple Governments for many years. The last Labour Home Secretary referred on a number of occasions in this House to the low-skilled, and I cannot believe anybody would ascribe to him any disrespect to those he was referring to in his use of that term. The current shadow Home Secretary has spoken about high-skilled jobs in the House, and I do not imagine that anyone would argue that we can talk about high-skilled jobs without having to acknowledge the existence of low-skilled jobs. I do not in any way seek to diminish the prominence of the current post holder, but in 2014 the previous long-serving shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked the then Business Secretary what steps were being taken to address the exploitation of low-skilled workers. In 2018, the right hon. Lady also agreed that it was logical to distinguish between high and low-skilled migrants when making immigration decisions. I find the deliberate attempt to inject disrespect into the current use of that term extremely distasteful, because it is an attempt to gain some short-term political advantage by hurting the feelings of people who at this minute are working hard for this nation. However, perhaps it would do no harm to review our language in this regard so that in future it cannot be exploited.
What do we really mean when we use the term “low-skilled”? What we are actually talking about is how readily a skill can be acquired. The person who cleans a cubicle so that I can see a patient is just as vital a member of the team as I am when it comes to looking after patients. If they were not doing their job, I could not do mine. But we can more readily train someone to do that job than we can train someone to be a doctor or nurse. That is a simple fact. It does not in any way demean the importance of the role or contribution of those whose skills are more easily acquired than others. Opposition Members know that full well, and that is part of the discussion we will have about salaries and how that works when we decide roles and who we want to come here.
When we consider whether we should allow people to come here to live and work, we inevitably prioritise individuals with skillsets that are not readily or easily acquired. That is what we are talking about when we talk about high and low-skilled jobs. Going forward, perhaps we could consider changing our approach to talk about readily acquired and non-readily acquired skills, so that we are saying exactly what we mean and there can be no doubt.
Of course, I expect the Government to look closely at how their policy approach will translate in the real world so that our public services have the staff who are needed and our economy is well resourced. We need to find a way to recognise the important and valuable contribution that immigrant workers have made to the NHS during this crisis, but it is absolutely right that we should grow our home skill base whenever possible. I have felt very uncomfortable with our reliance on the immigration of healthcare professionals to this country over many decades, because we are sometimes taking staff who are desperately needed in their countries of origin, particularly outside the EU. That cannot be right—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Thank you. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his five minutes.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate remotely. Last week, one Member described the hybrid system as “sub-optimal”, and that is undoubtedly the case, but it does at least allow everyone the chance to take part in debates safely.
If the Leader of the House is going to press ahead with his proposals for a physical Parliament after recess, I hope he will explain how we could debate this Bill any more effectively while only small numbers of Members can be allowed in the Chamber; how Members who are shielding or self-isolating could take part in this debate; how Members who have childcare responsibilities and kids off school during the crisis could take part in this debate; and how we could sensibly have a Division involving 600 people at the end of this debate, while social distancing. Perhaps he will also explain why the House of Commons should follow different advice from that given to the rest of the country.
Let me move on to the Bill. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said about the EU citizens who are keeping our care system and our health service going at this most difficult of times. They are heroes, like the rest of the staff in our care and health sector and the other key workers in this crisis. They are highly skilled; they should be highly valued. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the income threshold and our concerns about the risk to the future care sector under the Government’s proposals.
Three quarters of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, and the principles of openness, co-operation, internationalism and solidarity that led so many of them to do that have not changed. Yes, free movement brings challenges, but it also brings huge economic, social and cultural benefits. It will be a sad day when my constituents and other UK citizens will no longer have the ability to travel freely and to study, live and work easily across our wonderful continent.
I recognise that free movement is going to end as a result of the Bill, but the way the Government are going about it is unacceptable, most worryingly in the granting to the Executive of wide Henry VIII powers, which many of my constituents in south Manchester do not trust this Government with. Side-lining Parliament is ironic in the context of the arguments for taking back control to Parliament.
The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report on the almost identical 2017-19 Bill and expressed serious concerns about the wide scope of its regulation-making powers. The Committee stated that it was “frankly disturbed” that the Government would attempt to confer permanent powers to Ministers
“to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate”
as long as it was loosely connected to clause 4 of that Bill. It is a serious report and I refer all Members to the concerns expressed in it.
Other Members have raised the important issues in respect of detention, unaccompanied vulnerable children and visas, so I shall not go over them again. I wish to use the brief time I have left to raise one specific issue for future consideration. As we design a future work and immigration system, and as we come out of this crisis, it is more important than ever to support our cultural industries, which have been hit harder than most by the crisis. Lots of my constituents in south Manchester work in the entertainment industry, many of them in the live music and performance professions. Loss of freedom of movement could have a seriously detrimental effect on the live performance industry. If we make it harder for EU artists to perform in the UK, we are vulnerable to measures that make it harder for our artists to perform around the EU. Winding up a Westminster Hall debate just four months ago, in January, the Minister, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), said:
“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 56WH.]
Organisations in the music industry are pressing for an EU-wide touring visa for musicians, performers, road crew, tour managers, sound and light engineers—all the people who make the industry such a vital contributor to our economic and cultural life. We need a passporting system with reciprocal arrangements, so performers can continue to tour easily after the transition period. A two-year, multi-entry touring visa that is cheap and easy to administer is a deliverable ask.
Music remains a low-earning sector, with musicians earning £23,000 a year on average. They would not meet the salary threshold under the Government’s proposal, so it is vital that the Government come up with a system that supports the live music and performance industries, which employ so many of my constituents and make all our lives richer and more rewarding.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
Importantly for this country, which has always welcomed immigrants, the Bill will enable the alignment of treatment of EU and non-EU citizens as part of our future immigration system. The Bill reflects the concerns of the British people and ends free movement, giving everyone the same opportunity to come to the UK, regardless of where they come from. In line with our manifesto commitments, there will be no automatic route into the UK for foreign workers with few formal qualifications. We can attract the talent and skills from around the world that our economy needs as we emerge from coronavirus. The new, fair immigration system will be flexible and in line with advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, which will keep the occupation shortage list under regular review to ensure that it reflects the needs of our labour market.
Immigration will no longer be used as a replacement for investment in the domestic British workforce. We have an abundance of talent and skills in this country, which must be developed and utilised. Most of us, except for those who support open borders, believe that countries should have an unalienable right to decide who gets to enter their land for work. To seek and strive for such a right does not make us anti-immigrant—quite the opposite. The UK is made up of a rich tapestry of people, and as a country we are the better for it. It is right that people from all over the world are treated fairly and equally, so far as immigration into this country is concerned, under our rule of law. We have a rule of law allowing legal immigration from non-EU countries, but it has far too often been exploited by illegal immigrants and people smugglers and traffickers. It is not right that those who have arrived here illegally are seen by some to have a presumptive right. People who avoid the law are not acting within the law, and are therefore acting illegally.
I welcome the introduction, from the end of the transition period, of a single, consistent and firmer approach to criminality across the immigration system. In my constituency of beautiful Hastings and Rye, we have seen hundreds of migrants land on our shores in small boats from France, most recently at Pett Level at the weekend. They are not refugees, as some insist on calling them. They are migrants, who move for a variety of reasons but who generally make a conscious choice to leave their country to seek a better life elsewhere. They are free to return at any time if things do not work out as they had hoped or if they wish to visit family members and friends left behind.
Refugees are forced to leave their country because they are at risk of, or have experienced, persecution. Their concerns are of safety and human rights, not economic advantage, and as such they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. Many have experienced trauma or have been tortured, causing them to risk their lives in search of protection. They are not free to return to their homelands unless the situation that forced them to leave improves.
Worryingly, we have seen unaccompanied children arrive who are thought to be victims of trafficking. The people who have been landing on our beaches are coming over from France via unauthorised, illegal crossings, having paid thousands of pounds to a criminal—a people smuggler—to do so. I want to be clear: we must press down hard on those exploiting the vulnerable and using them as part of their human trafficking system. Those making the perilous journey across the English channel are risking their lives by doing so, and we must discourage these journeys. We must ensure that those caught up in human trafficking gangs and smuggling rackets are protected and that those orchestrating the journeys are stopped.
France is a safe country. They are not fleeing persecution. Under EU law—the Dublin regulation—asylum must be sought in the first country people arrive in. Furthermore, many have travelled through a number of safe European countries before arriving in France and then going on to UK. If we do not emphasise the difference between migrants and those seeking asylum or refuge, it promulgates misconceptions about the most vulnerable—the refugees, for whom we need to provide the best possible sanctuary. We need to safeguard and expand refugees’ rights and protect them.
Ultimately, we need to ensure that the British public have trust in our immigration system and remain welcoming of legal immigrants and refugees. That can be achieved with the new, robust, fair and independent migration system controlled by the United Kingdom, making sure that illegal migrants do not have not a presumptive right to stay—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Two words dominate my thinking in this debate: disappointment and frustration. My disappointment is that we are presented with a Bill that seeks to end freedom of movement without offering a fair, compassionate and effective alternative, and that the bold words from the Home Secretary are not matched by bold actions in her Bill. I am afraid that I see no point in any level playing field if it is one on which no one is welcome to play. My frustration is with the fact that the Government do not appear to have listened to the many reasonable voices from across Parliament calling on them to rethink this potentially damaging Bill.
The Bill comes at a time when everything we thought we knew about our economy, our wellbeing, our health and how we live our lives every day has been thrown into doubt by the pandemic—a pandemic which demands that we take its actual and potential impacts into account in each step we take towards putting the crisis behind us. That is more relevant to this immigration Bill than to almost any other legislation before us.
Just this morning, a Cabinet Minister told the “Today” programme that the Government want to see people we need come to this country. Surely there is nobody this country needs more at the moment than the tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other NHS staff, the hundreds of thousands of social care workers and the millions more in sectors hit hard by this crisis—from restaurants and hotels to construction and manufacturing —in every city, town and rural community in this country who are migrants. These are migrants who are putting their lives on the line to protect us, who will be crucial to creating economic growth and jobs as we recover from this crisis, and yet who are still expected to pay the surcharge for the NHS they work for, despite the false hope offered by the Home Secretary.
The Royal Society has warned that the end of freedom of movement could mean that other countries without restrictive visas and salary qualifications will benefit from the skills and knowledge available across Europe to which we will no longer have access. In the midst of this crisis, I find it beyond understanding that the Home Secretary is pushing ahead with her plans to make it much harder for employers to hire the very people I am talking about. Visa extensions and fast tracks for some are not enough. Many of these people are the very people we go out every Thursday to applaud for their efforts and sacrifice for us. Surely the Government’s memory is not that short.
That is only part of why I believe that this House should refuse the Bill a Second Reading. Crucially, it also fails to protect the rights of British citizens to live, work and study in EU member states, and it does not fully guarantee the rights of UK citizens already living across the EU. While I am disappointed and frustrated that the Government refuse to respect the rights of EU citizens who contribute to this country, I find it beyond comprehension that they do not recognise the need to protect the rights of our citizens either.
If the stated aim of this Bill is to establish an immigration system to replace free movement that will allow businesses and public services to recruit the workers they need, then it fails. What is needed by the people living in this country right now—people depending on our NHS right now and people struggling, right now, to see how their employer or the business they have worked decades to build will survive this—is an immigration system that will work for them. All of us need a system that will encourage not only those we need to come here, but those we need to stay, and one that will encourage them by creating a fair and compassionate system that will value them according to what they do, not just by a simple salary calculation. Many will also have no recourse to public funds in this crisis.
This Government, in asking Parliament to support a Bill that will give Ministers sweeping powers, would do well to take into account the words of US politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”
This Bill could have profound and, I believe, negative effects on our society and culture. Surely it is up to those of us with political power to save us from that, and that is why I will be voting against this Bill.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I rise in support of this Bill. First and foremost, I am a democrat. I stood on a manifesto saying that we will take back control of our immigration policies, and this Bill is part of that package. Brexit and covid-19 have shown how quickly the world changes, and we need an immigration system flexible enough to ensure that we attract the skilled workers that we need for tomorrow. February’s policy statement made it clear that we need to move away from cheap labour from Europe and more towards investment in technology and automation. I would add that perhaps we need to talk about increasing manufacturing to be making our country more self-sufficient.
The system proposed is a lot simpler. It really does incorporate a points-based system, with streamlined process times that I am sure businesses will welcome. The reality is that businesses need to adapt. They are currently having to change fundamentally the way they work because of the pandemic, and this will be part of their business decision making. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) referred to the criminality, and how this reinforces and strengthens that policy, and I am fully in agreement with him.
As things stand today, we have a two-tier immigration system. With our leaving at the end of this year, we need to have a simple single immigration system, and this immigration Bill allows that to happen. We must be flexible, yet firm on our direction of travel. The Migration Advisory Committee has done some sterling work, and I urge Ministers to ensure that a regular review is fed back to them and perhaps to the Home Affairs Committee on the parameters it uses for the shortage occupation lists. In my view, that will be the key driver in ensuring that we have the skilled workers in the right place at the right time. I welcome the proposal for the support of the agriculture sector, with the increase to 10,000 visas per year from the current 2,500.
It is probably worth remembering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned, that this Bill is only two clauses different from that proposed in the previous Parliament. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to continue to encourage their European nationals to utilise the EU settlement scheme, which is fundamentally very successful. Of the 3.147 million applications, 99% have either been granted as settled or pre-settled, with only 1% having other outcomes; only 640 have been refused, so it is obviously a system that works.
I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know there are other colleagues wanting to be involved in this debate. Thank you for your time.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
I find it extraordinary that, even in the midst of the current pandemic, the Government have not recognised, or do not care about, the implications of the Bill for those who are out there working to keep us alive, keeping the country moving, looking after our vulnerable people and supporting every aspect of our much-changed lives. Some on the Government Benches would like us to think of those people as low-skilled and low-value, but to be deemed low-skilled is in itself insulting. To value a person’s worth based on the amount of money they earn is offensive. It is particularly indecent now, when we see these key workers keeping Britain going. This is not what we teach our children in schools, and these are not the values of the communities of Gower that I represent.
The Home Secretary has said that the new points system will be a
“firmer, fairer and simpler system that will attract the people we need to drive our country forward…laying the foundation for a high-wage, high-skill, productive economy”.
In theory, it all sounds rather sensible, but the proposed system is more of an income-based system, and it is a blunt tool that masks the other skills and qualities that immigrants bring to the UK. George Bernard Shaw said:
“Between persons of equal income there is no social distinction except the distinction of merit. Money is nothing: character, conduct, and capacity are everything.”
But this is not just about the value of these workers at this time. Immigration should be valued and celebrated at all times. I said in my maiden speech nearly three years ago:
“The freedom of movement and opportunities afforded to my forefathers is close to my heart. I will fight for those rights to continue, not just for my child but for the children of Gower and Wales.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 817.]
By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants who can work or study elsewhere in Europe without a visa. If the cost and burden of entering the UK become too high, it will be other countries that benefit from the transfer of knowledge, expertise, investment and culture.
The Government are ploughing through with the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill while the public are distracted. They continue to make meaningless gestures to the key workers such as carers, shop workers and those in public services who are keeping the economy and society going throughout these really troubled times. A significant pay rise is what all key workers need, not another Thursday evening photo opportunity. If there was ever a time to recognise the contribution of immigrant workers in the NHS and other vital jobs, it is now, during this crisis. The Labour party stands up for all the people who have chosen to make the UK their home and who now find themselves, as essential workers, putting their lives on the line to keep the rest of us going.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I share the concerns of cancer charities and others about the Bill undermining many of our already stretched public services. Analysis by Macmillan shows that the Government’s plan for a points-based immigration system will have a real detrimental effect on our health and social care system, which is already under record pressure. To mitigate this, Macmillan is calling for a separate migration route for social care, and asking for social care workers to be included on the shortage occupation list and exempt from the visa salary threshold. Workers and employers need clarity about what specific measures will be put in place to protect the NHS and social care workforces, and they especially need further details of what the NHS visa and an equivalent social care visa would involve. The Home Secretary needs to set out what specific protections a specialist visa would afford, which staff are eligible to apply, and how and when they should apply.
More urgently, will the Home Secretary clarify why the Government have not offered to extend the visas of those working in social care in the same way that they have for those working in the NHS as a result of the coronavirus? The shortage occupation list is nowhere near dynamic enough to respond to workplace shortages within the desired timeframe, so what measures will the Government take to support the already dilapidated social care sector if this new immigration policy deters vital migrant workers from joining the sector? All this uncertainty is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes. We now go to Sir John Hayes in South Holland and The Deepings.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
Migration is a feature of all advanced economies and free societies; some people come and others leave, and it has always been so. For the period from the 1930s—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the sound quality is a bit of a problem. We are just seeing whether it can be improved. Let us try again. Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Migration is a feature of all advanced economies and free societies; people come and they leave, and that has always been so in our country. From the 1930s to the 1980s, migration was essentially in balance—some years, more people left the country; others, more people arrived—but from the mid-2000s, that changed dramatically. The level of net migration that this country has endured since that time is unprecedented.
Last year, about 640,000 immigrants arrived in Britain. That is 100,000 more than the populations of Manchester and Sheffield. When we take into account the number of people who left, the net figure was around 200,000, as it has been, year on year, for a considerable time. I just do not think that is tenable or practical. It clearly places immense demands on all kinds of services, particularly housing, and, frankly, the British people are not satisfied that that is the right way forward, which essentially is what they broadcast in the referendum. Of course that was about more than immigration, but for many, our inability to control our borders, and the consequent effects of large-scale net migration, was a salient factor in why they voted to leave the European Union and end free movement, which is what the Bill does.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that too few people in the political establishment are prepared to face up to the sentiments I just described, which are widely felt by British people. Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, put it this way. He said that mass migration risks igniting the “flames” of racial conflict because of “liberal self-delusion” over its impact by leaders too “touchy”, “smug” and “complacent” or “squeamish” to talk about the issue.
Of course it is true that people who come to this country do much good—we have heard a lot about that, and I could obviously quote examples from my own constituency—but there are other effects of migration of people into low-skilled occupations. When we say “low-skilled”, it is not a pejorative remark; it is a statement of fact. Some jobs are more skilled than others.
The effects of large-scale migration into those jobs have been fivefold. It has displaced investment in technology, particularly in automation; it has held down wage levels, which has been undesirable both from the migrants’ point of view and for people already here; it has encouraged under-investment in training and skills, and it has built an economy that is increasingly ossified by a dependence on relatively low-cost labour rather than the high-tech, high-skilled economy that we need to compete and thrive. But more than that, the unwillingness of successive Governments to tackle this issue has undermined public faith in the efficacy of Government and the willingness of Ministers to face the facts. Now we have a Home Secretary, the Minister on the Front Bench—who I see there now—and a Prime Minister who are willing to face the facts and take decisive action, which is what this Bill does.
I simply end by saying this: in the words of G. K. Chesterton, we should not take a fence down until we know the reason it was put up. The reason we have borders is because it is right that the British people and those they elect to represent them should decide who comes to our country, in what number and why. This Bill is a start, but I finish with these remarks, and a challenge to the Minster. First, we must deport more illegal immigrants. It is extraordinary that the recent Governments, the coalition and the Conservatives, are deporting fewer illegal immigrants than previous Labour Governments were. Secondly, we must be careful about the number of work visas issued. Thirdly, we must keep a watch on net migration as we go forward, so that what we do is in tune with what the British people are prepared to warrant.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
Amidst the ongoing lockdown and social distancing, those of us abiding by these measures have not seen our friends or family in person for weeks. Yet while for most of us this experience is temporary and will last for just a few weeks or months more, it is what those families separated by borders under the UK’s restrictive rules and conditions face all year round. It is just a taste of what these families, who must jump through the Home Office’s complex hoops and over its changing barriers, endure.
The first of these barriers are the deeply discriminatory and restrictive minimum income requirements for families. Currently, someone wishing to bring their partner and children to the UK must have a combined income of £18,600 a year with an additional £3,800 for their first child and £2,400 for each additional child. However, this figure fails to take into account the significant divergence in living costs between different areas of the country. The median house price in my constituency is half the average for England and Wales. While applicants struggle to reach the £18,600-plus figure, particularly as the average yearly wage is around £6,000 less than the UK average, it does not mean that they cannot support a family, and they are unfairly penalised as a result. The Home Office’s disgraceful “Go home” vans on immigration and the detention and treatment of the Windrush generation are the most visible aspects of the hostile environment, but we cannot overlook the huge impact of these deeply unfair rules that tell huge numbers of people they do not earn enough to be with the people they love.
The Bill also says nothing about the extraordinary rise in the cost of immigration health surcharges for those staying in the UK for more than six months, which this October are set to rise by more than 50% in one swift jump, having already doubled early last year. This must be paid for each year and for each person applying and it must be paid upfront along with the extortionate visa fees, creating huge costs for families in this country on work permits, and sending completely the wrong message to families around the world who want to come to this country. The charge also does not go directly towards funding our NHS where it is intended to go, but instead goes straight into the Treasury coffers and acts as a secondary form of taxation on migrants who already pay into our NHS through VAT, income tax, fuel duty and a host of other duties and regular taxes.
The Bill further fails to address the deeply institutionalised discrimination embedded in the Home Office that both I and my staff must navigate on a daily basis. One of the clearest examples of this is the poor decision-making process employed by UK Visas and Immigration. On numerous occasions I have found that the decision maker either does not fully understand the circumstances and situation or ignores documentation sent, claiming it has not been included. That means applications are being rejected for some of the most minor reasons, such as a missing page or bank document that could easily be requested, and which demonstrates the sheer pettiness of the Home Office and how embedded the hostile environment is.
Another example is the high number of refused visa applications: the applications of around nine in 10 of my constituents who reach out to my office for assistance with visitor visas for family and friends from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh are refused. The Home Office states that these decisions are made by a computer system but it is clearly either broken or the Home Office has programmed it with an inbuilt racial bias as those applying have a good financial history and visitor history and are often visiting on compassionate grounds.
As a proud city of sanctuary, Bradford has for years welcomed people from all over the world with open arms, and offered them a new life. In this Bill and the Government’s immigration system, however, the kindness and good will for which we in Bradford advocate so fiercely is tragically absent. As we debate the Bill, I implore the Minister to recognise the importance of family and to ensure that no child is separated from their parent, and to address the serious discrimination and malpractices in the Home Office and the immigration system, with the minimum income requirement, the immigration health surcharge and the decision-making process.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I rise to warmly welcome the Bill, which ends free movement, eliminates the unfairness between EU and non-EU migration, paves the way for a points-based immigration system and, most importantly, delivers on our pledge at last year’s election.
I need no convincing that immigration is and has been a good thing for Britain. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is woven into our nation’s fabric, and we need to continue to attract the brightest and the best around the world. Uncontrolled immigration, however, has placed a great strain on many communities. We simply abandoned any expectation along the way of those who came here to integrate, to speak English and to commit to working and living by the same rules as everyone else. As Tony Blair relaxed the rules, the Labour party simply forgot about working-class communities across the country. It did not listen as those communities struggled for jobs, experienced the difficulties of getting school places and doctor’s appointments, and lived with the consequences of divided communities, which were left to suffer in silence and, should they speak out, risked the wrath of the north London chattering classes who, for the third time in a row, are once again running the Labour party.
Today, the Government are proposing to right those wrongs, and are proposing a pathway to a fair immigration system. What do we hear from the Opposition? We heard the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talk once again about austerity cuts. We heard a disingenuous blurring of the lines between those who are here already and those who may come here in future. We heard from the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that now is not the time, without any indication of when the time might be for a policy such as this. He spoke about lessons learned and the need for the Government to learn lessons, but the Opposition seem to have learned no lessons at all. A lot has been written about how Labour voters abandoned the party in the general election, but the truth is that the Labour party abandoned those voters and those communities many years ago. It is the Conservative one-nation Government who are righting those wrongs and standing up for those communities. I commend the Bill, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s leadership on this matter.
6.54 pm
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Ending freedom of movement has become the loudest answer to everything we hear on the doorstep. No jobs? End freedom of movement. No housing, no doctor’s appointment, no parking? Blame freedom of movement. In that noise, it is hard to talk about this issue without being called either a racist or a bleeding heart liberal, but the truth is that EU migration has benefited our economy. EU migrants contribute £2,300 more to the public purse each year than the average adult—and that is including the cost of their children being here, too. They are also less likely to use our public services, although they work in them. We are more likely to meet an EU migrant helping us in our hospitals than standing in front of us in a queue.
Over the past 20 years, immigration has been on a much larger scale than we have had in the previous 200 years, but, truthfully, however many people have come, this country has never been good at making it work. With every new wave of people, the UK has always been unwelcoming and always regretted it. Indeed, it was the same with the Huguenots, the wave of refugees that brought both my family and Nigel Farage’s family here. When the Windrush generation came, they were met with “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”. Now we rightly honour their contribution to our communities. We have demonised those who have come from Europe for years. Now, as we clap for those who are saving our lives with one set of hands, this proposed legislation asks us to abandon them with another.
The problem here is not immigration; it is politicians talking about what we do not want, rather than what we need. This Bill is that problem written down: bringing to an end freedom of movement without providing for what comes next, because in our toxic political culture ending freedom of movement has been sold as a solution in itself. The only answer the Government are offering us about what replaces it is to expose everyone to the dysfunction that is the current immigration system—the same system that gave us the hostile environment, the Windrush scandal and the legacy system.
The former Home Secretary and former Member for Blackburn once told me there are two divides in Parliament: left and right; and those who have to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who do not. The truth is that the UKBA has been a fiasco for Governments of all colours. It makes us all hypocrites: locking up victims of torture and rape in Yarl’s Wood, while claiming to be defenders of human rights. It is a system where, unlike in other countries in Europe, when we see refugee children, we do not seek to reunite them with their family members or provide them with safe passage to stop them being targeted by traffickers. Above all, it is a system that is just not very good at making decisions. Of the 25,000 people we locked in detention without any limit for how long, only 37% were eventually deported and yet we expect them to deal with this mess without any legal support. The only people who would be helped by this Bill will be us, because it absolves us of dealing with the problems it creates. It gives the Government Henry VIII powers to write immigration legislation without having to bring them back to this place and force us to address the damage that has been done. We already have a points-based system, so the question Ministers should be answering is: what do we award points for? We know that skilled or valued worker does not necessarily mean well-paid worker.
We know 3 million of our EU citizens, who are our friends, our family and our neighbours, are now struggling with the paperwork that pre-settled status entails. There are 1 million Brits in Europe who need a good deal, too. So ask yourselves if you want your children to be able to work for companies who have offices in Berlin or Rome without them being penalised because they cannot travel there, or one that gives points out so that if you fall in love with your French exchange partner you can move to Paris or they can come to you in Barnsley. The benefits that came with freedom of movement mean that when you do not have it, you will end up wanting to invent it. Such freedoms will become more important, not less, in the coming years.
If we are to have a better quality of legislation, we need a better quality of debate about who is coming in and why. Take, for example, the immigrant who came to us having failed his exams with a patchy work history and no ties to the UK. His name was Albert Einstein. Even then, in the 1930s, the UK border authorities misplaced his papers. His landing card was only found in a trawl of old paperwork in Heathrow in 2011. Back then, the Daily Mail urged readers to avoid him and boycott his lectures raising money for other refugees from Nazi Europe. Back then, another MP, Oliver Locker-Lampson, tried to sponsor his British citizenship and help Jews fleeing the Nazis. Back then, we said no and we lost Einstein to America.
When it comes to immigration, our policies all too often meet Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. I will not be voting for the Bill, because it is another example of that phenomenon and my constituents —former, current and future—deserve better from us all. All the while, we as politicians continue to behave like this and debate like this. The problem is not immigrants, it is us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I suspend the House for 15 minutes until 7.14 pm precisely.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
Immigration is a good thing for the United Kingdom, but more than that, immigration has shaped many aspects of life in today’s United Kingdom. People have come to this country from overseas for centuries, bringing their skills, ideas and cultures. For the last 40 years, however, people wanting to live here have been treated in different ways based not on what they can offer, share or contribute, but purely on whether or not they came from the European Union. Those from some of our oldest allies, such as the United States, and from our greatest friends in the Commonwealth, such as Australia, New Zealand, India and Pakistan, have all been treated differently. In fact, it has been worse than being treated differently—it has been discrimination. This Bill will end the discrimination and replace it with equality and fairness.
In the referendum on the EU, along with 17.4 million people, I voted to leave because I wanted to the UK to take back control of its laws, money and borders. But I did not want to close the borders and say no to immigration —far from it, I wanted to say, “We welcome the people who want to come to the UK to contribute, to make this an even better country.” If someone from Spain wants to come here to do that, excellent. If someone from South Korea wants to come here to do that, excellent. With this Bill, from now on they will both have an equal chance, a fair opportunity—a level playing field, if you will.
During this horrendous coronavirus pandemic, we have all seen the massive contribution to the NHS from thousands of staff who have come from overseas to settle in this country. At some time in our lives, each and every one of us is likely to have been diagnosed, treated or nursed by healthcare professionals who were born abroad. I want that to continue and for the NHS to have access to the best talent, the greatest minds and the most compassionate carers, wherever in the world they come from. Nothing in the Bill will change that.
Of course, immigration cannot be unlimited. No country in the world would be able to support that. What is more, the British people have made it clear that they want lower overall immigration and an end to free movement by citizens of the EU. The Bill delivers their mandate. It paves the way for deciding who should be allowed to live and work here, using a points-based system that delivers for our economy and society. It can be adapted and tailored to the UK’s needs. It will encourage businesses to focus on developing and training the British workforce in lower-skilled occupations while ensuring that they have ready access to the cream of the global skill and talent pool. The tradeable characteristics in the points-based system and ongoing reviews by the Migration Advisory Committee provide flexibility over salary and skills that will ensure that employers can hire the right people at the right time to boost our productivity and improve our public services. It is a system that is firm and fair, clear and coherent. Coming from a constituency with a large number of microbusinesses, I just ask that sufficient focus and attention are devoted to small firms to ensure that they have the guidance and support they need to implement these new measures at a time when they already face considerable challenges resulting from coronavirus.
I also welcome the benefits that the Bill will bring to our border security. Stricter controls will help to ensure that serious criminals cannot come to our country to commit offences and create more victims of crime. Can anyone really disagree with that? Too often as a magistrate, I saw criminals who had been able to come into the UK unchecked because of EU free movement. I am therefore pleased that in future, we will have the right automatically to reject EEA migrants with criminal convictions, and I look forward to seeing further details of the proposed mechanics of that later in the Bill’s progress.
Some people have said that this is the wrong time to introduce this Bill. I respectfully disagree. At a time when we are encouraging the country to try to go about its business while staying safe and alert, we in this House, too, should be going about our business, delivering the legislation that we promised in December’s election. This is the right time for this Bill. It helps to set the shape of the country that we will become in the years and decades ahead, paving the way for a strong, dynamic recovery from a health crisis that has crippled the globe, welcoming the best and brightest, equally judged and free of favour, and unshackled from the EU, open to the world—the United Kingdom, rightly in control of its own borders.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
I will not be voting for this Bill. I do not believe it should even be permitted to proceed through this House, and I tabled a reasoned amendment to that effect. The Bill certainly should not proceed at this time, when we are in the midst of a global pandemic.
The Government’s approach is fatally flawed. In plain language, it puts the cart before the horse and post-Brexit immigration legislation before the legal, economic and trade relationship with the EU is in any way settled. Our relationship with the EU will remain our most important external economic relationship for years to come, and it is important to get that right. Our immigration system should fit into that, not the other way around. Worse still, the Bill is supplemented by a whole slew of Henry VIII powers.
My constituents did not elect me to this House to hand away the right to speak up for them and represent them on these issues. What does our democracy even mean if any Government are given the opportunity to make laws that so fundamentally affect people’s lives and the economy with little scrutiny and behind closed doors? That is essentially a constitutional power grab. No Government should be given a blank cheque that they can redeem any time they are in trouble or are tempted to whip up anti-migrant sentiment as a distraction. Who would trust this Government with these powers? Immigration policy brought in by this Government has been bad enough as it is.
This will be the second time in the past 10 years that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have entered this country, lived here, settled here, had children here, opened businesses here and paid taxes here. The Government did it in 2014 to the Windrush generation, and we saw just how many suffered, but as they are pressing ahead with the Bill, it seems that no lessons were learned. The Government’s commitments on EU nationals’ rights are meaningless if not underpinned by primary legislation and if they are not granted automatic settled status. The Bill does neither.
We cannot continue to allow Governments to keep passing legislation like this. It leaves migrants and their children asking at what point their rights in this country—their home—are truly secure. Instead of giving reassurances and creating a migration system that is fair, respects human rights and benefits our economy, this Government have opted simply to subject EU nationals to the same failed and inhumane hostile environment policies that they have had for people from outside the EU.
Children born here and who have lived here their whole life are asked to pay more than £1,000 to be British. Families are split apart because of the arbitrary minimum income threshold. Data sharing with the Home Office makes the most vulnerable scared to use services. The Government continue with no recourse to public funds, even though the courts have ruled it unlawful and the coronavirus has proved it inhumane. They detain people for months on end, even the victims of torture and trafficking—longer than any other country in Europe —only to eventually release nearly 70% of them, allowing private companies to profit from their misery. This Bill and the Government’s points-based system end none of those things.
In fact, the Bill does not even help our work shortages. The Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that under the income threshold, 69% of EU nationals would not be eligible. To all those who call such workers “low skilled”, I say that those earning below the salary threshold are not low skilled at all. There is no such thing as low-skilled work; just low-paid work. All work is skilled when it is done well. Persisting down this line is a slap in the face to those many key workers who are low paid and who have been our backbone throughout this pandemic. How callous is it to bring forward the Bill without being sensitive to those matters?
We need a fair immigration policy that does not retrospectively strip people of their rights—an immigration policy that meets this country’s needs and ultimately ends the hostile environment. The Government are not in any way attempting to do that. History proved right those brave few who voted against the Immigration Act 2014, and I urge all Members to vote down this disgraceful piece of legislation today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind every contributor who is not physically here to please have a timing device ready so that you know when you are coming towards the end of your speech. In the Chamber, Members have a clock at their disposal.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This is a key moment in British politics. For years, the issues of Europe and immigration have stretched Governments and divided parties, but here is a chance to lay those ghosts to rest. In December, Britain voted for a Government who promised to deliver Brexit and end uncontrolled immigration, so this Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. Not only does it allow the UK to take back control of its borders, but it also helps our territorial sovereignty in a way that has not been possible for more than four decades. For those politicians who dare to listen to the electorate, that is what we promised and what we will deliver.
In recent weeks, people have told me that the Bill is contentious, but it should be regarded for what it is, not for what others fear it to be. For a start, I was elected on the Conservative manifesto of 2019, which promised to end free movement across our borders and to restore trust in our immigration system. History is littered with examples of Governments failing to deliver, but here we are, on the road to delivery. Not only does the Bill fulfil the clear pledges that were made, but it allows our independent country to evolve in the post-Brexit era, as we would wish it to.
People have told me that the Bill flies in the face of what has been achieved by so many during the pandemic, notably in the NHS. A handful of constituents have even asked me to withhold my support for the Bill until it recognises the contribution of key workers. No one should need any reminder of the respect, admiration and awe with which the British people regard those heroes. The contribution of our public sector employees, public servants and staff is the stuff of legend, and we will always be grateful. But we must be careful not to mix metaphors. Contrary to what we have heard, the Bill does not serve to detract from that, nor does it serve to demean anyone, irrespective of their creed, colour, faith or ethnicity. In fact, it bears no correlation whatever with that. It simply fulfils a promise to bring in a fairer system that allows the UK to welcome the brightest and best to our shores. To use logistical terminology, it will be on a demand-pull, not a supply-push, basis.
For the avoidance of any doubt, immigration has been good for the UK, and we have built a proud global nation on the back of our history, shared values and unrivalled diaspora and those who have come here from abroad. I have also been honoured to serve alongside many brilliant foreign and Commonwealth soldiers. We owe a debt of gratitude to them, and our shared wealth, prosperity and enviable trading relationships will only be enhanced further through our pursuit of new free trade agreements.
The blueprint for future success does not mean that we can write a blank cheque in the post-Brexit era for all those hoping to come here, as much as we might want to. In this competitive and conflicted world, it is no surprise that many seek to come to the UK, but that cannot be ad hoc. That has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia, and those who are confused about that are wrong.
The Bill promises a points-based immigration system that mirrors other countries of the free world. We do, however, need to be careful that it does not become a blunt instrument. The legislation must be flexible and agile enough to respond to the employment market at any given time, particularly in terms of the skills being offered. For example, there will be a need for seasonal labour, and we must be able to attract all those we need. Indeed, I welcome the fact that employers will be given sufficient notice to plan, but it is essential too that the UK Government do not cut off their nose to spite their face by inadvertently limiting those we need. I would certainly welcome some transitional arrangements in that respect.
Of course, none of that is sustainable if we allow free movement across the channel. We need to better provide law enforcement agencies with the power to intercept and return. As many hon. Members will testify, what is happening now in Dover is unsustainable, and we must disincentivise those who seek to exploit the misfortune of others with promises of asylum. We must also ensure that those entering the UK on student visas do not become lost to the system, and it is right that the legislation further enables changes to social security arrangements and visas.
As contentious as the Bill might be to some, it is what many in Britain have requested for the past four decades. It is what we voted for in 2019, and it is what the Conservative Government promised.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
The Bill offers more questions than answers, it has so much missing from it. We do know, given the coronavirus crisis, that how much someone earns is not related to how skilled they are; we have seen that with the careworkers in our country, but this Bill does not tell us anything about what the Government are going to do with that information. All we have heard so far about their immigration policy is that there will be a test that relies largely on how much people earn.
We do not know what will happen in our economy, or what the situation will be for the care sector, the construction sector, or the vital creative industries that make many of our cities vibrant and thriving. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) talked about the importance of the music sector for Manchester; we do not know where that important sector will be when the coronavirus crisis is over. It is foolish to legislate as we are doing with this Bill, in reverse; rather, we should decide what kind of economy we want to have in this country and what kind of management we want to exercise in the labour market, and then decide where our immigration policy should fit in alongside those principles. Instead, the Bill gives the Government the right to make up the rules as they go along. That is my first argument against the Bill: it gives too much power to a Department of Government that we know already makes up the rules as it goes along—the Home Office.
Secondly, the Bill is foggy on the underlying causes in this debate. People have spoken about the political mess that we have got into on immigration. Some have argued that people coming to the UK to work have been used for low-paid work, but that misses what is actually going on in our country. In fact, immigration is what happens when the shape of a country’s labour market is such that, with an ageing population, people are needed in that country who are able to do the jobs necessary to support the older and ageing population. The real question is how we manage that transition, how we create a proper skills system, so that people can get the jobs that they want, and how we have a workable immigration policy that means we can afford to support our country as a whole and provide the kind of social care, pensions and healthcare for older people that we aspire to.
Finally, I want to say a word or two on the politics of this debate. Pretty much everybody who has contributed has said that immigration is a good thing for our country, and it can be so. I am glad to hear people say that. The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that the Bill would lay the ghost of the immigration debate to rest, but I have to tell him that he is wrong. The argument that underlies the Bill is as old as the hills, but as long as there are recessions and economic downturns, as long as there are economic problems in countries around the world, there will be politicians who are ready to blame foreigners. This Bill, however it is amended, and however many clauses are added, will not end that because that empty rhetoric cannot be beaten.
We have had the hostile environment and it has been shown that it will never work. There are always people ready to accuse politicians of betrayal when it comes to immigration, so I suggest that instead we concentrate on building a country where everyone is included and where there is a proper economic plan for all the people here. That is the way we will bring our country together.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to speak on Second Reading of this Bill, which will end the EU freedom of movement and pave the way for a new points-based immigration system that treats everyone equally. Let me say at the outside that the Bill has my full support. Taking back control of our borders was one of the central reasons, if not the main reason, why millions of people up and down the country voted to leave the European Union almost four years ago. The Bill brings us one step closer to finally delivering on that historic verdict.
The desire to take back control of our borders is not to deny the immense contribution made by many people who have come here from overseas and will continue to do so in future; in fact, ending freedom of movement and building a points-based immigration system based on equality and individual merit will allow us to welcome more people from around the world who have so much to offer this country, On the contrary, taking back control is about ending the uncontrolled mass immigration that has disproportionately affected our working-class communities in recent decades. These communities have seen the increased pressure on their schools and hospitals, their wages have remained low, and there have been rapid cultural changes in the towns in which they live.
Although it is undoubtedly clear that the vast majority of those who have moved to our country under EU freedom of movement rules have made a positive contribution and integrated fully, the simple truth is that that has not been the case for everyone who has taken advantage of those rules, and many of our communities have been adversely affected because of that.
Today’s Bill gives us a power to continue to welcome into our country all those who wish to make a positive contribution to not just our economy but our society, while allowing us to say, “No,” to those whose impact is likely to be more dubious. That is the reality of the Bill, and it is a reality to be welcomed. For too long, those issues were known but locked inside the EU treaties. There was no way to address them through our traditional democratic process. Immigration was an issue snatched out of people’s democratic control, undermining their confidence in our political system, as well as in our ability to execute our fundamental responsibility as a nation to decide who enters our country.
We have an unmissable opportunity to restore the public’s confidence by building an immigration system that welcomes the best and the brightest from around the world while retaining democratic control and the consent of the people. Despite the clear support in the country for such reforms, the Labour party of today remains wedded to open borders and uncontrolled, mass immigration. During his leadership campaign, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set out his full support for bringing back freedom of movement in the future, clearly disappointed that his attempts to reverse the decision of the 2016 referendum were not successful. If given the chance, it appears that he would do everything in his power to dilute and frustrate the decision instead. In other words, why set yourself against many of your party’s traditional supporters once when you can do it twice? By voting against the Bill tonight, the Labour party takes yet another step in its long march away from the people it once faithfully represented.
When we debate the future of our immigration system, we need to touch on illegal immigration, although I appreciate that that will be dealt with in a separate Bill. For public confidence in the system today, tackling illegal immigration must be one of the key issues that we confront. While thousands of people continue to break our laws by operating outside of our legal immigration system, the public will not have full faith that we have control of our borders. I urge the Government to build on the important work in this Bill by giving further consideration to how we tackle illegal immigration over the coming weeks and months.
As I said at the start of my speech, the Bill has my full support because it ends freedom of movement, gets us ready for a new global immigration system and helps to restore public confidence in the integrity of our borders. There is still more work to be done, and we cannot count on the Labour party’s support in doing it, but the era of uncontrolled and undemocratic mass immigration is certainly coming to an end, and that should be welcomed.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). I understand that there are no reasonable, reasoned amendments being taken this evening. Although I understand that there are those who will vote against the Bill, it is important that they not only hear and share their concerns but listen to Members such as myself, who share many of the frustrations about the omissions and areas for improvement in the Bill but recognise that it will pass in any event. I therefore encourage them, over the weeks to come, to collaborate with Members who share some of their concerns.
It is also right to recognise that controlling the borders of the United Kingdom was a fundamental reason why the majority of people in our country voted to leave the European Union. We support the principle of ending uncontrolled immigration and treating those wishing to enter the UK from the European economic area and the rest of the world fairly and equally. However, we are not ignorant of the impact that such a sharp and poorly tailored approach to ending free movement could have, particularly in Northern Ireland, on the growth of certain important economic sectors such as agriculture and hospitality, if current access to labour is not replicated in an appropriate way.
I welcome the elements of the Bill that reiterate the rights afforded to UK and Irish nationals to work, reside and access Government benefits in each other’s jurisdiction. Such provision was enshrined in national law well before either country joined the EU and was never going to be threatened by the UK’s exit from the EU.
We do, however, express concern at the Government’s recent decision to amend the settlement scheme to allow family members of British and British-Irish citizens dual citizenship. This was intended to placate certain aspects where a spouse or partner was a British citizen as a result of being born in Northern Ireland and therefore was not eligible for a scheme explicitly for EU27 nationals. The reality is that citizens born in Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement have the right to both Irish citizenship and British citizenship, but it is in addition to British citizenship, not instead of it. That issue strikes at the very heart of the principle of consent.
On the settlement scheme, we believe there is a duty on Government to honour the provisions of the citizens’ rights chapter of the withdrawal agreement in good faith, with compassion and clarity. At the same time, we do not believe it would be helpful to use this Bill as a vehicle to reopen, replace or expand the terms of that chapter. EU citizens need clarity and continuity at this time, not uncertainty or false expectations. Much depends on the outcome of the negotiations on the future relationship. I ask that the Home Office steps up its efforts to fill any void with information in respect of the operation of the settlement scheme, including in terms of the effectiveness of appeals, how applications still pending on 31 June 2021 will be dealt with and how local authorities are proactively seeking to ensure that looked-after children are treated fairly and sensitively.
We need to ensure that EU citizens—many of whom have contributed to UK society on a level far surpassing the minimum requirements set out in the settlement scheme, including in the NHS and as careworkers during the current crisis—are not disadvantaged. Officials should be looking at reasons why status should be granted, as opposed to reasons why it should not be, and clarity is required on the reasonable grounds for missing an application.
The DUP supports a compassionate and open approach to refugees from communities in other countries affected by terrorism, war or persecution. We appreciate the need to review routes for individuals and believe that it would be best to get international co-operation outside the free movement debate. We believe that consideration should be given to mitigations for family members of EEA citizens who have been convicted of domestic abuse and whose status in the UK could be linked to their perpetrators.
In terms of the new points-based system, the intention to implement a single skills-based system of immigration in the UK, treating all migrant workers from anywhere in the world on a fair and equal basis, is a welcome development. As the Bill progresses, we will be seeking change, but we want to see a regime that is fair, sensible and will be to the benefit of our country and its contingent parts.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). This Bill is one of many landmark Bills that the Government have introduced to establish Britain’s new post-EU framework. We had the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill last week and will debate the Trade Bill this Wednesday; I would be keen to speak in that debate too, if you could put in a good word for me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Collectively, these new Bills represent a transfer of power, authority and, crucially, responsibility back to this place and back to the British people. If the British people decide they want a different approach in future to agriculture, trade or immigration, they can now vote for it at a general election. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), spoke brilliantly about this earlier. I wholeheartedly endorse his comments about the misrepresentation and weaponisation of the term “low-skilled” by some Opposition Members. I had hoped that the cynicism of Corbynism might depart with its figurehead, but clearly the new Leader of the Opposition cannot stop its momentum.
It is unsurprising that those who were always against leaving the European Union and sought to overturn the referendum result are now seeking to oppose these Bills. They did not listen to the people then, and they are still not listening. Even now, they are playing for time and hoping, like Mr Micawber, that something will turn up to derail the transition process. But we have left the European Union, which means that, for the first time in more than 40 years, we can deliver control of immigration by ending freedom of movement and replacing it with a considered and considerate approach that will command the trust of the British people. The Bill will introduce a new system that is fair and simple and that will level the playing field, attracting the brightest and best to live, work and make their lives here in the UK, regardless of where they are from. When we do that, we will give top priority to the skilled workers we need to boost our economy and support our public services.
We will continue to welcome doctors and nurses from around the world to support our NHS, which is particularly welcome at this moment of national emergency, as we deal with coronavirus. I pay tribute to all those NHS workers—immigrants or otherwise—who have gone above and beyond in these last few months in helping to respond to this terrible pandemic. The new NHS visa will offer fast-track entry to the UK for qualified overseas doctors and nurses and will provide three to five-year work visas with reduced up-front fees, and we have already removed doctors and nurses from the tier 2 visa cap.
Similarly, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I welcome the Government’s intention to make it easier to attract leading scientists, engineers and mathematicians to come and work in the UK. More generally, I know that the Government are listening to advice to ensure that this new immigration system will be flexible enough to meet the needs of businesses and essential services. They have responded to the call from the independent Migration Advisory Committee to lower the general salary threshold, and they have tasked that same committee with keeping the shortage occupation list under regular review. This bodes very well.
It is also important that the Bill will protect the long-held rights of Irish citizens, recognising our deep, historic ties with the island of Ireland and the contribution that Irish citizens have made to the UK. Once free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK to live and work, as they do now, regardless of where they have travelled from. The wider rights enjoyed by Irish citizens in the UK, which flow from the common travel area arrangements, will also be maintained.
The Bill and the new points-based immigration system obviously represent a significant departure for our country, but one that emphasises and reinforces a positive social change. We remain one of the most welcoming and tolerant countries in the world, and, as Ipsos MORI recently found, people are more willing than ever to say that immigration has had a positive impact on Britain, a sentiment I have always shared. Some see this as ironic, or as proof of a buyer’s remorse with regard to the leave vote and the end of freedom of movement, but I believe it is quite the opposite. It is precisely that sense of control and democratic accountability that has driven this change.
It is absolutely clear that delivering control of our borders, with regard to both the total numbers coming and the skills they bring with them, was something that the British people, and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, were asking for in both the 2016 EU referendum and the 2019 general election. The Government set out in their manifesto at that election that they would deliver a new points-based immigration system to attract the best talent from all around the world, as the Bill enables. The British people have demonstrated in two historic votes that they want an approach that returns control of our borders to this House—to them. We are listening to them, and we are delivering what they asked for.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab) [V]
I am afraid that the Bill is simply not fit for purpose, and I am proud to have co-signed the amendment calling for it not to be considered. The coronavirus crisis has shown that the people who really keep our society ticking are not billionaires or the super-rich but nurses, carers, cleaners, checkout attendants and many more essential frontline workers, yet these are the very people that the Bill brands as low-skilled. This reveals the fundamental hypocrisy of the Government.
It does not matter how many Cabinet Ministers applaud NHS staff in front of television cameras on a Thursday night if they then legislate to strip them of their dignity. Under this Government, citizenship rights have been deliberately obscured, and deportation and removal targets have taken precedence, yet the Bill makes no effort to end these hostile environment policies, which were found to be institutionally racist by the official inquiry into the Windrush scandal. It also will not end the abhorrent practice of indefinite detention, which has led to the inhumane treatment that has become routine in centres such as Yarl’s Wood. I cannot believe that, even during this pandemic, we are picking people up from their homes in Leicester East and putting them in barbaric detention centres, leaving MPs like me spending time trying to get them released. It is not as if there are any planes going anywhere, so why is that happening?
As MP for one of the most diverse constituencies in the country, I know only too well the hurt that my constituents feel when the Government legitimise the dehumanisation and marginalisation of African, Asian and minority ethnic communities with their deport first, ask questions later approach. Some 43% of Leicester East residents were born outside the UK, as opposed to 10% nationally. Our residents hail from more than 50 countries around the globe. That is what makes our city special, yet it also means that my constituents are more vulnerable to the predatory aspects of this legislation. For instance, a recent study in the Health Service Journal found that 66% of NHS workers who have tragically died from the virus were not born in the UK. Our health service simply would not function without the sacrifice of people from across the world, yet if a migrant NHS worker tragically dies because of work-related illnesses, it is their belief that the future of their dependent family members living in the UK is not guaranteed. That means that vulnerable individuals could face deportation while grieving for their loved one. Why wait until they die? Guarantee now the indefinite leave to remain for family dependants of all migrant NHS workers who are keeping our society going. I have written to the Home Secretary urging her to close this loophole in order to honour the dedication and sacrifice of all NHS workers, no matter their country of birth.
On that note, let me say how deeply disappointed I was that the Government have refused to reconsider the pernicious immigration health surcharge. Any charge that deters people from seeking medical treatment is not only inhumane but could exacerbate the spread of the virus. The Government have a moral and practical obligation to abolish the surcharge. I have also called on the Government to introduce an amnesty for all migrants, including residency rights, for the duration of the pandemic and to end the callous no recourse to public funds policy. At a time when hate crime has more than doubled since 2013, with more than 100,000 offences in 2018, it has never been more important for the demonisation of migrants to end. That means repealing the Immigration Act 2014, reversing the hostile environment, and shutting detention centres for good.
I will conclude with the worrying provision in the Bill that grants sweeping new powers to the Government to change immigration laws without proper scrutiny. This Government’s systematic mistreatment of migrants over the past decade, from the hostile environment to the Windrush scandal, is the ultimate proof that they are undeserving of this unchecked power. It would be a monumental mistake, to the detriment of too many vulnerable people in Leicester East and across the country, for this House to grant that power to them. I will be voting against this Bill.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. During the election campaign, I was on a street stall in Wantage when a woman from Zambia came up to me wanting to talk about Brexit. Wantage and Didcot was 54% remain, so this conversation could have gone either way, but she was in favour of Brexit. She told me that she had been working in the NHS for nine years, but that she could not get settled status, yet if she had come from Europe and been here for five years she would have been able to do so.
It is right that we have a settled status scheme for those in the EU. The fact that 3.5 million people have already applied for it suggests that it is working very well. That lady’s question to me was, “What about the Commonwealth countries? What about Britain’s relationship with those?” I agree with her and think it is right that we now have an immigration system based on what we need rather than on whether someone is from Europe.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the NHS and social care this afternoon, which is completely understandable. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a fast-track visa for doctors and nurses, and their extension of the health worker visa by a year if it is to expire before 1 October. I also think it is absolutely clear to all of us now, if it were not so before, what a vital role those from other countries have been playing in our social care system. We knew that for decades, but it has been highlighted in recent months. Where I part company from some Opposition speakers is in their thinking that because of that, we should continue to import our care workers from overseas. The answer to social care is in a cross-party solution wherein we properly fund and structure it and it is seen as a well-regarded profession; it is not to keep on doing what we have done for decades, because if we do, we will only put off into the future the solution that is really needed. It is worth saying that those from the EU who are currently working in our care system have probably already applied for settled status and are certainly entitled to do so.
I wish to make a similar but different point about higher education. I welcome our being a magnet for global talent. It is right that we continue to attract international students and that we have committed to a two-year work visa so that they can find work after they graduate, but I have watched with increasing despair as certain universities have chased a higher and higher proportion of international students, whom they can charge higher fees for low contact time, while those universities often neglect to widen access to their institution to young people who are under-represented in this country. Why are they so reliant on the international fee income and the international market? That is the fundamental question and it cannot be solved by changing the Bill.
I support the Government having lowered the income threshold from £30,000 to £25,600, and it is right that it is lower still for those occupations where we have a shortage of people. It is of great value that we are going to have a seasonal worker visa, which will be particularly important for a constituency like Wantage and Didcot, which has a lot of farming. It is completely correct that the House should continue to debate whether the income thresholds and occupation lists are right and whether we get the point system right, but the most important thing about the legislation is that these things will now be within our control. We will be able to adjust those income thresholds, occupation lists and points.
If one talks to the vast majority of British people, one will hear that they support immigration—they welcome it and can see the contribution that it has made to every aspect of our life—but they expect that the people they democratically elect should be able to control the flow and to increase or decrease it. Importantly, they expect that those people they elect will properly plan the infrastructure that needs to accompany immigration—that we will have the school places, GP appointments and houses we need. That is why they have supported the ending of freedom of movement and the move to the new system that we are going to have, and that is why I, too, fully support this change.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
It is now nearly four years since the EU referendum, and in those four years so much has changed. I will not go through all the Government’s gymnastics on this issue—I do not have all night and, of course, neither have you, Mr Deputy Speaker—but it is enough to say that where they are now is pretty far from those sunny, blustery days of promising the easiest deal in the world, that EU countries would come crawling to us with their prosecco and BMWs, and that they need us more than we need them.
So much now is so different. But of course some things never change, and one of them is the Conservatives’ obsession with immigration. Despite their failure to meet their own targets; despite the public revulsion at the little vans driving around telling good citizens to go home, the nasty posters and the shameless vote chasing; and despite being way adrift of public opinion—despite all that—they are still obsessed with immigration.
In the past few months, so much more has changed again. No one imagined that leaving the EU would be pushed almost out of sight by the worst pandemic in living memory. Our attention has been nailed on the value of all our communities. All of us—or nearly all of us—now appreciate the bonds that support us; appreciate the people who sustain us, care for us and risk their lives daily for us; and appreciate that we need them more than they need us.
This crisis would persuade any sensible Government to think again, but are this Government sensible to public opinion when a new Ipsos MORI study shows that since last summer most people are saying that they want to see more doctors and nurses coming to the UK from the EU—more, not fewer? And it is not just health workers that matter so much—it is care workers, so shamelessly branded as low-skilled. The Government could use this opportunity to ensure that the new immigration system is fairer and more humane, not just for EU citizens but for people from all around the world. But instead of taking a step back—instead of thinking again—the Government are rushing to bring EU citizens under the same hostile environment as imposed on others. They should take this chance to build a new immigration system that is fairer and more humane, not just for EU citizens but for people from all around the world.
That is why later Plaid Cymru will be calling for a report on a new immigration system. This must include looking again at recourse to public funds, unfair NHS charges for migrants, the huge application fees and, crucially for us, the devolution of immigration policy to Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly so that our needs steer our policy. It should also look again at giving key workers who have put their lives on the line during this crisis the chance of free, automatic British citizenship.
Now, more than ever, we have seen the value brought to communities all over the UK by people who choose to make their home here. This Bill now looks like something from the dim and distant past. It simply cannot be passed as it is.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome this Bill as a sensible, measured approach that delivers on our manifesto commitments to the British people to take back control of our borders and deliver a fair immigration system that means that those who want to come to the UK are judged not by their country of origin or by the colour of their skin but by the contribution that they can make to our country. It is undoubtedly true that many immigrants have made a huge and positive impact on our communities, so I am glad that over 1.3 million European citizens in the United Kingdom have achieved settled status already, including many in my constituency, and that reciprocal arrangements have been agreed for British citizens settled in the EU.
I would like to address two fundamental issues. I agree with the Migration Advisory Committee. Many of my constituents work in the health and social care sectors, as do members of my own family, Mr Speaker, in your constituency. Immigration is not the solution to our care crisis; a cross-party consensus is, as is upskilling, training and, crucially, valuing our carers.
The fact that Labour Members still do not recognise that shows that they are unwilling to listen to and learn the lessons of the last general election. This is about the only thing that unites them at the moment. They are united against the views of communities such as mine that they took for granted for so long. They remain an uneasy coalition of citizens of nowhere and right-on Citizen Smiths: two sides of the same coin. All sides of the Labour party remain committed to open borders. While the Opposition stick to this, it will be clear to the citizens of my constituency, from Consett to Crook and from Willington to Wearhead, that they have no interest in the concerns of my community.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Let us be absolutely clear that, contrary to what we are being told, this Bill does not set out a blueprint for a new immigration system. It does not tell us who will be allowed to enter the country or under what circumstances. Instead, with this Bill, Ministers are asking us to hand them a blank cheque to do what they want, when they want and how they want. Ministers insist that the Henry VIII powers enshrined in the Bill are standard practice, but since when did any Parliament trust a Government, be it Conservative or Labour, to implement sweeping reforms of the immigration system without parliamentary oversight? I think most colleagues would agree that immigration is an area of policy where we should be seeking greater scrutiny, not less. Given what Ministers are asking, we would assume that they had a plan for what their new immigration system will look like, but as far as I can tell—I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken—they do not have any such plan.
We are endlessly reminded of the Government’s plan for an Australian points-based system, but are provided with no detail on what this would look like in the British context. Reliance on the reputation of the four buzzwords “the Australian points-based system” does little to allay many people’s fears about the Government’s intention. History demonstrates the callous attitude of numerous Conservative Home Secretaries towards immigrants in this country, and the creation of the hostile environment and the ensuing Windrush scandal epitomise this cruelty. Despite being forced to apologise to the victims of the Windrush scandal, we are yet to see any attempt to roll back the hostile environment that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and her successors created. This Bill presents an opportunity to do justice, yet rather than dismantling the hostile environment, this Government have chosen instead to subject a further 3.4 million EU citizens to the inhumanity of their existing policies.
The unprecedented crisis we are facing at the moment, brought on by coronavirus, has shone a light on the critical role migrants play in our society. We have seen a new appreciation of so-called low-skilled workers, redefined overnight as key workers, and the people occupying these undervalued and underpaid roles are often migrants. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself was cared for by nurses from New Zealand and Portugal during his time at St Thomas’s. This crisis has shown that our country needs migrants, our health service needs migrants and our social care system needs migrants. The Government could and should use this legislation to recognise the service of migrants to our country, and ensure they are treated fairly and humanely by the Home Office.
Root-and-branch reforms of our immigration system are long overdue. It is high time we saw a 28-day time limit on immigration detention, a review of the health surcharge and visa costs, an expansion of refugee family reunion rules, and the protection of vulnerable and unaccompanied children to ensure that they are able to join family. However, the Bill does none of this. It is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. I hope Ministers will reconsider what they are asking of MPs and look again at this legislation.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak in support of it. The Bill delivers on the commitment we made to the British people when they voted to leave the EU that we would end free movement of people and take back control of our borders. This is something that people voted for: we said we would do it and we are now delivering.
The Government are committed to delivering a new and revamped points-based immigration system that will work in the best interests of our economy and society. The Bill is seeking to establish a framework that will be the basis of our future immigration policy. Sadly, too many speakers today appear to be trying to rerun the whole Brexit debate of four years ago, but it really is time that this House moved on from that. The British people have voted for us to leave the EU—I would argue, far more than once—and the Bill is a major part in delivering on that decision.
It is also important to note that, since the 2016 referendum, the way in which we discuss immigration and the tone with which we do so have changed in this country. It is sad that too often that change is not reflected here. There is nothing racist about wanting democratic control of our own borders, and it is apparent that the Labour party has learned little in the last four years. Many of the British people have moved on and since the referendum there has been a much more constructive debate about the issue. The pros and cons of migration have been better understood, and there is now a broad coalition of people across the country in favour of a more balanced approach to immigration, where our system is not only effective and robust, but fair on individuals and families, and compassionate to those who most need our help.
It is important to note that this Bill does not end immigration—far from it. It is important that we move on from the rhetoric of “anti-immigration”. I am not, and have never been, anti-immigration. All reasonable people recognise that immigration can make a positive contribution to our nation; it has done for many decades. What I am against, as are many others, is the uncontrolled immigration of the EU. What I am in support of is this House and, through us, the British people being able to manage immigration. That is the purpose of the Bill. It re-establishes the democratic control of and accountability for immigration. It lays the groundwork for us to begin harmonising our two-track immigration system into one, such that we no longer favour one group of individuals simply because they are from the EU and discriminate against another because they are from outside the EU. It enables the Government to put in place a points-based system that will allow us to attract the people with the skills and experience we need. To suggest for a moment that the Bill will be the end of our being able to attract the workforce our NHS and other services need is scaremongering of the worst kind. Importantly, the Bill enables us to have a flexible system that can respond to the changing needs of our economy, which is essential. Our immigration policy should not be set in stone; it needs to be able to flex and adapt as the economic and employment environment changes. The Bill enables that to happen.
One aspect of particular interest is our policy on so-called low-skilled workers. The current covid-19 crisis has demonstrated that many of those workers are essential workers for key parts of our economy. I am assured that, as the Home Secretary has stated, we will keep all aspects of our policy under review, and I am sure that we will reflect on the lessons we have learnt through this time. The coronavirus crisis is going to change the shape of our workforce in the coming months, and possibly years, but we trust and believe that we will recover from our current challenges. In the years to come, sectors such as tourism and hospitality, agriculture and food processing and retail are going to need access to labour that our own residents may well not be able to meet in the future. The Bill lays the framework to enable our future immigration policy to respond to our future needs, and I am very happy to support it this evening.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I will be supporting the Bill today because it is about delivery. It is about delivery of a manifesto commitment we made. It is about delivery of legislation that reflects the mood of the nation. It is about delivering the end of freedom of movement. It is about delivery of a points-based system, for which many people across this country have called for many years, and they have been ignored by politicians. It is about this Government delivering on that promise.
Many seem to have forgotten about the political tsunamis that the referendum and the 2019 election caused. Many from the Opposition Benches and living rooms have forgotten about those two elections. They were about the concerns, views and problems of working-class people being ignored for generations. People who had voted for politicians who ignored them for decades decided that they had had enough and replaced those politicians with a new generation of politicians in this place. People voted Conservative for the first time in decades in many areas, including in working-class communities in constituencies such as mine.
People are often confused and say that the immigration debate is based on race and people’s country of origin. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about jobs and services. I find it really frustrating listening to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and businesses when the only solution to workforce issues that they seem to be able to find is immigration. That is not the only way of solving workforce issues. Are we supposed to say that we are going to ignore the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people across this country who have talent and could contribute economically?
In my constituency there are more than 4,000 people who are economically inactive—people claiming out-of-work benefits—many of whom could contribute. Are we to tell them that we are going to completely ignore them—that they are beyond reach, that they cannot experience the benefits of work, that the security of a pay packet is beyond reach for them? I do not think so. Are some businesses and the Opposition really saying that we should not invest in the skills and the future of people across this country? I certainly am not. I see it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to ensure that we invest in skills and the contribution that people can make, and I think business has a key role to play in that.
Many people on the Opposition Benches would have us believe that the Bill is about closing the door to the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about opening it up for the best and the brightest from around the world, not just the European Union. It is about a sensible and common-sense approach to immigration.
A number of constituents have contacted me about their concerns about channel crossings and illegal migration. I say to them: “I hear you and I agree with you.” I share those concerns. If it were not for the inability of the previous Parliament to make a decision, we would have been well on the road to solving that issue. I have faith that this Government and this Home Secretary will solve this problem.
Many on the Opposition Benches say they do not trust the Government to deliver on this. Well, I am afraid we were never asking for their trust. They gave the electorate their ideas; they had their manifesto, and it was roundly rejected across the country. It was the Conservative party whose ideas of ending free movement and installing a points-based system were supported by the majority of this country. That is exactly what we are going to do and why I am proud to support the Bill.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Rebuilding our economy will be vital to the post-covid recovery. Immigrants to this country have long had an important role in our economic success, and we will need their efforts and talents again. I recognise, of course, that we will be in a very different situation in the coming months from the tight labour market of recent years. None the less, we can expect that some sectors will continue to struggle to recruit from the domestic labour pool.
That includes key sectors in my constituency, such as social care, hospitality, and retail and food processing, for which the £25,600 threshold will likely lead to significant and ongoing labour shortfalls, yet those sectors are essential to our recovery and our return to normal life. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Government’s proposed approach is causing concern to businesses in my constituency.
I particularly want to speak about the impact the Bill could have on children, starting with EEA national children who could be eligible for the EU settlement scheme. Home Office figures reveal that, at the end of March, 493,800 applications to the scheme for children had been received, 84% of which had been concluded. That is worryingly lower than the 90% of cases that have concluded overall and, very concerningly, includes only a small number of looked-after children who could be eligible, only 11% of whom, according to the Children’s Society, have secured status. I accept that those cases can be complex, but it seems that, despite guidance from the Government and the Children’s Society, local authorities do not give sufficient priority to progressing applications for looked-after children in their care.
The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit points to long delays for those children, even before an application has been submitted. Obtaining documents and securing advice is harder; contact with family members who confer the right to status may have been lost; during the covid crisis applications cannot be submitted by post; and the Government have warned that the crisis will create delays in processing them. Ministers have indicated that late applications will be accepted for children in such circumstances, but we need a guarantee that no child will be left without the legal status to which they are entitled.
I am concerned that more children will be subject to the “no recourse to public funds” condition as a result of a new immigration system, including some children born in the UK. Of course I recognise the support that exists under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, but that is insufficient. On 7 May, an eight-year-old British boy, supported by his migrant mother, won a ruling in the High Court that the policy denying families like his access to the welfare safety net breached article 3 of the European convention on human rights. The covid crisis has brought the vulnerability of families with no recourse to public funds into stark relief, and we need urgently to hear how the Government intend to respond to that ruling.
Finally, and harmfully to children’s wellbeing, too often the immigration system separates children from their parents. We know about the issue of family reunion and the way in which the income threshold keeps children apart from parents. Meanwhile refugee children cannot sponsor family members to join them in this country, and we are still waiting for certainty for separated children currently covered by the Dublin III arrangements, which enable children with family members in the UK to have their asylum claims transferred here to be considered. The Dublin arrangements will expire at the end of the year, and the Government have been indicating for some time that they want to replicate them post transition. We are none the wiser as to how they will do that, so I hope that tonight the Minister can update us.
I should like to make a point about clause 5. I simply do not see the justification for the sweeping powers that it gives to Ministers. If it is to rectify deficiencies and retain EU law, the Government already have the ability to do that under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. If it is to make new policy for the post-transition period, that will affect individuals’ expectations and rights, and have a potentially significant impact on labour mobility that should be debated and provided for in primary legislation. I therefore hope that Ministers will be prepared to reconsider clause 5 as the Bill continues its parliamentary passage.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
We are not in the business of limiting the potential of our country, which is exactly what our former immigration system did. As we solidify our departure from the European Union, I welcome the success of widespread participation in the Government’s EU settlement scheme. By protecting the rights of EU citizens in this country, we once again demonstrate that we are not leaving Europe, but rather the European Union. As many others and I have said, we wish to move forward and continue a close relationship with our European friends. We are levelling the playing field and creating an immigration system that does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, and instead rests on the foundation of skill and capability.
The Bill will enact the overwhelming will of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke in 2016 and, again, in December last year. The public want a more measured approach to immigration, and today we aim to deliver that. I would like to note, too, that immigrants contribute massively to our economy, as well as to our social and cultural fabric. The Bill in no way denigrates that but, rather, opens our country to the best and the brightest across the world.
We have been provided with an opportunity to rectify the disparity in access between nations, and make Britain truly global, by opening to people from nations who might previously have been overlooked or subject to greater bureaucracy merely on the basis of nationality. I reiterate the point that we want the best and the brightest, from wherever they may hail. I am proud to be part of a Parliament adapting to the times and altering legislation based on need. Covid-19 has presented us with an almost unimaginable reality, and I was pleased with the allowance of visa extensions announced in March for those seeking employment in our national health service. This will enable us to continue recruiting the very best from around the world, as we did in Stoke-on-Trent 18 years ago with Dr Chandra Kanneganti.
I further welcome the launch of the NHS visa. Applicants will see a large reduction in visa fees and will be fast-tracked, gaining a significant increase in points by offering to work for our NHS. I call on the Government to ensure that NHS recruitment remains protected and, wherever possible, to encourage and streamline those wishing to work in social care especially. With regard to those working or wishing to work in the social care sector, I stress that there must be as few limitations and restrictions as possible, including those pertaining to wages. As we have seen during this pandemic, social care workers are key workers and we must support them in every way we can. The Bill will allow the Government to identify understaffed sectors and make it simpler, easier and cheaper for workers in those sectors to start a life in the UK, which is a sensible balance and a mutually beneficial approach to workforce shortages.
This is an enormous change to the way in which our country works, and I completely appreciate the apprehension and uncertainty that some might feel. However, this is an excellent opportunity to broaden our horizons and make Britain a hub of innovation and development. I am confident that this system will attract the brightest minds, which is of special significance and importance to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. By implementing a fast-track visa route for elite researchers and specialists in science, technology, engineering and maths, we are sending a clear message that this country is open to, and ready for, invention and scientific advancement. I have been a vocal advocate for silicon Stoke, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and I have been busy liaising with universities, businesses, private investors, the council, tech start-ups and the local enterprise partnership to push forward tech advancements such as 5G provision and advanced ceramics. An influx of highly educated STEM specialists will propel the country and my constituency into the digital age and level up this country, as we as a party promised to do in December and as I promised to do when I entered this Chamber. I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and with the will of the people behind us, I shall proudly vote for the Bill this evening.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in these proceedings tonight. As one of the final speakers in the debate, I have had the opportunity—or perhaps the misfortune—to sit patiently and listen closely to the arguments of the Secretary of State and her colleagues behind her on the Conservative Benches, and it is safe to say that I have rarely felt so disappointed or downhearted. I say that because we have heard Member after Member of this House rejoicing at the fact that they are going to end the ability of future generations to enjoy the same freedoms that we have all enjoyed to travel freely across the continent of Europe. Indeed, the Secretary of State listed all the constituencies where she believed that people voted for her Government in order to end free movement. Unsurprisingly, she did not mention a single Scottish constituency, probably because she has finally accepted that the people of Scotland do not support her Government’s actions on this key issue.
Beyond that, we have heard an almost celebratory tone in respect of bringing to an end what the Government refer to as low-skilled migration. Such dog-whistle politics is unbecoming at the best of times, but given the fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, it is simply unforgivable. After all, it is those very migrant workers, whom the UK Government class as low-skilled, who have helped to prevent the UK from grinding to a halt. They are the people who have been working on the frontline in our care homes and our hospitals as nurses, cleaners and porters, and the people who have been working in our supermarkets and food processing plants and on our agricultural land. The reality is that they are the glue that has helped to hold our society together. They may be paid less than they deserve, but they deserve our respect and our appreciation.
The damage of this attack on immigration will be felt for generations to come, particularly in Scotland. I say that because, as things stand, Scotland faces a demographic time bomb. Our pension-age population is growing, while our working-age population declines. There are two solutions to this issue. The first is for people to have more children, and quickly. The second and slightly easier solution is that we increase inward migration. On that front, we have been clear that EU nationals are wanted and welcome in Scotland. Indeed, we have actively sought to encourage people to make Scotland their home. Aside from the obvious social and cultural benefits that they bring to our nation, the reality is that the average EU national living in Scotland adds £10,400 to Government revenue and over £34,000 to GDP each year. They contribute far more than they will ever receive.
It is for those reasons that the Scottish Government have sought proactively to engage with the UK Government on immigration to find a solution that meets the needs of Scotland. The clearest example of that was a proposal to introduce a Scottish visa, an additional route through which we could attract workers to Scotland. Such immigration variance has worked in Canada and Australia, yet the proposal was dismissed out of hand in less than 20 minutes. That should not necessarily come as a surprise, as it has been clear for a long time that the policies of this UK Government on immigration are not driven by a desire to meet the needs of Scotland. They are driven by the desire to play the role of little Englander, but the consequences of their actions will be great.
Locally here in Aberdeen, we are proud of our international outlook. There can be no doubt that workers from across the EU have had a key role to play in our economic success. One such success story is John Ross Jr, a company that processes and hand-prepares Scottish smoked salmon using traditional brick kilns. The company exports to over 30 countries and its staff are predominantly Polish, Latvian, Czech and Estonian. Its CEO is Christopher Leigh. On 27 February, he wrote to me about the importance of EU nationals to his company. He stated:
“The reality is that if it were not for freedom of movement afforded by the European Union, John Ross would not be where it is today.”
He went on to say:
“Closing the door on European workers now would be a case of the UK cutting its nose off to spite its face. It would also be disastrous for businesses, devastating for the communities in which they operate and catastrophic for the UK economy.”
“Catastrophic”. Just one word, but a word that should weigh heavily on the minds of the UK Government.
Ultimately—I think we can all agree on this point—the scale of the economic recovery facing all corners of the United Kingdom is going to be unprecedented. If we do not have an immigration system in place that attracts workers and meets the needs of businesses, we clearly run the risk of doing further harm. So I say to the UK Government: continue down this route and the people of Scotland will neither forgive nor forget.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I must pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). We are not closing the door on anybody. We are opening the door for many millions of other people from non-EU countries.
The United Kingdom is a world leader in industries such as banking, pharmaceuticals, and research and development. It is important that we are able to support the people in those industries to continue to lead the way in their respective fields. That is why I am pleased to see that the Government are building an immigration system that is robust, but also designed to ensure that we continue to lead the world in vital areas of economic and social development. The Bill before the House today puts the United Kingdom on the path to a fairer, more modern and more equitable immigration system that enables the brightest and best to come to our country regardless of their nationality.
The Bill delivers on our historic exit from the European Union, our exit being a process rather than just one event. By ending free movement, we are securing and taking control of our borders, and creating an immigration system that works for us as well as those who come here. My Delyn constituency, like the majority of our country, decisively voted to leave. It is right that we continue to deliver on the result of the referendum and start to move towards a more inclusive points-based immigration system.
It is important to note that the new system has been built, based on the independent report from the Migration Advisory Committee, on a fair and adaptable points-based system. Based on those recommendations, the Bill will allow us to create a flexible system that can adapt to the changing needs of businesses and respond to shortages in our labour market. That will be hugely important as we tackle the effects of the coronavirus pandemic both now and in the future. I recognise the importance of the system remaining flexible and needing to adapt to changing needs at different times in the future. I also recognise that putting every detail of every rule into primary legislation allows for no flexibility. That would inevitably be to our detriment in the future when the difficult situation in which we currently find ourselves unfolds, as we would not be able to be immediately adaptable to the challenges that may lie ahead.
It is important, too, that we recognise the contribution immigration has made to our economy, our businesses and, at times like this, to our NHS. I am delighted that the Government are doing so through the Bill. The former shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) was correct in what he said earlier. I recognise that those are words I never thought I would say in this House or beyond, but he was right—at least in a small part. He said that we should recognise those who keep things moving and who the real key workers are. It is right that we are prioritising a shining example of key workers in this Bill—the fantastic work of our frontline healthcare workers—by extending the visas of healthcare workers and their families and, more importantly, by creating the new NHS visa. The specialist fast-track visa for doctors and nurses will enable us to recruit the very best for our NHS from wherever we need to and to ensure our NHS staff are looked after and fairly recruited, as mentioned just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). We welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
In the latest ONS report, non-EU net migration has continued to increase, with current levels at their highest since 2004. Therefore, it is important that we recognise talent and skills from across the world equally. Wherever you come from across the globe, if you are prepared to work hard and contribute to our economy and to our country, our immigration system should recognise and reward that. That is why I am pleased that the Bill makes changes to our statute book to ensure that we recognise equally those with the skills and talents who want to come here from the rest of the world, as well as those who want to come from the EU.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill, as it is a significant move towards creating a better immigration system, which will value the skills and talents of all. It will help to build an inclusive forward and outward-looking country that is ready to take on the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century and succeed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We cannot hear Kate Osamor. We will move on to Natalie Elphicke and then come back to Kate.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Bill, which brings in a points-based immigration system to ensure that immigration is controlled and that we have the skilled workforce that we need not just from the European Union but from around the world. Yet, while it is important to gain immigration status for the people with the skills that we need, it is also important that we have effective border security, particularly when freedom of movement comes to an end.
Last December, I was pleased to accompany the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), the Minister on the Front Bench tonight, in our joint inspection of the Dover Border Force operations at the docks. I thank the men and women of our Dover Border Force together with all in Her Majesty’s Coastguard and the RNLI for the sterling work that they do day in and day out, putting themselves in harm’s way and saving lives.
As the sun sets this evening, I can look across the English channel and see the twinkling lights of Calais. France is fewer than 21 miles away—more than three times closer than London. France is our long-term ally, but it is also our nearest European border. Great Britain is an island, our waters are her moat, and the stretch that Dover guards to France is and always has been our most vulnerable point of entry. That is why Julius Caesar first tried to land at Dover, before he was repelled by doughty Dovorians of past times.
The challenges we face today are a different kind of army; it is the army of people traffickers—organised crime gangs who prey on the vulnerable and the less vulnerable, all of whom have made the decision not to use legal points of entry or to stay safe in France, and many other countries before France. These illegal entrants can pay the traffickers up to £4,000 to break into our country, knowing that there is little or no chance of being returned once they get in. This is an unacceptable situation and has been for a long time. I strongly welcome the robust work of the Home Secretary in working afresh with France to stop more boats leaving the French shores and seeking to return would-be illegal entrants to France. However, it is incumbent on us, as Members of this House, to give the Home Secretary the legal tools that will support her and the Government in their clear determination to put a stop to this criminal trade in people, and to ensure that we can attract the skills that our country wants and needs from across the globe.
This Bill is about restoring the legal powers to control our own borders, to set our own rules, to encourage and welcome those we invite to our country, and to send away those who engage in criminal activity, such as illegal entrants. In Dover, we know that it is only when people traffickers and migrants alike know that they will not succeed in breaking into Britain that we will bring an end to these small boat crossings—and bring an end to them we must. The Dover straits is one of the most important and busiest shipping lanes in the world. There has already been loss of life in the English channel through this illegal activity. Every day longer that the activity continues, it risks further loss of life.
I welcome the Bill, which brings in a points-based immigration system to ensure that immigration is controlled and that we have the skilled workforce that we need, not just from the EU but from around the world, together with a framework for effective border security, to stop criminal activity and to save lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go with audio only to Kate Osamor.
Kate Osamor
I am really grateful to you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on no recourse to public funds—[Inaudible.] I will make three important points today. First, the Government should be using the Bill to bring an end to the—[Inaudible]—does the absolute opposite. It punishes carers, nurses and others who have kept this country going throughout the current crisis. Many who have no recourse to public funds—[Inaudible]—particularly unjust in the light of the coronavirus. The Government should be playing a key role in changing their immigration—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Kate, I am terribly sorry. We gave it a good go, but the audio kept coming and going. I should have a word with your broadband provider. I am terribly sorry. We really did want to listen to what you had to say, but I am afraid we are going to have to leave it there, because you were the final speaker. We will go straight on to the wind-ups. I call Holly Lynch.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real shame that we could not hear the rest of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). She chairs the APPG on no recourse to public funds, and I know that she has done a lot of really important work. We will have to hear the rest of her contribution on another occasion.
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition on such an important piece of legislation—important not just because of what it will do but what it paves the way for. It is historic, in that it starts its passage through the House of Commons for the second time during a crisis that we know will shape this country, and what we need from legislation like this, for years to come.
With that in mind, as so many others have said, this country has never been more aware or more appreciative of the contribution of migrant workers to the UK. We can all agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) that the efforts of key workers have been the stuff of legend. To those working in our NHS, care homes and research labs, and in our fields and factories, keeping food on the shelves—to all those working right across the key sectors—we are truly grateful for all that they are doing, and we need legislation that recognises that contribution. As we have said, we all go out and clap for our carers and our key workers every Thursday, but today the detail of the Government’s approach says to them that they are not skilled enough and not paid enough to be valued in their proposed new immigration system. It is not as though the Government are proposing to work with right hon. and hon. Members to shape a better policy. Instead, the Bill grants sweeping Henry VIII powers to Ministers, diminishing the role of Parliament and MPs.
I am incredibly grateful to all those who have taken part in this important debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and others, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), made important points about indefinite detention, and we will be looking to work cross-party with all MPs on amendments to address some of those concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made the point that we are being asked to consider only half a Bill, with my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly saying that we cannot simply give the Government a blank cheque on immigration policy. They ask us to trust them on this, but the hostile environment is a very clear reason why I am afraid we simply cannot do that.
Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East, for Streatham, and for Wirral South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—and so many others—have raised concerns about the delegated powers contained in the Bill. The previous version of this legislation, which failed to complete its Committee stage because of the snap general election last year, contained an almost identical clause 4. As the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said in his opening remarks, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on that Bill articulated very clearly its concerns about this clause:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
The Committee expressed “significant concerns” about clause 4(5), recommending that it be removed altogether
“unless the Government can provide a proper and explicit justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power”,
as it
“confers broad discretion on Ministers to levy fees or charges on any person seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who, pre-exit, would have had free movement rights under EU law.”
This is bad not just for parliamentary democracy, but for our public services and the economy. Parliamentary scrutiny is the most effective way for stakeholders to work with MPs to shape legislation to respond to the needs of the country. It is not just Labour Members who are concerned about the delegated powers in the Bill, but the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the British Medical Association, London First, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, trade unions and the Children’s Society, as just a sample of the cross-section of organisations that share our concerns that a transfer of powers to the Executive is not the way to develop good-quality legislation. On that basis, we simply cannot sign off on this legislation.
So many others have said today that what we take exception to now more than ever is an approach that puts rhetoric ahead of the practical solutions that this country so desperately needs to find if we are to make it through the coronavirus crisis. Nothing is more important in this fight than the key workers in our NHS and in social care in particular. Given that some 29% of doctors working in our NHS hospitals and 12% of the overall health care workers in the UK are from overseas, the Bill has massive implications for the wellbeing and strength of the healthcare workforce.
The Government’s inability to address the systemic problems in the social care sector also extends, I am afraid to say, to their immigration policy. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently found that four out of five employees from EEA countries working full time in social care would be ineligible to work in the UK under the £25,600 salary threshold proposed in the Government’s immigration White Paper published in February. As much as hon. Members might talk about the ability to respond quickly through the shortage occupation list and the Migration Advisory Committee, special consideration for the social care sector in a future immigration system has already been ruled out, so how do the Government plan to respond to the shortage of workers, the impact of which we are already experiencing and which will only become more acute, given the demand for social care as a result of the crisis?
Across sectors, but particularly in the NHS, it is not just the NHS surcharge that does not seem fair: the immigration skills charge is another problem. It is paid by employers who recruit migrants on tier 2 visas and, come 1 January, employers will also have to pay for staff to come from EU countries as well as non-EU countries. The immigration skills charge is also paid by NHS trusts which, if they cannot find clinical specialists here in the UK, have no choice but to find them from overseas. I asked my local NHS trust, Calderdale and Huddersfield, how much the Government take back from it in immigration skills charges. In the last financial year, the trust had to pay Government just short of £163,000 out of its annual budget in immigration skills charges. So because we have clinical skills shortages in many specialist areas in the UK, and in the absence of any Government strategy to respond to that domestically, the NHS has to hire from overseas. The same Government then punish trusts for doing so by demanding those fees, taking much needed cash back from their budgets. That seems grossly unfair. It indicates not only that our immigration approach simply does not work for the NHS and social care, but neither does our domestic skills policy.
A number of other important points have been raised in this Second Reading debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke of his pride that Bradford is a city of sanctuary, and I share his pride as my constituency is part of a valley of sanctuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, a great music lover, spoke in his typically passionate speech of the contribution that migrants and visitors to the UK make to the music sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said that to assess a person based on what they earn is a blunt tool which masks their true value. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton reminded us that the Prime Minister himself understands the value of migrants working in the NHS, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made the powerful point that those who have died working in the NHS were from every corner of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is a passionate campaigner on the rights of children in particular and raised a number of important questions that we will return to in Committee.
In closing, I want to say to all those workers in the NHS who have had their visas extended for one year free of charge, it is not that the Government are doing them a favour—they are doing our country a massive favour by staying in our NHS and fighting on our frontline to save our lives. As others have said, we urge the Government to extend those visa extensions across the social care sector. We have heard the call from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and we will very much play as constructive a role as we can in Committee, but we cannot support legislation that transfers powers to the Executive and away from Parliament alongside proposals that will only put even greater pressure on the NHS, social care and a number of other key sectors. That is why we will vote against the Bill this evening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to formally welcome the new shadow immigration Minister to her post; I have not had the chance to do so before at the Dispatch Box.
The breadth of views expressed by Members today clearly demonstrates how important an issue this is, not only to our constituents but personally. Given the unusual circumstances in which we meet, I will not have time to give a detailed response to each point raised, but will seek to respond to the broad themes that have been brought out in the debate.
The Bill is before the House not only to deliver on our manifesto pledges, but to lay the framework for our new immigration system, which will be fairer because we will treat people from every part of the world equally, while respecting our historic links with Ireland and the Belfast agreement, and firmer, because we will have control of our own borders from 1 January and all migration policy will be in the hands of this Parliament. It will be skills led, because the system will be based on the skills, talents and qualifications that people can bring to this country, not two radically different systems based on where someone’s passport comes from.
Let us be clear: this is a framework Bill, not an immigration shopping list. In response to some comments, especially from those who wish to build an economic version of Hadrian’s wall, I emphasise that this Bill sets up the framework for a single, global points-based migration system, with the rights of Irish citizens protected and ensuring the ability of Ministers to respond to any agreement on social security co-ordination.
The detail of our migration rules will continue to be set in secondary legislation, to ensure that they remain flexible and able to respond to changing situations but always based on the key policy principles I have outlined. The reaction to the coronavirus emergency shows why that is necessary. Imagine our having to pass primary legislation to amend visa end dates, automatically renew NHS workers’ visas, grant waivers to in-country route-swapping conditions or allow tier 4 sponsors to move courses online. Hence this Bill, in common with those on this subject that came before it, does not replicate the immigration rules in statutory form, and neither should the House regret its not doing so.
We have already moved to create the first part of our new migration system with the creation of our global talent route. I saw at first hand at Glasgow University what this could result in and the strong offer it presents, clearing the path for some of humanity’s most complex problems, such as the fight against malaria, to be solved by teams recruited on a global basis and based here in our United Kingdom. The new graduate route, which will be introduced next summer, will help to retain some of the brightest minds coming out of our universities, giving a simple path to future residence and settlement. As our universities see an increasing number of international students arrive to study here, we know that more will be inspired to make their life and career in vibrant locations such as Glasgow, Belfast, Exeter, Cardiff and Coventry. Our immigration system should allow them to do so.
I hear the frustrations of those who see our migration and humanitarian protection system being abused by those who engage in human trafficking—as highlighted well by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) —and the risks being run by those using small boats to cross the channel. A key part of ensuring a fairer system is to tackle that type of behaviour. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration Compliance and the Courts is leading work on that, which is benefiting from the input of my hon. Friends.
The Migration Advisory Committee report earlier this year provided a strong and evidence-based view for our future points-based migration system. We accepted its key recommendations: a reduction in the general salary threshold for the key skilled worker visa from £30,000 to £25,600; moving the skills threshold from degree to A-level, to ensure that we include those with significant skills levels, such as senior carers; and tradable points, with a salary floor of £20,480 for jobs on the shortage occupation list or where significant potential is shown by holding a relevant STEM-based PhD. We are working hard to bring the new system into effect, and I thank the teams in the Home Office who have continued doing this in the extraordinary circumstances we have found ourselves in over recent weeks.
We will continue to work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee and its interim chair, Professor Brian Bell. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to advise on the future shortage occupation list. Its call for evidence has now been issued, and that will provide an opportunity to look at the skills needs of a range of sectors that Members have highlighted today. I encourage all businesses to take part and have their voice heard; no one should allow themselves to be silenced. Several Members have been keen to highlight groups with whom I can speak about this. For example, I look forward to a video conference with seafood businesses in north-east Scotland arranged by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). I know he shares my passion for ensuring that the new migration system serves our whole Union and the skills needs of Scottish businesses, rather than the political aims of Scotland’s separatists.
Talking of serving the needs of our nation, no organisation has done that more than our NHS and social care services over recent weeks. Our new system will not just allow but actively welcome a range of health professionals to the United Kingdom. This will be via not only the points-based system being based on national salary scales for roles such as doctors, nurses and physiotherapists, but an NHS visa, which includes discounted fees and fast-track application processes for those with a job offer from our NHS or for those providing services to it. This process will build on the dedicated team that the Home Secretary has already established in UKVI to process applications from those with NHS job offers. Our social care sector will benefit from simpler processes to recruit qualified medical staff and key roles such as senior carers on a global basis.
One area that has been regularly queried in the debate is our acceptance of the MAC’s recommendation that there should be no general route for employers to seek to employ temporary or permanent employees on the legal minimum wage with limited training and no requirement to speak a basic level of English. I gently say to Members that if the lesson they have taken from the events of the last two months is that paying the legal minimum to those working in social care who migrate to the UK from low-pay economies is the right approach, they have drawn the wrong conclusion. Similarly, those who think that the migration system is the go-to option for recruitment issues in social care, rather than creating career paths and increasing the value of such roles, should read the MAC’s specific rejection of this.
No one can deny the economic impact that the measures necessary to deal with the coronavirus will have. Many of our friends and neighbours will need to find new employment opportunities, and it is therefore vital that our migration system aligns with this goal, rather than providing an alternative to it. I have welcomed speaking to my hon. Friend the employment Minister about how we can ensure that our goals align and that those seeing migration as their first port of call are instead steered to the efforts being made to get UK-based workers back into employment and to the Disability Confident scheme, which helps to get unique talents into the workplace. There will still be some flexibility. For example, there is provision for the further expansion of our youth mobility schemes, through which 20,000 young people come to the UK for a period of work and travel each year, along with the adult dependants of those who come as skilled workers, who can also access the employment market. However, we will not create a minimum wage general migration route.
Alongside creating our new points-based global migration system, we are also taking the chance to work on a long overdue simplification of the immigration rules. I am grateful to the Law Commission for its thoughts on this area of work, and we will take most of them forward as we create the new system. Many will not be headline-grabbers but changes that will make it easier for those who need to use our immigration system to both understand the requirements and to comply with them. This will sit alongside moves such as the abolition of the resident labour market test, which will make it easier for employers to recruit skilled labour, and will remove some of the bureaucracy and time associated with doing so.
Finally, it was predictable that some would use this debate to re-fight the battles of Brexit, despite the clear result in the recent general election. The Bill delivers one of the key commitments that the Government made: a single global migration system. However, we are also delivering on our pledge to protect those who have moved here and made their life here in good faith under the current arrangements. The European settlement scheme is the largest documentation of immigration status in UK history. More than 3.5 million applications have been received, with more than 3 million decisions made, and only a tiny number of refusals by comparison. I am afraid that those calling for systems where rights are granted but not recorded do not seem to have learned the lessons of the past. The European settlement scheme means those entitled can prove their status easily for the rest of their lifetimes, while also ensuring that those who arrive in years to come cannot abuse the scheme’s provisions.
We recognise that immigration is vital to the social, cultural and economic life of this country. The new system will aim to create global equality of opportunity, giving everyone the same chance to live and work in this country. The Bill is the first step in ending free movement, establishing a fair and equal immigration system and upholding the scientific and commercial excellence of our country. Above all, it will help us to build a better future for this country and its people as we rebuild after the impact of covid-19. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the Question, I confirm that my final determination is that the Question on Second Reading should be decided by remote Division. There is therefore no need for me to collect the voices, or for those present in the Chamber to shout Aye or No.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division shortly. As the next Question is contingent on the outcome of this Division, I will suspend the House for five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division on Second Reading.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The Speaker announced to the House earlier this afternoon his provisional determination that remote Divisions would not take place on the following Questions relating to the programme motion, the money resolution, and the ways and means resolution. This is also my final determination.
IMMIGRATION AND SOCIAL SECURITY CO-ORDINATION (EU WITHDRAWAL) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 June 2020.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown, a government department, a person holding office under Her Majesty or any other public authority by virtue of the Act; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out money so provided.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any fees or charges arising by virtue of the Act.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 9th June 2020
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 June 2020 - (9 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Members should switch off any electronic devices or switch them to silent. As in all Bill Committees, tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Obviously, I must stress the importance of social distancing in the Committee Room. I will suspend proceedings if at any point I am not satisfied that advice on public health is being observed.
The Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hochansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We will first consider the programme motion. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the evidence session. If there are any questions about our unusual procedure because of social distancing during that session, we can deal with them then. In view of the limited time available, I hope we can take these matters without too much debate. At 11 o’clock, there will be a minute’s silence in memory of the death of George Floyd.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was agreed at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 10.20am Federation of Small Businesses; London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 10.50am The Confederation of British Industry; Make UK Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 11.25am The Migration Advisory Committee Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 2.40pm British in Europe; Professor Bernard Ryan Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 3.20pm British Future; Policy Exchange Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 4.00pm Detention Action; Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 4.30pm the3million; The Children’s Society Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 5.00pm Fragomen LLP; No.5 Barristers’ Chambers
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 9 June meet—
(a) at 2.00pm on Tuesday 9 June;
(b) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 11 June;
(c) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 16 June;
(d) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 18 June;
(e) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 23 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 5, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 6 to 9, New Clauses, New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Thursday 25 June.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome my shadows, the hon. Members for Halifax and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from a representative of the Federation of Small Businesses, who is attending by audio link, and from a representative of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who is with us in the room. I welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. Before calling the first Member to ask the first question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee agreed earlier. We have until 10.20 am. Before we get to the questions, perhaps the witnesses could introduce themselves.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. May I first draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to financial support that I receive in my office for work on immigration policy?
The Chair
Thank you. Richard Burge, please introduce yourself.
Richard Burge: Thank you very much. My name is Richard Burge. I am the chief executive—fairly recent—of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Martin McTague: I am Martin McTague. I am the chair of policy and advocacy for the FSB in the UK.
Kevin Foster
Q
Richard Burge: With difficulty. The obvious difficulty they have is that they are surrounded by chaos at the moment. Many small businesses have furloughed a large number of members of staff, or they are operating on their own. They have only so much bandwidth, so this will be hard work for them, particularly as they do not know what the rules will be. If they employ EU citizens, their concern is that they will now be introduced to the world of having to register themselves and get themselves licensed, which, like customs documentation, is a completely new world for them, and they have six months to do it.
Martin McTague: Sorry, I could not hear that question very well. Could you repeat it? You are very echoey and quite distant.
The Chair
Just before you do, Minister, it would be helpful if when asking questions, Members said who they were directing the question to.
Kevin Foster
Q
Martin McTague: I just about got that; I think it was a question about small businesses’ experience of immigration. The reality is that 95% of small businesses have absolutely no experience of dealing with any kind of visa system, and the system has been largely designed for larger businesses with reasonably sophisticated HR resources. We have found that the biggest concentration of issues is to do with mid-skilled occupations; in other words, the debate tends to be very binary. It either refers to high-skilled and very sophisticated employment requirements or completely low-skilled ones, but there are a lot of mid-skilled positions that fall within the £20,000 to £30,000 bracket, and those are the ones that cause the most problems for small businesses in the UK.
Kevin Foster
Q
Martin McTague: I assume that was to me, was it?
Kevin Foster
My question to Mr Burgh is about the fact that he talked about the process of sponsorship and becoming licensed. He may be aware that the Home Office is looking to streamline that system. Is there a particular change, or changes, he thinks we could make to the sponsorship licensing system that would help address some of the concerns he outlined?
Martin McTague: [Inaudible] it is welcome. It is a change that we were keen to see, and there has been a welcome change in the Government’s approach.
Richard Burge: To add to that, first of all, I have great admiration for the Home Office team working on this. I have worked for Matthew Rycroft before, in the Foreign Office, and he is one of the most talented managers in the public service. I think umbrella licensing is a good idea: it has good precedents, and it would create a huge relief for small businesses if they felt they could go to an organisation that had the ability to provide umbrella licensing. It would provide reassurance to the Home Office and a workable solution for small businesses, and we would be happy to be part of that process.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Richard Burge: In two ways. One is relief that the threshold was lowered; it is now a much more realistic threshold. I have to say, though, that it is going to be a lot more workable within London than it is for my colleagues who run chambers in other parts of the country. A threshold of £25,600 is quite high in different parts of the UK, given the wage levels there, so while I think it is workable in London—not ideal, but workable—I also think we concentrate on income too much as an indicator of value, rather than skills, and that in parts of the country, the threshold is still probably too high.
Holly Lynch
Q
Martin McTague: There has been a broad welcome for that change. I think there was a strong feeling that the previously suggested £30,000 threshold was going to be far too high, so £25,600 is a really good move in the right direction. We actually think it should be lower, because there are quite a few jobs, especially in the care sector, that pay less than £25,600. That is why we have called for a care sector visa, because we think the requirements of that sector will always be uniquely different from most of the rest of the economy. However, the move to £25,600 is definitely welcome.
Holly Lynch
Q
Richard Burge: It would be quite complex. It would be a move away from worrying about what people are paid to worrying about their skills. Skills are not necessarily measured by qualifications, so we welcome the reduction down to A-level standard. However, for instance, you could look at a small coffee shop, where you pay with your credit card. No accountant, bookkeeper or partner in an audit company is physically involved in your paying your money and it appearing in the annual accounts of that company, but you still need a barista to serve your coffee, so the question is: what matters now—is it skills and competence, or is it qualifications and what you happen to be paid? I would like to see that change.
Martin McTague: The biggest thing for us is the bureaucracy of this system. We estimate that a typical business with fewer than 50 employees will probably have to spend about £3,000 per employee to get through this tier 2 process. That is made up of a whole series of different costs. The biggest obstacles to recruiting somebody through this system are simply the cost and the time required to do it. Many businesses that traditionally recruit on the open market and have never gone anywhere near this kind of tier 2 system will find it very off-putting, and may just constrain their ambitions and avoid doing it completely.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Martin McTague: I can see that there will be more incentive to look for indigenous employees, but the reality is that a lot of the shake-out, or the potential shake-out, that we are hearing is likely to happen will be among the least-skilled people. Companies are going to enormous lengths to try to hang on to the rare skills that they have. If they have managed to recruit somebody from, say, the European Union, they are going to enormous lengths to try to get them to apply for settled status and to reassure them about the covid situation. I do not think that a new influx of unemployed people, many of whom will have poor skills, will solve a lot of the problems for these companies.
Richard Burge: From a London point of view, I think the jury is out, literally. I do not think we really know what to expect as we come out of covid-19. The critical thing for London, and probably for all metropolitan areas, is the mobility of people, and the willingness of people to be physically mobile to go and find new work, possibly earning less than they were earning before. However, it is also about emotional mobility, too. Are people emotionally prepared to go and do new work, taking completely new tangents in their lives and probably earning less? That will be a real challenge. I think there will be greater opportunities, but not necessarily in a career path that people might have been expecting.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Richard Burge: I think it is inevitable that it is going to be more difficult for people from the European Union; that is the consequence of leaving the European Union and not having an immigration policy for people from there. It is no longer an internal market; it is now a normal external market.
I think what we need to do is to make the red tape manageable. I think part of that is umbrella licensing. Part of that will be border clearance that is rapid and smooth, so it needs to be digitised and there needs to be e-clearance, and that also means that it cannot get cluttered up with tourism. We hope that everyone from the European Union will be able to come without a visa and not get caught in that process. Part of this process is the mechanism, and I think that one of the big challenges for the Home Office is to ensure that, while there may be more bureaucracy, it tries to make that process as smooth and as digitised as possible, and that is going to be a big ask before 1 January.
Martin McTague: I am really sorry; I can barely hear the conversation. Is there anybody closer to the microphone who could just repeat the essence of that question for me?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I got the essence of your question. Most small businesses treated EU nationals just as part of the pool of labour; they would not even question where they originated, and it was just a very simple recruitment process. I think that the additional costs will act as a disincentive, but more importantly it is quite hard to persuade a lot of EU employees to stay in the country. They are leaving, and they are leaving with the kind of skills that are in really short supply.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Richard Burge: If I may start with that, certainly from a London Chamber point of view, and I think from the point of view of all my colleagues around the country, it was hugely disappointing to see that disappear completely from the Bill this time. It was a very sensible scheme. I think it demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to try to respond to helping people get through what will be a permanent change in the market. It is very sad to see it go. We would like to see the route for lower-paid workers—lower-skilled workers—being reintroduced in the same way as it was under the previous Prime Minister’s Government.
Martin McTague: I think I picked that up. We were disappointed to see the disappearance of the 12-month scheme; we thought that was addressing an important part of the labour market, and it is regrettable that it disappeared. Hopefully something can be done to implement something similar.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Q
Richard Burge: It is helpful, because it is creating bigger diversity in terms of availability and access to labour. I think most small businesses, though, or any business will be keen to employ UK-based labour if they can. That is simpler and easier. In the end you do need to have access to global markets. We have to remember that we are a globally trading nation and, in the 21st century, trading tends to be in the skills of individuals and their brainpower and abilities. It is mostly about people rather than things, although we tend to focus on trade as being about things rather than people. The more we can do to keep our borders—within the Government’s requirements in terms of immigration for other purposes, social purposes—as open to people for work as they are for goods and services, the better.
Kate Green
Q
Richard Burge: They are hugely important, particularly when you are talking about people whose skills are valued less in the marketplace of wages than those of others, so any complexity to that will be a disincentive to employment. I would ask that whatever we do in terms of social security payments and pension provision, we try to make that as simple as possible. They are potentially a huge attractant.
Kate Green
Q
Richard Burge: The first community I would like to talk about is overseas graduates who graduate from British universities. What the current Government have done to release the block on people who graduate from British universities and come from overseas being able to work is a hugely positive step, enabling people who have been to university here to stay on and work for a year. That is hugely encouraging and hugely exciting, and I think most businesses will be enthusiastic about trying to pick up that market.
In terms of people coming from overseas universities and institutions, I think it is very important that we move ahead on equivalence of qualifications—the transferability of people’s qualifications—particularly in vocational skills. I think we have to streamline that. Obviously, we have to make sure, particularly when they are in life-governing professions like medicine, that those qualifications are rigorously examined, but the more we can move towards a universality of qualifications between like-minded countries, the better. That will help hugely as well, and I think we in the UK should be leading on it. We have the best universities in the world and therefore it is in our interests to make sure we have inter-transferability of those higher-level qualifications.
Kate Green
Q
Martin McTague: I think the key is trying to make sure that graduates or undergraduates are attracted to UK universities, because once they are in that pool of the immediately graduating, they become a much more attractive group for small businesses in particular. It seems that a lot of the barriers that have been put up and are going to restrict the entry of undergraduates are the biggest worry for a lot of small businesses, because they think that therefore they will not have that pool of very skilled labour to draw on.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Richard Burge: The answer is that I don’t really know. A lot of companies that are already established in places such as Japan will find it easier; for the ones that have operations elsewhere in Europe, this will be a new world. This also comes down to the Home Office being flexible and agile in terms of making sure that we assume positive intent on the part of companies—that they are not getting people into Britain secretly to do full-time work, but that they are in fact part of the transferable market within their company.
We need to address that. It will be complicated, but there are precedents in companies outside the EU, so I think we will use that as an example. It will be more difficult for smaller companies. Increasingly, we find that international companies in London are actually quite small; they are not huge operations. You can find yourself to be an international company in London by dint of the first order put on your website, whereas in the old days you would have spent 20 years developing a domestic market and then you would move internationally. Smaller companies might find themselves potentially hostage to this without realising it. So yes, complex.
The Chair
I remind hon. Members of the scope of the Bill, which is EEA nationals, EU nationals and Swiss nationals, not the rest of the globe.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Richard Burge: I don’t know. We will look at that and provide you with some written advice on it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wanted to ask a follow-up to the question of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, about the income threshold. In some answers, we have heard about the effect that that might have on particular sectors, such as the care sector. Will you both say more about the regional impact of the provisions of the Bill? Do you have particular concerns for the regions? I understand that Richard Burge is speaking for the London Chamber of Commerce, but I am interested in what other chambers of commerce around the country might be thinking.
Martin McTague: We have made it clear that we think—if I heard the question correctly—that the care sector is a special case and should have a separate visa arrangement, because it does not fit neatly into any of the categories that we might like to define under normal immigration rules. It is clear from the experience that we have had over the last few months that this sector is under massive pressure. Any major changes would be disastrous.
Richard Burge: I would agree to the extent that I think that the care sector is a special case, but we need to make sure that the definition of the care sector—in terms of immigration—runs alongside what I hope is emerging in the Department of Health, which is a much closer definition of what care is, bringing it in. Certainly, the Health Secretary has been trying to say that care is as important as the NHS, so I think that it needs much more careful definition.
In terms of the regional perspective, we are a country of many parts. For instance, on the lower wage threshold, I am deeply worried that, particularly in essential services—care being among them, but also things such as porterage in hospitals—in many parts of the country this is not a sufficiently low level of wage to enable us to get people in who technically have lower skills but are in high demand. There needs to be a more nuanced approach to this in order to respond to the different economic circumstances in different parts of the country. My colleagues in other chambers think that I am quite fortunate being in London, where this wage level will get us through most of our problems but will not get them through theirs.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Martin McTague: The short answer is that the time available is far too little for most small businesses to adjust to what is a completely alien system. It is relatively easy for the larger businesses with HR departments to make this adjustment. They may already be recruiting tier 2 employees, but for most small businesses it will be extremely difficult and costly. I think that all it will mean is that most of them will decide to scale back their operations and make sure that they adapt to a new world that has fewer skilled people.
Richard Burge: My view is that most small businesses will be able to get through this, if they know the rules soon enough, if there is a process by which they can use umbrella licensing, and providing that new systems are put in place by the Home Office. I think that is the critical thing. As I said, I have huge respect for the Home Office under the leadership of Matthew Rycroft and his team, but they are dealing with things such as covid-19 issues on immigration, refugees arriving over the channel, the situation in Hong Kong, and the immigration surcharge. They have a huge job list to do—and this is the only one in which they have a choice about the timing. I hope that the Home Secretary will be looking internally at the Home Office and its capability to deliver things that will then enable business to respond in a timely manner. I am concerned about the pressure being put on them.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Richard Burge: It is slow and unwieldy and should be faster. One way of improving that is to involve businesses much more directly in analysing what a shortage occupation should be. We can rely on businesses who are asked to join, say, an industry body, to work alongside the Migration Advisory Committee on that work. We can rely on them to be forthright but not to plead special interest. It needs to involve business much more directly and that, it is hoped, will enable it to be much more responsive to the marketplace. The marketplace is going to change very dramatically over the next 12, 18 or 24 months, and we do not really know how it is going to change, so we have to be light of foot.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Chair
We seem to have a technical problem. While we are trying to sort that out, are there any questions to Mr Burge?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Richard Burge: It is up to you in this House to decide how you use legislation to maintain scrutiny of Government. We would ask that, whatever means are chosen—through primary legislation or regulation—it is done in a transparent way and involves us. Instead of us in business being told what is happening, we should be involved in those discussions and make them as transparent as possible. As far as I can see, employment and immigration are not a national security issue; it could be discussed much more openly and transparently. We can resolve differences through public dialogue rather than through private discussion.
The Chair
May I just check that Mr McTague is there? Apparently, he is not. We will try to get him back.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Q
Richard Burge: Just quickly, there is a thing called the British Chamber of Commerce, which is a hub body.
Douglas Ross
Q
Richard Burge: No, but individual chambers—the 53 member chambers across the UK—are members.
Douglas Ross
Q
Richard Burge: That is right. There are 53 accredited chambers.
Douglas Ross
Q
Richard Burge: No.
The Chair
Do we have Mr McTague?
Martin McTague: Yes, I am here. Sorry, the line dropped.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: The principle of the shortage occupation list is a difficult one for us, because it is a fast-moving situation and the shortage occupations can change from week to week and from month to month. It is better for them to be in a general category, but it is rather bureaucratic and clunky. It is a situation that we are prepared to stomach rather than appreciate.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: Sorry, I could not quite hear that.
Stuart C. McDonald
What improvements would you want to make to the procedure?
Martin McTague: I would like to see a much more active engagement with business representative organisations so that, if there are changes, they can be quickly implemented and we are not waiting for a long, drawn-out bureaucratic process to work its way through the system. It is about keeping as much flexibility in the system as possible.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I am really sorry, I can barely hear you. It is echoing and distant. Could someone closer to the mic help me?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I think the fact that the Home Secretary is in a position to vary it and respond to changes in market conditions is better than if it was written on the face of the Bill and we had to go through some sort of legislative process to get changes made. In terms of flexibility, my vote is for the most flexible system we can adopt.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: Sorry, can you say that again.
Stuart C. McDonald
Flexibility does not mean that you cannot have parliamentary oversight, does it?
Martin McTague: No, it is not that. I think the Home Secretary will be answerable to Parliament about the decisions that she or he has made. That would be a way in which Parliament could ensure there was proper scrutiny. There needs to be a system that can respond in real time to some of the really big changes in market conditions. They will be even more marked in the coming months.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I’m sorry, I am struggling to hear you.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank Mr Burge and Mr McTague. These are not ideal conditions, but thank you for giving us valuable evidence this morning.
Martin McTague: Thank you for bearing with me.
The Chair
Good morning, Mr Fell. The Bill Committee will now hear your oral evidence. I am sorry about the technical hitches; you will be on your own, not with Make UK.
Thank you very much for agreeing to give evidence today. If you would like to briefly introduce yourself, we can move straight to questions. We have about 10 minutes.
Matthew Fell: I am Matthew Fell, chief policy director at the CBI.
Kevin Foster
Q
Matthew Fell: I think our members completely understand that free movement of people is ending. Business gets that, and it is ready to phase into a new immigration system. I think, with the proposed approach of a points-based system, it is entirely possible to design a system that works for business. There are many positives in it so far—the headline salary threshold changes that have been announced and the commitment to streamline and improve the system are all positives—but I would say that there are perhaps three areas of concern for our members at the moment.
One concern is the absence of any route at all below level 3, which will prove challenging for the care, hospitality and logistics sectors and so on. The second, from the Government’s perspective, is introducing this with a phased approach; I can perfectly see where they are coming from, but it means that business will be left with a reasonably cumbersome system from the off, with a promise of improvements to come. The third is that we are getting very close to the deadline for the system being introduced, and business is still looking for further clarity, time to prepare and assurances that the system will be ready in time. Those are the concerns, against a backdrop of an effort to really make this work and lean into it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Fell: There are a few things that we would like to see in the proposed new immigration system. We believe that a temporary route for people to come and work in this country would be a helpful addition to the system as it is currently set up.
Secondly, I would say to accelerate efforts to streamline the proposed approach. The vast majority of businesses have never previously had to engage with the visa system; something like only 30,000 businesses in the country have grappled with it so far, because we have lived and worked with free movement of people for so long. It will be a big change, so I would say to accelerate the changes to streamline and improve the system, reduce red tape and so on.
The final piece, just to reiterate, is to accelerate efforts to get clarity and detail out there and known to businesses as soon as possible, so they can begin to familiarise themselves, prepare and get ready.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
“restrictive, complex and burdensome system.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2019; c. 67, Q178.]
Could you say a little more about what you mean by that?
Matthew Fell: There are a couple of areas. It comes down to some of the red tape issues, and there are a few examples. The initial sponsor licence, businesses tell us, is very document-heavy, in their words—for example, on the HR practices side, having to evidence, track and monitor things that small businesses feel are perfectly obvious. If they employ 10 or up to 20 people and one person is missing, that is self-evident; they know if a person is not there.
There is quite a lot in the reporting requirements that could be streamlined. Lots of people say to us, “We have to report it if a migrant’s pay has increased, and we don’t quite understand why. If they were already given the green light because they cleared the salary threshold, why would we need to report that that has increased?”
Thirdly, people feel that the volume of documentation required to be kept on file, including details such as notes from interviewing candidates, is quite onerous. Those are some of the examples of red tape burdens that we would welcome efforts to streamline.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: There will be a significant uplift in cost, particularly for businesses that have never grappled with this before. There is an ongoing cost, but there is also a first-time familiarisation effort that will cost more, particularly for small businesses. Larger companies who deal with high volumes of people are likely to have in-house HR and legal expertise. That is much less likely to be the case for small and medium-sized businesses, who will need to pay for external advice to be able to navigate this new system.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: That is an issue. It is an issue that companies will look at, for example, if they were a multinational business and they were choosing the location of business, so it is true from a business perspective. From the employee perspective, it might be down to the speed with which they can get certainty—“Can I go and live there and know that it is okay?” Clearly, there are others who would speak more for the employee perspective, but that would be my perspective on the employee view.
Kate Green
Q
Matthew Fell: I think it is an important factor. It is quite hard to say exactly where the detail of that lands, particularly in the context of the EU-UK negotiations that are ongoing; we will need to see where they land. Social security measures and the issues that you have just described are really important for reciprocity—not just migrants coming to work in the UK, but UK workers overseas—and that reciprocity is particularly important for mobility of labour as well as for migrants coming to work in the UK.
Kate Green
Q
Matthew Fell: I think that bringing the skill threshold in the Bill down from degree to A-level is a positive change. That is a highly positive move that the CBI supported and which clearly broadens out the range of roles that can be addressed through that route. The issues are less about whether they can clear a threshold in terms of the work; they are more about the system costs and streamlining the red tape that I was describing. That is what would be most helpful.
Of course, even with that skills threshold reduced down to level 3 or A-level equivalent, that still leaves out many important roles for which businesses will find the transition and the adjustments quite hard to address in the short term.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Matthew Fell: The regional implications will be down to where there is a particular proliferation of types of sectors within a regional make-up. Some of the ones that we think are quite hard hit are care workers, general labourers in construction and the hospitality sector, as well as logistics. Hospitality is very much a regional industry, and that could be one that bears most of the brunt.
The Chair
Mr Fell, thank you very much for giving evidence to us. We found that very valuable. I am sorry about the technical difficulties we had getting through to you. We now move to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
The Chair
Welcome to the Committee. I apologise for the difficulties we had before. You will be on your own. First, can you introduce yourself to the Committee for the record, and then I will ask the Minister to ask you a question?
Tim Thomas: My name is Tim Thomas. I work for Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation. I am Make UK’s director of employment and skills policy, so I cover all work-related issues and a few political issues, including immigration policy.
Kevin Foster
Q
Tim Thomas: Sorry, could you just repeat that? It was a bit echoey. Apologies for the line.
Kevin Foster
I will say it slowly; it will sound weird. How do you see the manufacturing sector working with the new system?
Tim Thomas: In terms of how the manufacturing sector will work with the new system, it will be a considerable challenge to cope with the end of free movement. Around 95% of our members employ an EU worker and about 5% employ a non-EU worker, so the majority of Make UK members do not currently interface with the tier 2 non-EU migration system. There will be a considerable change for manufacturers’ recruitment practices with the implementation of the points system.
It is fair to say that the changes to the proposed points-based system for manufacturers will ease the route. The reduction in the qualification level from level 6 to level 3 and the reduction in the salary threshold will make things easier for manufacturers than they would be. However, manufacturing is a global business; about half of manufacturing exports go to the European Union, and they cannot export their British-manufactured goods to the EU without an exchange of people. People, and the cross-fertilisation of people between the UK and the EU, go hand in hand with trade in manufactured goods. There is a strong connection with the EU and global trade in the manufacturing sector, and the ability to recruit people from outside the UK is vital to that trade.
Holly Lynch
Q
Tim Thomas: At Make UK, we have responded over several years to calls for evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee, and we are preparing our response to the current call for evidence. If I may make one point before I come to your question, the call for evidence from the MAC has a very short window for Make UK and other organisations to respond. That is because the points-based system is being implemented on a very truncated timeline. In gathering the evidence for the MAC, Make UK and other organisations face a stiff challenge in ensuring that our response is evidence-based and provides a realistic forward look at the manufacturing sector and the jobs we will need in the future.
As for how realistic the MAC can be in its work and how realistic we can be, covid-19, the changes to the manufacturing sector and the difficulties it is in have presented a challenge in showing the MAC the true state of what occupations are in shortage in our sector at the moment. The manufacturing sector systemically suffers from long-term skills shortages—we are no different from any other western European economy in that regard—and that is not because manufacturers do not train. About 75% of manufacturers have apprenticeship programmes, and Make UK is an apprenticeship provider. We are investing in training the next generation of talent, but the fact is that there are certain skills, including digital skills, that are not available in the UK, and we need them to make sure the manufacturing sector is internationally competitive and productive. In terms of the work of the MAC, it needs to take a realistic view of what the UK labour market can provide, given those skills shortages and how long it will take it to adjust at the end of free movement, given that those skills can be brought in through the points-based system.
There are some key elements of the manufacturing sector for which workers tend to come from the European Union. One is new green technology. We all support the move away from an economy in which electricity generation is carbon-based, towards clean energy. Clean energy is something that our members are investing large amounts of resource in. A lot of those skills, simply because the technology has been deployed for longer in the European Union, exist in, for example, Germany and Denmark to a greater extent than they exist in the UK. Accessing those green skills—those environmentally friendly skills—and that new technology is something that most people would support. We just need to make sure the MAC captures the fact that those skills are in shortage in the UK at the moment.
The Chair
We have very limited time, and three Members are indicating that they wish to ask questions, so please make the questions and answers brief.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Q
Tim Thomas: With great apologies, I could not catch much of the question. Could you repeat it? Is it possible to come closer to the microphone?
Angela Richardson
In your first answer you said that 95% of workers in production are EU nationals. What percentage of that are UK workers?
Tim Thomas: Apologies—what I said was that 95% of our members employ an EU worker. Across the whole of the sector, we employ between 2.7 million and 2.9 million workers, of whom about 330,000 are EU workers.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Tim Thomas: I think that would simply lead to more uncertainty among manufacturers. We expect the UK Government to implement the new points-based system on the timeline that they guaranteed, and to provide businesses with the full suite of material—the statutory instruments and guidance—by the end of the summer at the latest so that we have a significant period to familiarise ourselves with it before January. If we delayed implementation, that would cause more uncertainty among businesses. Clearly, we need time to adjust and to see what the new system is. However, we naturally do not want a delay to the implementation date.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Tim Thomas: I understand the point that you are making, but our issue is with the type of skills that we need. I mentioned green skills, and we also need digital skills. We need a range of skills that are not available in the UK labour market. We are training domestic UK workers for them, but in the meantime there is a skills mismatch between what employers need and what is available in the UK labour market. There may be some mitigation, but I would say that we are still going to need non-UK workers for the foreseeable future, until we develop those skills in the domestic labour market.
The Chair
Mr Thomas, thank you very much for the full evidence that you have given. It is valuable and I am sorry about the technical difficulties that we had in getting through to you.
Tim Thomas: Not at all. Thank you for your time.
The Chair
We shall now hear oral evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee. May I take this opportunity, while the witness is coming in, to remind hon. Members about the scope of the Bill. It does not encompass a points system. I did not want to interrupt the previous witness, given the problems that we have had, but perhaps we can remember the scope of the Bill.
Examination of witness
Brian Bell gave evidence.
The Chair
Mr Bell, thank you very much for coming today. I remind members of the Committee that at 11 o’clock the bell will ring and there will be a minute’s silence for George Floyd. We will stand for that minute. Would you like to introduce yourself, Mr Bell, for the benefit of the record?
Brian Bell: I am Professor Brian Bell. I am the interim chair of the Migration Advisory Committee and professor of economics at King’s College London.
Kevin Foster
Q
Brian Bell: If you move to a system in which you take control of immigration and are no longer subject to free movement under the European Union, you essentially have to have a selective immigration policy, and the question is where you think that selectivity should be. All the evidence that the committee reviewed in its 2018 report pointed to the benefits to the United Kingdom being highest when we focused on high-skill immigration—often high-wage immigration—and the gains, to the economy as a whole and also the resident population, which is our key metric, as it were, being highest with those kinds of workers. If you are going to have any kind of selectivity, that is where you want to tilt the balance, as it were.
That does not necessarily mean that you do not have any access to workers at low wages and with lower training or educational requirements. There are other routes that are already available within the system for immigration. For example, the family route allows you to recruit people who come through the family route for immigration, and there is the asylum route—once applicants are granted asylum they can be employed in the United Kingdom without regard to their skill level. There are alternative routes, and in fact that is extremely common. There are an awful lot of non-EEA workers employed in British firms across sectors who would not meet the requirements of the new immigration system but still have a job because they can come through different routes.
At the end of the day, there is a crucial distinction that we draw. With jobs where the training requirement and the education, both academic and vocational, to begin that job are reasonably low, firms can actually compete against each other, and we sort of want firms to compete against each other for workers, because that is good for workers; whereas for more technical, highly skilled jobs with very high training requirements there is often a practical difficulty in getting a new supply if you need it. You cannot just turn on the tap, so migration is a more obvious response for that.
Kevin Foster
In terms of that general route for recruitment, the MAC made some specific comments on the care sector, again in the context of the Bill ending freedom of movement. It was very specific against a sectoral scheme. Could you explain some of the rationale for that?
Brian Bell: The first point to bear in mind when thinking about the social care sector is that it is often described as being dependent on migrant workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Something like 80% of those working in the social care sector are British, so actually it relies on British workers. The European Union is a relatively small fraction of the social care employment sector relative to the economy as a whole, accounting for about 5% of it, depending on which statistics are used.
We do not think there should be a particular route for social care because we think that immigration has historically been used as an excuse to not deal with the problems of the social care sector. The problems of the social care sector are fundamentally nothing to do with immigration. They are to do with the fact that, frankly, Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp the funding issue of social care. If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, “Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage,” first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with, and secondly it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers. You are saying that you are going to keep on allowing their wages to be held down by allowing employers to bring in workers at the minimum wage, whereas we want to see wages rising in that sector. That will not happen if there is a continuous supply of free labour from abroad willing to work at the minimum wage.
Kevin Foster
Q
Brian Bell: The Migration Advisory Committee has a key role in making sure that we keep a pretty constant view of what is happening across sectors, occupations and industries as the new system is rolled out, to see where problems are emerging. When you switch from a system that has been running for 40 years to a new one that incorporates all European Union countries as well, there will inevitably be teething problems. It would be surprising if that were not the case. We will be focussed on looking for the evidence: where is the system having problems? We will be highlighting those to the Government, and we can do that. We have an annual report that we will be publishing, and we will be highlighting to Ministers where the problems are, as well as potentially what solutions might be available.
Kevin Foster
Q
Brian Bell: We were asked explicitly to think about whether there should be regional variation in the salary thresholds that are a key part of the system. The easiest way to answer that is to think about the fact that the median wage in Edinburgh for a full-time worker is higher than it is in Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff and Belfast. Compared to Dumfries and Galloway, it is 25% higher. In other words, regional wage variation—if by that you mean either the nations of Britain or the regions of England—demonstrates that variation within those areas is much greater than variation across them. If you really wanted to go down that route, you would need an immigration system that set thresholds in every local community around Britain. I do not quite know how that would be enforced. You would be explicitly saying that low-wage areas should stay low-wage areas and that high-wage areas should stay high-wage areas. I am not sure that it is a very sensible policy.
Holly Lynch
Q
Brian Bell: I think I can answer that, hopefully. At the moment, the Migration Advisory Committee is being asked to report on the shortage occupation list for the new system. We will report in September and we are taking evidence at the moment. Senior care workers are eligible for the new system.
Holly Lynch
Q
Brian Bell: About 60% of the workforce are RQF3 and above. Again, in a sense it goes back to my first answer: if you are going to have a selective policy, you need to draw the line somewhere. To the extent that you say, “This sector should get an exemption,” you really need to say that what that means logically is that we are going to take away some of the other occupations and say they are not eligible any more, or we are going to make the system more liberal and expand the remit. In one sense that would be fine. Fundamentally, it is a political decision as to where you draw that line. You could have completely free movement for the entire world if you wanted it. No other country does that, but that is a choice. Our evidence was that if you are to draw that line favouring the higher paid and higher skilled, it is better for the UK economy and the public finances as well.
The one thing I can guarantee is that we will look carefully at what happens in social care going forward. To the extent that the system causes problems for them, we will report on that. There is not quite a knife edge. It is sometimes described as a knife edge, but it is not. Every single person who is a European Union citizen who is employed on 31 December will still be employed on 1 January. There is no requirement—the stock will stay the same. What will change will be the flow coming in. In the EU settlement scheme, some 3.5 million people have applied already.
Holly Lynch
Q
Brian Bell: Absolutely. If we identify an occupation that we think is in shortage, I consider that essentially a failure. You might not think it is a failure if there has been a big increase in demand for that sector, so the sector suddenly sees a large increase in the demand for its product. In the short run, there might be a shortage in terms of getting the appropriate labour for that—that is fine and makes sense—but often the shortage occupation list identifies a failure of the British education system to provide the people who are needed. A classic example of that is nurses. Nurses have been on the shortage occupation list since I can remember ever hearing of it. Every time they are put on the list, we hear statements along the lines of, “Yes, we know that they are in shortage, and we have a plan to increase the number of nurses who go through training so that we deal with the shortage in the long run.” They are still on the shortage occupation list. We should be using the shortage occupation list to signal both to Government and to employers that there are training needs that need to be fulfilled.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: The seasonal agricultural workers scheme is probably the only sectoral scheme that the MAC has recommended as a good idea. That is because it is truly unique. I think the statistic is that 99% of seasonal workers in agriculture are not from the UK, which makes sense. As it is directly seasonal, the job does not fit with people who live in the UK and who want a year-round job to make a living. Most countries have some type of seasonal workers scheme, and I would be surprised if there was any argument for why we would get rid of that. It is in a pilot at the moment; as I understand it, the pilot is going well.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: Actually, that is a good question. It would be a question for Government. If there is a seasonal workers scheme, and we have removed the special entitlement of European Union workers in terms of access, there is no reason why the seasonal workers scheme should not be open to people of any nationality, but that is a question for Government.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: One thing that we have done, which is particularly important for public finances, is think about different types of immigrants, such as a migrant who comes to the UK and then makes their home here. We often highlight how migrants in general are positive for public finances. When we see them before they get permanent leave to remain, they are often not bringing their family or they are only just forming a family unit, so they are not using public resources but they are paying in taxes. Once they have permanent leave to remain and either become British citizens or stay here permanently, they begin to cost the Exchequer because they tend to start using schools and the health service. From a purely public finance perspective, you would like migrants who just come, pay their taxes, do not use any of the resources and then leave. We have done that kind of analysis. We have done less analysis in thinking about the broader questions on what the benefits are to British society more generally of having migrants who come to the UK and stay for a long time.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: I certainly have not seen any evidence of that. It is a difficult one, because there has been a different rule up until this point in time. I have not seen any evidence that suggests European Union workers are more or less likely to stay on a long-term basis than non-EU workers. The data are not very good on that kind of thing, but it would be an interesting thing to look at.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: That is correct. Immigration is a reserved matter, so we were asked to report just on that.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: Yes, on the salary threshold.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: I agree it was certainly finely balanced, although there was an extensive discussion on the maths. It is fair to say that that was primarily driven by Northern Ireland. The differences in wages between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are more significant than in other devolved Administrations, and they had different issues because of the land border.
You are probably right that the majority of our respondents were in favour of it. That partly tells you that when you call for evidence, you get very interested parties on one side, and not many on the other. A classic example is that when we did our major report in 2018 on the impact of immigration from the European Union, we got some 450 responses, almost none of which were not in favour of freedom of movement. Almost all were kind of in favour, which did not properly reflect what the British people as a whole thought. That is the nature of a call for evidence.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: The reasoning was that we received reasonably strong evidence, not just from Scotland but from other areas, nations and regions of the United Kingdom, that there are rural communities that find it difficult to recruit in the way that employers can in more urban and suburban areas. Often those employers are key to that small community, so they are sometimes more important than your average employer in a big city. That was our thinking about that.
We suggested a small pilot—it is important to emphasise that we thought it should be a small pilot. Such a scheme has clear risks, two of which I suppose I should highlight. One is that you issue a visa to someone and say, “You have to stay in one small area, with one employer, and you cannot move, because it is a rural scheme.” We generally do not like the idea of saying to workers that they have to stay with one employer, because that gives the employer lots of power and does not give the worker much power. There is an uncomfortableness about that kind of scheme.
The second problem is our worry that it does not deal with why rural communities are losing population. As soon as you have this type of scheme, you might get an immigrant to go there, but as soon as they have freedom to move—for example, if they get permanent leave to remain and can go anywhere in the UK—if the reasons why people in those communities do not want to stay in the first place still exist, why would we not expect that migrant to move as well?
There are problems, but we recommend the scheme. As I understand it, the Government have not yet decided whether to have such a pilot or not. If I have to be honest, part of that is because an enormously complicated system is about to be introduced. You want to go in steps, so the Government are focused on the main work route at the moment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: We did not go as far as that. We said that we thought the argument was most compelling in Northern Ireland, but in the end we did not think the differences were quite big enough to justify having the more complicated system.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: There is a clear difference because of the border. To be clear, the shortage occupation list that we are reporting on at the moment has the ability to have a Northern Ireland SOL that is separate from the UK-wide SOL. If there are representations made to us that there are particular recruitment problems in Northern Ireland in some occupations, that are not true for the UK as a whole, we have the ability to recommend to the Secretary of State that they be put on the Northern Ireland SOL but not on the UK-wide SOL, as is true of Scotland.
Kate Green
Q
Brian Bell: It is both a good question and a very difficult question to answer. If you look at social care as a good example of this, something like 15% of workers in social care are non-EEA born. They can’t have been employed by the social care sector through the work route, as the work route is not open to the social care sector until next year because it has been RQF6 and that has excluded almost all such workers. Fifteen per cent. of the workforce has come through some other route. That is quite a big pool. Whether it is fully used—to be honest, we have not looked at that. We can do, because we have data on that, in the sense that we can see, to a certain extent, what all the non-EEA people in Britain are doing. Using the labour force survey, we can ask the question, “If you were born outside the United Kingdom and you are non-EEA, what is your current status? Are you in employment, are you looking for work or are you inactive but potentially available for work?” That is an interesting question. The one thing we cannot do—it just so happens we do not collect the data—is look at the visa you came in on. It would be nice to see whether asylum seekers are different than family route. I encourage the Office for National Statistics to ask that question.
That is an interesting question to look at, and we would be happy to do that—to think about whether there is a ready supply, potentially, of workers who are not actively looking at the moment but who, historically, have moved. There are an awful lot of people who would say they are inactive in the labour force survey but who, a few months later, have a job. We could look at that.
Kate Green
Q
Brian Bell: We were. That was another difficult decision we had to make. The difficulty is the following: for the worker route, the system works where you are sponsored by a principal employer—a main sponsor for your job. The question, again, is, where you would draw the line if you said part-time work was acceptable? We were given representations by some firms that said, “Lots of our workers almost have a portfolio of jobs, and they might do a day here, a day there and a day here.” That fits very badly into the system, because you need one employer. Frankly, I don’t think Home Office enforcement would be enough to really follow through every single worker and say, “When you add up all your jobs together, are you earning a sufficient amount that you are not burdening the Exchequer?”, which is one of the criteria we are focused on.
The issue became, if we did something like, “If you are willing to work at least 16 hours,” would that be okay? In the end, we concluded that the fiscal costs were significantly higher for that type of worker than for a worker who would come on a full-time salary. In the end, if you are going to be selective, we did not think that was an area you would be selective of.
I should say that we were mindful of the fact that that disproportionately affects women rather than men. Part-time work is, of course, much higher among women than men. In the end, we did not find that strong enough because, although that is true, the gender patterns of migrants as a whole are not that dissimilar between the sexes.
One thing that we discussed, and left open for Ministers to think about, is that, at the moment, tier 2 is quite restrictive, in that, if someone takes maternity leave, they are sort of supposed to go back to the full-time job as soon as they finish that maternity leave. We said that consideration could be given to whether, once someone is on a visa, there could be some flexibility for people who have a child to go back part time, and for that to still count. I think that might be worth considering.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Brian Bell: I should say that, if they have green skills at RQF3 and above, they are eligible for the scheme, so they will be able to enter the UK on a visa, so long as the employer is sponsored and they are paid the minimum salary threshold. I am not sure why green skills should be any different from normal skills. If there is a qualification or experience required for that job, and the person meets those criteria, the scheme is open for them. The scheme is not open for people who are at RQF1 and 2, which are essentially the jobs that either require fairly low formal qualifications or for which the training requirement to get that job is not very long. If that is the case, my response would be that we can recruit from the UK domestic workforce to fill those jobs.
The Chair
I cut off Stuart McDonald earlier, and I think he had another question. We have a little more time, so he may finish.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: Obviously, there is a difference between there being a UK-wide shortage and a devolved Administration shortage. For the second, we only look within the country. Broadly, we are looking for a broad shortage across employers. That is the first thing. As you say, it would not be very compelling to us if one employer said, “We find it difficult to recruit,” because our first response might be, “Perhaps you are not a very good employer.” We want to see, broadly within that occupational sector, that there is a recruitment problem. We want to think that it is more than just an extremely short-term problem. To be honest, this work route will not be ideal if you just want to fill a very short-term vacancy, for the simple reason that you have to pay fees and go through the process of applying. It is more suitable for permanent, long-term positions. We want to see that the shortage is likely to last into the medium term.
The final criteria that we use, which in one sense is the most important, is that we want to be convinced that migration is the appropriate response. In answer to your earlier question, we were talking about how skills are an important aspect of all this. One thing that we say to employers is that, if they want to be put on the shortage occupation list, and if they want us to recommend that, they need to show us evidence that they are going out and trying to train up British workers. They need to show that they have a training programme themselves, or that they are working with further or higher education colleges to try to increase the supply of British workers.
Either that takes time, which we understand, and which is an argument for putting it on the shortage occupation list until that has successfully come to fruition, or quite frankly, if they can show that they have done that kind of thing and it just has not worked, we also think that that is quite strong evidence. That suggests that there are structural problems in that sector or industry, so we perhaps have to accept migration as a response to that, and that British workers either do not want to do those jobs or there are alternatives that they would prefer to do.
Stuart C. McDonald
What do you say to those who have criticised the system for being too slow and not responsive? What is changing?
Brian Bell: Historically, it has been, because, as I said, we only ever reviewed the SOL when we were asked to. It was, frankly, probably low down in the priorities, so, often, it was looked at every three or four years. We will recommend to the Government how we should review it going forward. I cannot tell you what that will be, because we have not decided, but I will say that most other countries that have an equivalent, such as Australia, Ireland and Canada, usually have a regular review process about once a year. I think there is a trade-off. If you do it too often, you do not actually get any new information; the employer just sends you the same thing they sent you last time—
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 9th June 2020
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 June 2020 - (9 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Good afternoon. This is the second evidence session, and it will be a mixture of people who are with us physically and people who are here virtually, so we will have to cope as best we can. Our first witnesses are a representative of British in Europe, via audio link, and Professor Bernard Ryan. We have until about 2.40 to take that evidence. I will go first of all to the Minister, then to the Opposition spokesman. Is anybody else desperate to ask a question at the moment? You can put up your hand and intimate to the Clerk that you would like to speak.
Those of you who are sitting at the back of the hall—you are very welcome, by the way—are equally members of this Committee. Apparently if you want to speak, you have to go to a microphone over there. Are we all happy to start the session? We have to ring our witnesses now, so please be patient.
We are ready to start with our first panel of witnesses. Thank you for coming today. This session will have to end at 2.40pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Q
Jeremy Morgan: The sound is not very good but I will do my best. The question was about social security provisions, is that right?
Kevin Foster
It was about what implications you see for British citizens in Europe regarding social security co-ordination provisions in the Bill.
Jeremy Morgan: May I start by thanking the Committee for asking us to give evidence, even in this rather strange way? The social security provisions are crucial for UK citizens in the EU. They govern pensions, pension increases, healthcare, other benefits, and the aggregation of the equivalent of national insurance contributions made in different countries, without which some people would fail to meet the minimum contribution period for pensions or other benefits. Those provisions are preserved in UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so there should be no impact. However, as is made clear in the briefing note that we prepared and that has, I hope, been circulated, we are worried about clause 5 because that clause creates a regulation-making power wide enough to modify rights under the withdrawal agreement. We entirely accept that in the explanatory note the Government say that they do not intend to have an impact on our withdrawal agreement rights, but we are worried about that on two grounds, and the concerns are twofold.
First, as a constitutional issue it is wrong to create a power in a regulation that might breach an international treaty. If that is to be done, it should be done by primary legislation after a proper debate. Secondly, and more practically, those social security provisions that are listed in the Bill are right up there with UK immigration law for complexity. It is Byzantine complexity, and that is no exaggeration. It would not be difficult for an unintended breach to slip through. Therefore, to prevent a breach of a treaty by mistake, it is important that any such amendment be made through primary legislation after a proper debate.
Kevin Foster
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I am sorry, I am having great difficulty in hearing the question.
Kevin Foster
A Minister cannot breach international law in regulations. Would you have any concerns if the legislation, for example, did not empower a Minister to quickly implement an agreement in relation to social security co-ordination if one was reached with the European Union before 1 January?
Jeremy Morgan: You are talking about the future relationship beyond Brexit, effectively?
Kevin Foster
Yes. Effectively, there are negotiations ongoing, and the issue is what happens if the Government reached an agreement and wished to implement it before that time.
Jeremy Morgan: I should start by saying that we were fairly careful in the representations that we made. We are a group that represents British citizens in Europe who are affected by Brexit and were there before Brexit. We have tended not to get into policy post the end of the transition period, simply because it is not within our remit to do so. It is for others to express views on that. Clearly, if a further agreement is made for rights that extend to others beyond those who are already in the EU, it is important that the Government should be able to implement that, but whether that is by primary legislation or regulations made at the time for that purpose is a matter for this Committee to decide. I do not think British in Europe would have a strong view about it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: Certainly. First, I thank the Committee and the Chair for the invitation.
The Chair
By the way, I do not know how our other witness is going to hear you. The acoustics are not brilliant, and I suspect that they are quite a long way away. They are already having difficulty hearing anyway, so speak up loudly, slowly and clearly. Sorry to interrupt.
Professor Bernard Ryan: I will do my best.
I obviously welcome clause 2. I see it as addressing a longstanding gap in immigration law, which is a lack of clear provision for Irish citizens, notwithstanding the fact that there has not been a policy or practice of placing restrictions on them. As I see it, the clause addresses the legal status of Irish citizens who enter the United Kingdom from outside the common travel area, so I wholeheartedly welcome it.
There are some finer points where one might point to potential problems down the road. I identified several in my evidence. First, in regards to family migration, it is still left open a little whether Irish citizens who will have the freedom to enter and reside will be in the same position as British citizens with regard to sponsoring family members in every respect. I think that is something that could be addressed.
There is also a difficulty relating to deportation and exclusion. I certainly would not argue that Irish citizens should be exempt from those. They are citizens of another state, as it were, so it should be possible to deport and exclude, but what is the threshold is going to be? We know that the general threshold is conducive to the public good, but in practice that is not the threshold that is used for Irish citizens because of the common travel area. There is a much higher standard, so could that be written into legislation or could commitments be obtained during the passage of the Bill about how those powers will be used in relation to Irish citizens in the future?
My third suggestion would be to consider the situation of persons of Northern Ireland, to use the recent jargon. The Belfast Agreement, of course, permits people from Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or both, so for a focus on identifying as Irish, is there really sufficient provision in immigration law for people to do that? They are not guaranteed full equality as regards to family sponsorship, but they do not have immunity from deportation and exclusion either unless they assert British citizenship. In the grand scheme of things, it is a detailed point, but it is important in the Northern Irish context—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Could you hold on a moment, Professor Ryan? Can we check the line, please? Let us carry on.
Holly Lynch
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: I am afraid I do not have an answer to that. I have been following it, as it were, in relation to the policy statements, not in relation to individual cases.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: That is correct. I believe it was in the Committee stage, in the light of the evidence, perhaps, that the Minister made that commitment. Those commitments are obviously welcome, from my perspective.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: It is obviously stronger if it is put in the Bill. If it is not, policy can always be changed. Going back to the wider clause, one strength of what has been done is that it gives clarity to Irish citizens on their position in the United Kingdom. That, in a sense, is the issue with deportation. What are the arrangements going to be? What are the standards going to be? Having things in legislation, rather than in policy, is obviously stronger, from the perspective of Irish citizens.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: My main concern regards Irish citizens who are not yet resident in the United Kingdom. It is the case that Irish citizens are treated as settled once they commence residence. From that point, as things stand, they will clearly be able to sponsor, but what about the Irish citizens planning to come with their non-British or non-Irish family? They will need entry clearance. How will it work for them?
Stuart C. McDonald
Is that because the fact that they are not in the UK obviously means that they cannot be treated as settled persons? Okay. I will ask Mr Morgan a question, if he is able to hear.
The Chair
Are you receiving us loud and clear?
Jeremy Morgan: Yes. I heard very little of the other evidence, but I heard that question.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I would like to highlight a particular hardship that UK citizens living in the EEA will face after March 2022. The background is that, in the negotiations over the withdrawal agreement, citizens’ rights were a first priority for both sides, and reciprocity was the watchword. In other words, whatever we got, they got, and vice versa. That was a clear, underlying consideration in the negotiations.
However, the right of citizens to return with their families to their country of origin was deemed outside the scope of the negotiations, and the result is a serious inequality between UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK, in which, perhaps rather perversely, the discrimination is by the UK against its own citizens. We put forward an amendment in our briefing paper, which has been picked up as amendment 14. This is not the place to analyse the issue in great detail, but I would like to look at the comparison that we draw there between two groups in the case study—a UK citizen living in the EU and an EU citizen living in the UK.
It is a familiar story: a young UK citizen gets on their bike and goes to find work in the EU. They meet someone there, they marry and have a family, and they settle there. At the time when the UK citizen leaves, they have parents in the UK who are in middle to late middle age and are perfectly healthy. The reassurance was there, both for the UK citizen and their parents, that should either parent or both parents become infirm and need to be cared for by their child, there would be no problem about the UK citizen returning with family to look after them.
Years later, say in 2030, one parent might be by herself and need that care. After March 2022, the UK national will be able to return with their EU partner only if their partner can enter under the new points-based system—we have yet to see it, but that is likely to be quite difficult—or if they can meet the minimum income requirement, which is £18,600, as I am sure you all know. It has already been estimated that about 40% of the people living in the UK would be unable to meet that requirement, but matters are complicated for those returning from abroad by the UK rules on what income counts for such purposes. The income of the partner—let us say, in this case, the EU partner—will not count unless they are already in the UK and have been earning that income for six months. So it is a Kafkaesque situation: you cannot get in unless you have the income, but your income counts only if you have already got in.
In practice, the UK national has to earn the minimum income requirement on their own, while at the same time caring for their parent. It will simply be impossible for many people—probably most. In practical terms, the other option is to move the UK parent, who is now elderly and frail, to an unfamiliar country where, for language reasons, they will be unable to speak to the doctors or anyone else. It is well established in the literature that any move, for someone of that age, is difficult. Think how much worse it would be in such conditions; for most people, it is not a serious option.
In practice, it means that UK citizens have to choose between their parents and the family they have made in the EU—a heart-rending choice that nobody should have to make. It is not a choice that a comparable EU citizen of the UK has to face, because they have an absolute right to return to their EU country with a partner they met in the UK, and it is not a requirement that the UK citizen now living in the EU had faced when they moved, because at that time they had a right to do so. It is a case of moving the goalposts long after the event. It is a real worry for many thousands of people in that situation. Be they young or old, most people who have left the UK will have parents back there. It is a worry in the sense that people worry about it; it may not become a practical reality, because who knows what will happen in the future? But it is a real concern, which could be got rid of by passing amendment 14 and removing both the injustice and the discrimination.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I think it would reduce such migration considerably, because the aggregation of contribution rules are absolutely vital. Most countries, including the UK, have minimum periods of contribution: unless you have contributed for the minimum period or contributed the minimum amount, you do not get any pension at all, so you are making your contribution, possibly without any benefit. The great advantage of the social security co-ordination rules is that they enable you to aggregate periods spent in different countries in the EU, including the UK, and you therefore overcome any such barrier, provided you have worked, in all, long enough to meet the requirements. In Britain, I think, the minimum contribution period is 10 years; in Italy, where I live, it is 20 years. These are substantial barriers.
Kate Green
Q
Jeremy Morgan: Concerns in the UK?
Kate Green
Yes.
Jeremy Morgan: All I can say, speaking as one of the many people in Europe who have taken advantage of the ability to move, is that we feel it would be a significantly reduced opportunity for young people in the UK now. Seventy-nine per cent of UK citizens living in Europe at present are of working age or younger. It is not a case, as some stereotypes have it, that we are all pensioners. I happen to be one, but I am one of the minority. Seventy-nine per cent are of working age or younger, who have taken advantage of the opportunities that the movement that we have been able to have has given to us personally but also, in terms of cultural exchange and awareness of practice in different countries, to Britain as a whole. They have established a considerable presence in Europe and it would be a pity for that not to be continued.
Kate Green
Q
Jeremy Morgan: Yes, it would, quite clearly. There are also questions as to whether they will be able to own property at all. Again, speaking of Italy, unless some bilateral arrangement is made, it will not be possible for British nationals to buy properties after the end of the transition unless they are resident in Italy. I am sure there are similar provisions in other countries.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: Thank you very much for bringing that up. One of the issues at present is that not only is there a lack of clarity about immigration status, but also it feeds into the lack of clarity as regards acquisition of nationality in two scenarios. One is British-born children—children born to Irish parents, and also Irish citizens wishing to naturalise. Because it is very often not clear on what basis Irish citizens are here, to the extent that it is not clear the question arises, “Are they without time limits and have they ever been in breach of immigration laws?” It is necessary also, from the perspective of the smooth working of British citizenship law, to absolutely tie down and clarify that Irish citizens are here, and on what basis. And yes, it will remove any possible question as regards children of Irish parents being British citizens and as regards access to naturalisation by Irish citizens who want it.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: I think you are bringing us into the question of the common travel area as such and its operation. That would be my interpretation of your question. One of the things I would expect to see in the future would be, if the United Kingdom does not stay within the Dublin system with the EU, that there will be an arrangement with the Irish Republic as regards asylum seekers, because of the open border. It would be logical to do that. I personally would prefer it if the common travel area, conceived as immigration control and co-operation between the two states, were on a more transparent, and maybe more statutory, footing—but that is a much bigger question. That is to some extent a different one from the status of Irish citizens, which is what the clause deals with. So, yes, in the end I would like to see the common travel area framed more transparently than it is at present.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I did not understand the beginning of the question. I think the question was: would this equalise the rights between EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU? The answer is yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: Yes. Actually, I am borrowing that idea to some extent from Alison Harvey, from whom I believe you are hearing evidence later on. She has written a paper for the two human rights commissions in Ireland on the birthright provisions in the Belfast agreement, and her eventual solution is that people of Northern Ireland should be granted the right of abode—the status given to British citizens—which takes away their need to identify as British in order to get the equivalent outcomes. Both the things I raised—family sponsorship and deportation/exclusion—would be addressed by that route. I come at it from thinking about Irish citizens or people identifying as Irish citizens and how they should be protected, so I would say that an alternative route is to focus on that and somehow put in additional protections for the people of Northern Ireland to address the Irish citizens within them.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That concludes our session with this panel of our witnesses, who I thank for coming here today or speaking via audio link.
Examination of Witnesses
Jill Rutter and David Goodhart gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to our second panel of witnesses. We are going to hear oral evidence from British Future and Policy Exchange; thank you very much to our witnesses for coming today. We have until 3.20 pm at the latest for this evidence session. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Jill Rutter: I am Jill Rutter from British Future.
David Goodhart: I am David Goodhart from Policy Exchange.
The Chair
You are very welcome. As we normally do, the Minister will start by asking you a couple of questions, and then the Opposition spokesman, and then other Members will come in. Perhaps other Members who wish to ask questions could intimate to the Clerk that they would like to ask a question.
Kevin Foster
Q
The first question is to Mr Goodhart. I noticed that the January 2018 report from Policy Exchange, “Immigration after Brexit”, welcomed the ending of free movement. As you will appreciate, the main provision of the Bill is to alter UK law to remove the provisions for free movement. I wondered how you saw that, and how you saw the system that will seek to replace it, which we confirmed in a policy statement in February.
My question to Ms Rutter is this: given, obviously, the area that she covers in her group’s interest, I wonder how she sees the working of the European settlement scheme, which has now had 3.5 million applications, in terms of securing the continuing rights of EU citizens in the UK, or EEA citizens in the UK to be exact, under the withdrawal agreement.
David Goodhart: A general comment on the Bill is that I think it is broadly welcome. Part of the motivation behind Brexit, and perhaps the 2019 election too, was a more moderate level of immigration. It is true that immigration has dropped down the list of things that people worry about, for obvious reasons, even before the covid crisis, but I think that was partly because people saw that the Government were actually doing something about it. And I think the Government have broadly got it right to focus very much on restricting lower-skill immigration.
I think the higher-skill immigration channels are probably somewhat more liberal even than the Migration Advisory Committee envisaged. I mean, there has been a big liberalisation both on the salary threshold and on the qualification threshold. Bringing the qualification threshold down from degree level to A-level is a big move, and it will be interesting to see whether those changes achieve the goal of an overall lower level of immigration. I think the perfectly reasonable and democratically willed goal is a lower equilibrium level of immigration without damaging the economy. That is the goal that the Government are hoping to achieve, and I think the measures they have introduced are likely to achieve that.
I think I would probably have gone for slightly tighter restrictions, perhaps keeping the degree-level qualification and then having more exemptions—the type of exemptions that we see in the agricultural sector and so on—because Governments have made promises about immigration many times in the last 15 years or so, and they have very clearly said that they want the overall levels to be lower. I think it is quite likely that in a couple of years’ time they will not really be significantly lower, and then that will set off a whole—but then we will have the levers, at least, to do something about that.
Jill Rutter: I would like to make some general points before coming to your question on the EU settlement scheme. I am going to draw from the National Conversation on Immigration, which is the biggest ever public engagement activity on this subject and included a nationally representative survey and discussions in 60 locations across the UK, including a good few of your constituencies.
Although public confidence in the ability of successive Governments to manage the immigration system has been and still remains low, most people are balancers who see the pressures and gains of migration. Generally, most people want immigration to be controlled, they want migrants who come here to make a contribution and they want everybody to be treated fairly. However, control means different things to different people. It can be about UK sovereignty, controlling numbers, a selective immigration system and enforcement.
There are two further points in terms of public confidence. Immigration is a national issue that people see through a local lens, so what happens locally is quite important, and people’s understanding of immigration policy is very top line. They do not know the details of our policy, such as the detail of the EU settlement scheme.
Treating people fairly is hard-wired into most people. Most people want to see fair play and humanity. They want immigration to be controlled, but that has to be fair, and you do not win support by sounding nasty. In terms of the EU settlement scheme, nobody wants people who are here to be sent home. Towards the end of the National Conversation, when Windrush was an issue, people also talked about the unfairness of the Windrush scheme.
In terms of the Bill, the devil is in the detail and policy will be set through immigration rules, but areas to look at perhaps include people who have been awarded pre-settled status being automatically granted settled status, rather than having to apply again, and also thinking about citizenship. The public find it very reassuring when people make the UK their home and then take up British citizenship. That can sound a bit counterintuitive, but there is a preference for people becoming citizens, rather than having guest-worker schemes. On immigration policy, you could look at how one can make the acquisition of citizenship smoother and easier—by reviewing the cost of citizenship, for example.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: As I just mentioned, it has certainly dropped down in terms of priority and level of anxiety, but pretty consistently over the past 20-odd years about two thirds of the public have said that immigration is either too high or much too high. That may have come down a little bit recently. It has certainly come down in terms of priority, partly because other things have been happening, even prior to covid. It is also because of a feeling that, with Brexit finally happening and the end of free movement from the European Union, we would be in control of it again, so a source of anxiety was removed.
Jill Rutter: To echo what David said, immigration has certainly dropped down of the list of issues of public concern. It is much less salient. Ipsos MORI has also tracked the same group of people over a five-year period, and has seen a slight warming of attitudes. That is evident in other polling data, too.
I think the reason for that is, first of all, as David said, that people feel that now we are leaving the European Union, the UK has control over immigration from the EU. But also the referendum itself enabled a much more open, public debate about immigration in pubs and among groups of friends. Inevitably, in that discussion, there is a kind of moderation of our attitudes. That is a reason, too. Again, there is a displacement effect: covid-19 has pushed immigration off the news agenda.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: One third of food manufacturing’s employees are from the EU. That went up from virtually nothing in 2004—it is extraordinary what has happened in food manufacturing. In hospitality the figure is about 20%. The NHS has some special exemptions, but overall its figure is about 5% or 6%—rather higher on doctors than on nurses in percentage terms. Hospitality will be in a peculiar state anyway because of covid-19, so perhaps that is not such a big issue.
Do not forget, these people are not disappearing; it is incremental as people leave over time. That will be interesting to see. It may be that covid-19 will prompt EU citizens to leave in larger numbers. I do not know, Jill, whether you know if there has been any research in the past few weeks on that. That could be a problem, I guess.
Assuming that that will not change things hugely, the whole point of ending free movement is that food manufacturers either invest more in automation or they have to make the jobs at the bottom end of the labour market more attractive to people who are already here, which does not seem to me to be a foolish goal. That means that they will have to pay the jobs better and make them more pleasant in some way. That is surely a good thing.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: I don’t quite get that, sorry.
Holly Lynch
If the MAC, as an organisation, is assessing where we have workforce shortages, that only informs our immigration approach. It should also be informing our domestic skills strategy.
David Goodhart: Well, there are lots of organisations that are constantly looking at recruitment problems. There is a whole industry of it, as you know.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: We do not really have a skills policy in this country. Where do we spend most of our money on education and training, post school? On sending almost 50% of school leavers to three-year or four-year residential university courses, which they choose themselves, with absolutely no bearing on the needs of the economy or their own future employment needs. There is huge investment in the university sector; universities are private bodies that compete with each other. We do not have a national skills policy. We introduced the apprenticeship levy, but still less than 10% of school leavers go into apprenticeships—this is a different subject.
One of the potential upsides of the end of free movement is that it is going to help to concentrate our minds on getting better alignment of what we spend on education and training and what people and the economy need. Obviously, the covid-19 crisis will feed into that. I have been involved in some work at Policy Exchange on reviving the idea of the individual learning account and having a more ambitious version of it for people over the age of 21 who want to train or retrain in some area.
There is a very good case for suspending the apprenticeship levy and just having a much simpler system in which you have 50% of the apprenticeship paid for by the employer and 50% by the state, and extending it to much smaller employers, too. This is a slightly separate issue, I know.
Holly Lynch
Q
Jill Rutter: I fully agree that skills policy and immigration policy need to be much more closely aligned. Whether the MAC is the best instrument to do it, given its current remit, I do not know. There are arguments for extending the MAC and bringing in other expertise. At the moment it is very labour market economist-focused—its remit has largely focused on labour market impacts. There are arguments for expanding the MAC.
I also think it is worth looking at the migration skills surcharge, which is a very blunt instrument. It applies to non-EU migrants; employers who bring in non-EU migrants have to pay a surcharge. The money just disappears into the Treasury, and I do not think it incentivises training at all, so that is something to look at as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jill Rutter: A whole load of factors influence public opinion. Our national media and political debates obviously have a hugely important impact, but so does what happens locally and your own personal contact with migrants. If you have friends who are migrants and refugees, you have another reference point to add to what is going on and what is being played out on the internet or on social media.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jill Rutter: Absolutely, and that was very evident in the polling that we did: those with no personal contact with migrants and refugees as friends or work colleagues had more negative opinions. I think that that accounts for the difference in attitudes between some of our more diverse cities and our less diverse towns, but political discourse and media stories have an impact as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: I see what you are getting at. I think that there is some truth in the argument that when it is on the front pages of the newspapers every day, it generates a sort of generalised anxiety that is perhaps not justified. But actually if you look at the historic trend from the late ’90s, when immigration started really taking off again, it is remarkable how anxiety about immigration and actual immigration levels really do track each other very closely, although that may have diverged a bit recently.
I also think it is not really fair how it is often said in passing how xenophobic our debate about immigration has been. I do not think that our debate about immigration has been remotely xenophobic.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: Yes, really. Almost every time somebody talks about immigration and restricting it, they also say in parentheses how marvellous immigration is.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: “Go home” vans lasted about five seconds—
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart—and that was against illegal immigration. You are not in favour of illegal immigration, are you? You are in favour of illegal immigrants going home.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: No, I don’t think that was xenophobic.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: It was encouraging illegal immigrants to contact the authorities to get a grant in order to go home.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: Oh, the Nigel Farage—okay, there is a sort of xenophobic tinge to some of it, but this was a very minority part even of the leave campaign. I think there is an interesting point about opinion in Scotland, which is somewhat different, partly because there has been a somewhat different rhetoric in Scotland.
Actually, I think there is a very good case for having a different visa regime in Scotland once this Bill becomes law. I know that the Government rather set their face against that at the moment, but I think it would remove a source of antagonism between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it ought to be perfectly easy to manage, so long as we have a proper internal status checking system—something that is sometimes called the hostile environment. It is not the hostile environment; it is a system of checking people’s status. A separate system for Scotland works only if you have a reliable status checking system—by employers particularly, but also by landlords and others. There is a really good case for it but, as I say, it only works if you have a proper status checking system.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jill Rutter, may we come back to you? Is there not also an issue about the fact that, compared with other countries—Canada being a particular example—very little effort has ever been made by UK Governments on an integration strategy or on investing in smoothing over some of the challenges that arise because of migration in particular pockets of the country? We had a small fund—I cannot even remember the name—that Gordon Brown introduced, which was scrapped by Theresa May, only for her to introduce a small pocket fund called the controlling migration fund. At best, is that half-hearted compared with what other countries have attempted?
Jill Rutter: Absolutely. Our getting integration right is core to building public confidence in the immigration system. In England, we have an integrated communities Green Paper. Sajid Javid, as a former Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, Home Secretary and Chancellor, is a champion of that but, since his departure, unfortunately, we have not had high-level champions in Government. For a period, we had no integration Minister at all.
Much of integration, too, involves devolved powers—education and so on—and I think more needs to be done by the devolved Administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Scotland has a refugee integration strategy, but it is very much about refugees, whereas integration properly as a two-way relationship is an “everybody” issue. Certainly, more action is needed there, in all the Administrations.
As regards the Bill, making immigration and integration policy coherent is something that you should consider—making the acquisition of citizenship easier, allowing asylum seekers who have been here for a long time to integrate and work, and incentivising integration through the new points-based system. For example, more points could be awarded to people who speak English, whatever their job will be in the UK—so using the points-based system to incentivise integration.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: Yes. That is something I have been interested in for a very long time. We should almost have an immigration and integration Department. The problem is, integration is very easy to talk about but, in a liberal society, it is very difficult to tell people where to live or to send their children to school. There are parts of the country where integration is a real problem; there are other parts of the country where it is not at all. You mentioned Canada, but it is a slightly special case; compared with comparable European countries, we do not do too badly.
The thing that I worry about at the moment is schools. Integration in schools is going backwards in most parts of England. In other words, schools are becoming less well integrated. In any given town, you are more likely to have a school that is overwhelmingly one ethnic minority, or ethnic minorities in general, and then another, almost entirely white school. That problem is getting worse, not better. That is something that is in our power to do something about.
We have ways of counting this, of measuring it. We have where people live and where they go to school, and we can measure that by different ethnic group. We can tell which areas are getting better, and which worse. It would be a really helpful thing, not necessarily every year, but every two or three years, to publish some kind of list of what has been happening in different places—some kind of integration/segregation list of local authorities. That would be a huge incentive for all the most segregated local authorities not to be right at the bottom—not to be the most segregated local authority in the country. There are things you can do, and I think we should focus attention on schools, because it is possible to play with boundaries and nudge people into a better school mix.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Jill, I note that you are a co-author of a document published in September 2018, “The National Conversation on Immigration”. I wonder how much that document reflected some of the feeling in the north of England and parts of the country that maybe do not see immigration as allowing somebody to make your coffee in the morning, clean your house or work as your au pair; those that, as we heard this morning, see it more as a limitless supply of Romanians and Bulgarians who can fill your job if you want a pay rise. Do we have a north-south divide on attitudes to immigration, and do you think that was a factor in the fall of red wall seats at the last general election?
Jill Rutter: It is not so much a north-south divide as an inner city-town divide, or a city-town divide. There are some differences in attitudes between the more diverse cities and the less diverse towns, and that can be partly put down to social contact, but there are other factors. In some of those so-called red wall towns, people have relatively little social contact with migrants, and where they do, people have perhaps come to do specific jobs in specific industries. For example, the distribution sector is heavily reliant on a migrant workforce, and poor management of some of those local issues has perhaps impacted on public concerns.
In England, we have the controlling migration fund, which is quite a successful way of dealing with those local impacts: I think its money has been well spent. However, that funding will end, and no successor to that fund has yet been announced. It is vital that that fund is continued, and that its funding is increased if we can manage to do so.
David Goodhart: One of the problems with free movement was that it was so difficult to plan infrastructure: you had huge waves of immigration, and then it fell. We had that experience in 2011-12, when immigration came right down—I seem to remember that the Government almost hit their 100,000 target; net immigration was about 130,000 or 140,000—and then went whizzing up again when the impact of the eurozone crisis hit. That may not be a huge amount when spread across the whole country or lots of big urban centres, but it makes it very difficult to plan your doctors’ surgeries, your school intakes and so on at a micro level. That has been one of the really big problems with free movement, and I think it ought to be more manageable in the future. That has been one of the really big problems with free movement, and I think it ought to be more manageable in the future.
Mr Goodwill
Q
David Goodhart: It will make flows more predictable, because they will be under our control. If, as I was saying right at the beginning, it turns out that the system is, in a sense, too liberal, it can be made less liberal and the numbers can be brought down, because people coming in need to have a visa; they are not coming in willy-nilly.
This also has an impact on the integration story. If your immigration going forward is overwhelmingly skilled workers and students—there will still be areas like asylum where this does not count—you are talking about mainly highly skilled people who will, at the very least, speak English well, which is a pretty important thing when it comes to integration.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Q
Jill Rutter: This is very much a skeleton Bill, and most immigration policy is determined in immigration rules. It is an issue in itself in that there have been thousands and thousands of immigration rule changes since 2010. The rules are presented to Parliament, which can only accept or reject them. No MP—even those well versed in immigration policy—can keep up with all the changes in the rules. We need to think about root-and branch-immigration reform. I do not think the current commission on simplifying the immigration rules will come up with the answer.
Perhaps we should look at what social security does. Social security is another complex area where most policy is determined in secondary legislation. There is the Social Security Advisory Committee—independent experts who scrutinise the law and make recommendations in plain English to Parliament—but we need a proper system of scrutiny. I cannot really answer your question about the Bill itself, because most of what will happen will be determined in either the rules or the operation of immigration law in the Home Office.
The last thing to say is that you cannot have an efficient immigration system on the cheap. Britain does very well in the speed at which it processes visas and citizenship cases compared with many other countries, but it performs badly when it comes to asylum cases. We need a properly resourced Home Office and for staff to be trained and supported, too.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Jill Rutter: The Government have invested quite a lot in terms of informing people about the EU settlement scheme. However, that information campaign needs to be extended, particularly when we come close to the cut-off date, and it must be methodical. There should be an information campaign, but we should also use employers and councils, people who actually have contact with EU citizens, to disseminate information. Employers could do a lot with their work force.
David Goodhart: May I make a point on this? One thing the Government should be looking out for down the road is that it is almost certainly the case that a few thousand people, possibly even tens of thousands of people, will not be captured by the EU registration scheme for whatever reason. The truth is that we are going to have a de facto amnesty for those people. That sets a precedent, and I imagine there will be all sorts of challenges, in that people representing the interests of non-EU illegal immigrants are going to say, “Well, these people are in effect illegal now, and yet you’re giving them an amnesty. What about us?” There are estimated to be about 1 million illegal immigrants in this country, so there is a potentially a legal minefield ahead of us on that one.
The Chair
Right. I think that ends our session. Thank you very much to our witnesses for coming and giving your evidence. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Bella Sankey and Adrian Berry gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon and welcome to this Public Bill Committee. We will now hear oral evidence from Detention Action and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Thank you for coming today; we have until 4 pm. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the sake of the record, please?
Bella Sankey: My name is Bella Sankey and I am the director of Detention Action.
Adrian Berry: My name is Adrian Berry. I am a barrister and chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.
The Chair
We will start with a question from the Minister, then the Opposition spokesman, and then other colleagues will come in as they wish.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: I do not think that simplifying the immigration rules has much impact on inbound migration per se. It is obviously a good thing from the point of view of good rule making and from a user perspective. The more pressing question is how you integrate the intention to create free trade agreements with the EU and with other countries, and the migration routes there, with the Home Office proposals from January 2020.
We have the Home Office paper on the future of immigration, and then we have a parallel universe where there are free trade agreements with other migration routes and mobility rates contained in them—not just with the EU, but the proposed ones with Australia, New Zealand and the United States, drawing on precedents from existing EU free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and Canada. There appears to be no joined-up thinking in Government about what impact those mobility routes have on the Home Office proposals of January 2020. It is very important and necessary and urgent to see how that joined-up economic migration regime is going to work, and I have yet to see a Government paper on that.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: On clause 5, you already have powers to amend ineffective retained EU law under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so you can make regulations under Henry VIII powers to deal with any deficiencies in retained EU law and social security. You have given yourself additional powers under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to make regulations for social security co-ordination, so you already have two sets of Henry VIII powers. You are currently negotiating a third social security treaty, annexed to the draft free trade agreement. If that is agreed with the EU, you will have another Act of Parliament that you will need to implement that. Why do you need a fourth set in clause 5? If there is anything left in social security law that you have not covered under the array of Henry VIII powers that you are arming yourselves with, primary legislation and the scrutiny of MPs in this room at the highest level is required.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: It is devolved because it is a devolved power under the Scotland Act 1998.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, of course, but there needs to be primary legislation in whatever format, in my view, and not statutory instruments using the affirmative procedure.
Holly Lynch
Q
Bella Sankey: Thanks very much, Ms Lynch. For some time now, Detention Action has been working with a coalition of civil society organisations, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall and others, and with MPs across the divide—Conservative, Democratic Unionist Party, Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat MPs—to build a consensus around the idea that there needs to be a strict statutory time limit on immigration detention.
Immigration detention is a peculiarity of our public policy, in that there is no time limit. Unlike the criminal justice system or the mental health system, you can currently be detained indefinitely for months or years, and redetained indefinitely for months or years, without any statutory time limit in place if you are subject to immigration control.
It is a sweeping power that was introduced in 1971, when a series of immigration Acts acted to limit immigration from Commonwealth countries with the explicit intention of trying to reduce black and brown migration to the UK. The system was set up then, and has not been properly amended or looked at by Parliament. From the 1970s right up until the 1990s, a handful of people were detained, but it is now the case that thousands and thousands of people are detained each year. At present, as we sit here, 12 people in immigration detention have been there for more than one year.
The system is arbitrary and cruel. There is a crisis of self-harm in the system. Every day, my caseworkers speak to people who have suicidal ideation as a result of the indefinite nature of their detention. That is what everyone who has experienced the system will tell you: it is the indefinite nature that creates psychological torture and uncertainty. That means that people begin to lose the will to go on and live. We are seeking to implement a time limit through this Bill.
The Chair
Order. Can I just say that this is a Public Bill Committee, not a Select Committee, so we have to be focused laser-like on the Bill? I remind witnesses and questioners of that very important point. We do not need any general discussion of the issues around it; we are just talking about the Bill.
Holly Lynch
Q
Bella Sankey: Absolutely, and even if there is a very small error rate and there is perfect communication in that system, which I think we can all accept given the scale of the challenge is going to be very unlikely, those people will be subject to indefinite detention under our system. The link with the Bill is that the Bill does not put in place any time limit at all for EEA nationals or anyone else.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry, you have already outlined some of your concerns about the sweeping Henry VIII powers in the Bill. Would it be fair to say that not only does that restrict the ability of Parliament to scrutinise further developments in immigration policy and immigration law, but that it provides a great degree of uncertainty for immigration lawyers, who are working with people in the system about what those future policies and approaches might look like?
Adrian Berry: Yes, that would be fair. What has happened—to give you an example—is that EU law has been domesticated and retained under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then there are clauses in the Bill that say that the law continues to apply, except in so far as it is inconsistent with immigration functions or immigration Acts. So you end up with law, which is good law in this country, but it may not apply if someone judges it to be inconsistent.
We look to the law to know what it means. We look for legal certainty and for good administration. In clause 5(5), and in paragraph 4(1) and 4(2) of schedule 1, you find the same legislative drafting technique used—retained EU law applies except in so far it is inconsistent with—and then a general statement—immigration Acts or an immigration function or regulations made. How is the ordinary person, never mind the legislator, to know whether the law is good or not in a particular area if you draft like that? You need to make better laws. Make it certain, and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions. There must be a laundry list in the Home Office of these provisions and it would be better if they are expressed in the schedule to the Bill.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, because service users—us, the citizens—need to know what the law means. We are entitled to understand that. People who are affected by it need to know what it is. It is not good rule making to do it like this.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: They might be leading disordered lives. They might have things happening in their lives that concentrate their minds elsewhere—family difficulties, work difficulties. They might be affected by coronavirus. They might have mental health impairments. They might be long-term sick. They might be old. They might be demented. There is a whole host of reasons that are part of the ordinary warp and weft of life why somebody might miss a deadline. Not everybody has my focus on the interests of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and its implementing provisions. Ordinary people do not. There needs to be a benevolent regime that allows them to make late applications.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes. You apply late; they grant it. It is that simple. Why would you not do that? Somebody wants to regularise their status and they have withdrawal agreement rights—why muck around?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: The Government set their own Executive policy for making immigration rules anyway; the Bill does not change that. What the Bill does do is take away your powers to make primary legislation and give them to Ministers by way of regulations. If you want to reverse the way in which powers are distributed in the constitution, that is a matter for you, but personally speaking I think it is a bad idea.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: The Bill does not change the situation that immigration rules are laid before Parliament under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. That continues anyway. What the Bill is doing is something discrete and different. It gives Ministers the power to amend primary legislation and retained EU law, which are two separate things. At the moment, the Home Secretary lays immigration rules before Parliament, and they deal with executive policy, not with laws. So, although they are called immigration rules, strictly speaking they are not legislation. The difference here is that this is a paragraph on legislation.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: The Home Office position and the UK Government position is to draw on precedent-based treaties that the EU has with Canada, Japan and South Korea, and those treaties have mobility routes that reflect General Agreement on Trade in Services mode 4 commitments for persons who are coming here as short-term business visitors, key personnel, key senior staff and specialists, and also routes in free trade agreements for independent professionals, contractual suppliers and so on. All of those routes would be for 12 to 24 months; none of them would lead to settlement or permanent residence for short-term business visitors.
The UK’s ambition is that it will attract highly skilled people in that way, but only on a temporary basis, and if you are creating an economic migration regime in the Home Office paper, as was trailed in January, and you make no mention of that, it is some omission in the overall scheme, because you need to understand how it works.
The second thing that you really need to clearly understand is that the UK is like a little moon next to the planet Earth of the EU on this. There is a 450-million person territory next door to us that is setting its own economic migration rules and it is competing with us, and if you do not bear in mind what will happen in terms of economic migration in the EU—that you can come in for service provision or for work and have a route to settlement—and you are still creating this inbound regime into the UK, then you are not thinking about the impact of living next door to a much larger jurisdiction, and it is critical in the national interest that you do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Bella Sankey: Thanks very much for the question. The Bill will mean that, for the first time, EU citizens will have the deportation laws that currently apply to non-EU citizens applied to them. Those rules are blunt, they are harsh and they are dehumanising. In 2007, the last Labour Government brought in a power of mandatory deportation for anybody who receives a sentence of 12 months or longer. In 2014, when Theresa May was Home Secretary, the coalition Government introduced additional legislation that meant that if somebody was seeking to resist deportation on the grounds that they had a loving parental relationship with a child in the UK, or a child who was a British citizen, they would only be able to do so if the effect of their deportation would have an unduly harsh impact on that child.
The Home Office defines “unduly harsh” as “excessively cruel”, so at present it is insufficient, if you are a non-EEA national, to show that the impact on your child would be cruel; you need to show excessive cruelty. The effect of that provision means that child cruelty is legislated into our primary legislation. It means that the courts, when they are making these decisions, are forced to allow a deportation to go ahead even though they may find on the evidence that serious psychological harm will be done to a child. The courts are clearly very uncomfortable about that and have said explicitly, in terms, that immigration law can no longer be reconciled with family law principles, because family law principles require the best interests of a child to be taken into account in all public decision making.
That is the situation as it stands. The impact of these laws over the past decade or more has been to cause untold trauma and pain, particularly to Britain’s black community, who are disproportionately impacted because, as is well-known, they are a community that is over-represented in the criminal justice system and subject to social and economic deprivation.
The issue from earlier this year that you mention was, of course, a charter flight to Jamaica. The majority of the people booked on to that flight by the Home Office had drugs convictions—a lot of them when they were teenagers or a long time ago. The law as it stands did not allow any of that to be taken into account, because of the automatic and mandatory power to seek deportation of those individuals.
A number of our clients were victims of modern-day slavery, grooming and trafficking, but again, they found themselves in detention without an opportunity to raise the fact that they had been subjected to that, and of course the large majority of them had been in the UK since they were two or three years old and had been in primary school here and secondary school here. I see the Minister does not seem to be agreeing with this account.
Kevin Foster
No.
Bella Sankey: But it is all there on the public record. As I say, the law as it stands has applied in a blunt and discriminatory way against the black community, and this Bill now proposes to extend those harsh provisions to all EU citizens.
I spoke only recently to a woman who was actually removed to Poland on 30 April, leaving behind an 11-year-old child here. She felt that the system had already become unbearable. She was taken into detention following a conviction for theft, and when she was in Yarl’s Wood, without legal aid and without help and assistance, she decided that it would be easier for her and less traumatic for her 11-year-old son if she just went back to Poland. This Bill is going to bring about thousands more Sandras, thousands more family separations, in completely unjust circumstances.
Mr Goodwill
Q
If, at the moment, the law is being used to actually frustrate the legal process of removing people who have no right to be in the UK, do we need to improve the law to make that work better? I am sure you would agree that it is not unreasonable to expect people who have committed serious criminal offences and have no right to be in the UK to be removed under the law of the land.
Adrian Berry: I believe in the rule of law. I think it is a good thing if we have judicial scrutiny of executive decisions, including deportation, removal and detention decisions, in order to ensure that they are lawful and consistent with the values that we have embedded in our Human Rights Act provisions and in our civil liberties provisions and statutes.
To answer your question directly, a lot of judicial reviews are settled on issuing, because the Home Office realises that it has made a mistake and it compromises on them. The second stage at which they are settled is when permission to apply for judicial review is granted and the Home Office realises that it has made a mistake and it compromises; it settles and pays the costs, on a polluter-pays principle. Very few judicial reviews go the distance to a substantive hearing, so you have to be very, very careful in measuring the data between the number of claims lodged and the number of claims that are determined at a final hearing.
What we do know is that judges routinely grant injunctions against removals, on the basis that they see a point in holding the ring in order to determine the true and lawful position in the situation. Whatever someone has done, all their interests—including the public policy interest in their expulsion and, on occasion, the public policy interest in their retention—are to be weighed up before a lawful decision is made. Judicial review is one check on it, in the absence of a proper full range of appeals, that allows that to take place.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Bella Sankey: The thing that is striking about this Bill is that it is being brought forward following two previous Immigration Bills, in 2014 and 2016, that implemented the hostile environment. Since those Bills came on to the statute book, of course, the Windrush scandal has come to national attention, yet in spite of that, every single aspect of the hostile environment remains in place, and there is nothing in this Bill to address that. Worse still, the Bill now extends the hostile environment to EU citizens. The hostile environment has been found in terms, in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, to lead directly to racial discrimination. Yet, as I say, there is no effort in the Bill to deal with the fact that, as things stand, we have imported immigration control into the country—employers, bank managers and landlords are all expected to be immigration officers—and we have made this country a much less pleasant place to live if you do not look British, if you do not sound British, or if you do not have a British name.
It is quite shocking that, following the Windrush scandal, this new piece of immigration legislation has been brought to Parliament without any attempt to deal with the very clear problems in the existing immigration regime.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Bella Sankey: I welcome the sentiment to use this moment to level up protections for people in the UK regardless of their skin colour. Unfortunately, though, what the Bill does is level down protections. As things stand, EU citizens have protections against deportation that have not been transferred into the Bill, so will no longer apply to EU citizens and will not apply to non-EEA nationals—predominantly black and brown people.
Similarly in our immigration detention system, there is nothing in the Bill to provide the kind of safeguards that EU citizens currently have against detention. We know that the system discriminates. If you are Australian and you are detained, 90% of Australians will be released before 28 days. If you are Jamaican and you are detained, only 40% of Jamaicans will be released before 28 days. You are right: there is direct racial discrimination hardwired into our immigration system at present, but nothing in the Bill actually deals with that. It only downgrades the rights of non-British citizens in this country.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Q
Adrian Berry: On the right of appeal, you will be aware that in section 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 there was a provision for making a right of appeal by way of statutory instrument, and that that was exercised in the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
Order. I know it is unnatural, but you have to face us, or the microphones will not pick you up.
Adrian Berry: Sorry. There is a power in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to create a right of appeal for those who are refused under the settlement scheme. A statutory instrument was laid and came into force on 27 January in the form of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which covers most of the terrain but, to deal with your point, does not cover invalid applications that are made under the EU settlement scheme, because they are not considered to have been properly made. There is no appeal right for those people. That would be a welcome amendment.
Briefly on a declaratory scheme, given how many people have been registered under the EU settlement scheme, there is a need to encourage maximum compliance and to make sure that deadlines are extended, if necessary, beyond June 2020 next year. There may come a point when the full merits of a declaratory scheme, which I would have supported at the outset, become more manifest to deal with the remaining cases, but at the moment we need to ensure compliance and a full subscription take-up of the scheme.
Bella Sankey: It is deeply problematic that there is not a declaratory scheme for EU citizens. Again, the echoes of Windrush should be considered. Wendy Williams, in her report published last month, found that the Windrush scandal was entirely “foreseeable and avoidable”.
At the time that the Immigration Act 2014 was passed, I worked for Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, and we warned the Home Office that the Windrush scandal, and other scandals, would happen because of the hostile environment that was being introduced. I say again in 2020 that there will be a similar scandal, this time for EU citizens, because the very same problems that the Windrush generation encountered will be real and evident for EU citizens who do not manage to apply for the EU settled status scheme in time. Of course, they will often be people who are more vulnerable and in harder-to-reach groups, and will be made more marginalised by the fact that they have become essentially undocumented.
One of the other big problems with the Bill when thinking about redress and natural justice is that, at present, legal aid is not available in immigration cases. That was one of the many reasons why, during the Windrush scandal, people found themselves being detained and wrongfully deported. There was no access to lawyers for that generation that came to the UK post war to help us to rebuild. Similarly, there will be no access to lawyers for EU citizens who are seeking to regularise their status after the applications close. That is why one of the other amendments that Detention Action is proposing to the Bill is to bring civil legal aid back within scope, at the very least for article 8 cases where people’s private and family lives and human rights are at stake.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Q
Adrian Berry: The flexibility that you need to make individual rules about economic migration you get from the immigration rules, which are of course not the subject of this Bill. If you want to change part 6A, which contains the current points-based system for economic migration, the Secretary of State can lay new or amended immigration rules, with the assistance of the Immigration Minister.
Clause 4 here is designed to deal with primary legislation and retained EU law, not with the immigration rules, so if the FSB thinks the clause is changing the economic immigration rules system, it is wrong in that respect. It is changing primary legislation about the administration of immigration control, not the specific rules for economic migration, which are made under the immigration rules.
Kate Green
Q
Adrian Berry: The draft social security treaty is attached to the draft free trade agreement, which is available on the Government website now, from last month. It includes short-term healthcare coverage for people who are travelling for short-term purposes, such as tourism and temporary work contracts, to receive what we call the EHIC card scheme. It also includes a system for old age pensions to be paid overseas in other EU member states and uprated to be equivalent to home pension rates here.
What is missing, and what we are losing, is disability pensions being paid overseas, and healthcare, which was attached to old age pensions and to disability pensions under the EU co-ordination regime, will no longer be attached for pensioners who retire in Spain, Cyprus or wherever, from 2021 onwards. At the moment, it is a bonus ball. If you get a pension paid overseas, healthcare coverage is included under the EU co-ordination regime and the bill is paid by the UK Treasury. In the new proposed UK treaty, that is going; it is just your old age pension uprating.
The UK has split the interrelationship between healthcare and social security and pensions, which is contained in the EU co-ordination regime, into two silos: social security and pensions in one silo, in this Bill, and healthcare arrangements under the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019. There is no draft healthcare treaty attached to the UK’s draft free trade agreement at the moment, and no healthcare provisions included in this draft social security treaty. Both of those are missing.
Additionally missing is the S2 scheme, which we have at the moment, for people to make arrangements, prior to travel, to receive hard-to-find treatment in EU member states, if they cannot get NHS treatment in the UK. There is no S2 scheme for British citizens to go and receive that form of healthcare—healthcare that is unavailable here—and to get it in EU states. The cross-border health directive, which allows people to have their prescriptions and pick them up in EU states, will effectively be repealed. There is no provision for that in the draft social security treaty.
Who loses out? The disabled. They will not be able to get private health insurance to travel on holiday. It will have a direct and differential impact on people with physical and mental impairments. It will also have an impact on anybody who thinks they are going to be retiring to Spain, Italy or France. They will not have healthcare insurance there, even if they get their pension uprated. It is a big loss.
Kate Green
Q
Adrian Berry: It is, but it would be in an international treaty arrangement. The problem is that it is certainly differential treatment. It impacts on them directly because something that they would have had, which has been protected under EU law and under the withdrawal agreement, will not be available to them. New movers—disabled people who move for the first time in 2021, at the end of the transition period—will not have that. Travel for them will become very problematic.
It is interesting that even for the new EHIC card scheme in the draft treaty, the really expensive stuff is now carved out. In the new EHIC card arrangement, which is in the draft treaty, if you want chemotherapy, dialysis or oxygen therapy, you have to get prior authorisation from the UK Government now, even if you are going on holiday. You do not have to do that at present. It is clearly a rationing device that will further impact on British citizens with long-term health needs who, frankly, deserve a holiday. They will find it very difficult to have that because they will not be able to have the necessary insurance and comfort that they need, in order to travel in safety.
Kate Green
Q
Adrian Berry: It is interesting. In part 1 of schedule 1 they repeal some retained EU law, which is to be expected in the provisions on the workers regulation. That is a political choice. What is more unclear is that other retained bits of EU law, which relate to victims of trafficking or victims’ rights where people are victims of crime, remain on our statute book, but may be disapplied by this provision, if they are judged to be inconsistent with the provisions that are to be made in respect of immigration. We do not know whether they are or they are not. We do not even know the exhaustive list of these parts of retained EU law that help vulnerable people, such as victims of trafficking, because they are not spelled out on the face of the Bill.
At the very least, there needs to be a schedule spelling out the parts of retained EU law that may be affected by paragraph 6. Better than that, if you are going to repeal these parts of retained EU law, because you think they are inconsistent with the Immigration Acts, say so and put it in primary legislation, if that is your choice. Make a better law.
The Chair
Thank you for coming this afternoon. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witness
Luke Piper gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Mr Piper. I am Edward Leigh, Chair of this Public Bill Committee. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman will ask questions. We have only 15 minutes. Minister, would you like to begin?
Kevin Foster
Q
Luke Piper: First, thank you for allowing me to attend by telephone. In general, it is true that the EU settlement scheme is there to provide people with their status and their rights to live in the UK under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It is a great achievement of the Government’s to set the scheme up. Our concern is about those that do not apply in time and fail to acquire the status by the deadline of June next year. The worry is that those that miss the deadline will face the problems that some of the previous witnesses have spoken about—the risks to jobs and homes, and access to healthcare, welfare and so forth. Although there have been over 3 million applications to the scheme, it is not a reflection of the numbers of people that have applied or have succeeded, or of the types of status that are under it. This is more about an issue of recognising that there is a potential problem here. Yes, freedom of movement will end and there is a new status that people can acquire, but it is about creating safety mechanisms and ensuring that there is a safe passage for people to move from their old status to their new one. That is what we would like to see amended in the Bill to ensure that that security is there.
Kevin Foster
Q
Luke Piper: I will defer to the points that Mr Berry made in his presentation previously on the issues of social security co-ordination. Our central concern is that at this stage much of the rights-based provisions of the withdrawal agreement, both under title II and title III, have been delegated away by the Bill and the previous European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act to various Ministers, and there is a lot of legislation and regulations that we have still to see to fully understand how those rights and obligations will be implemented.
Holly Lynch
Q
Luke Piper: Yes. There are clear points as to why we feel physical documents will help people in their day-to-day lives. First, it is the No. 1 ask of our members and people that we speak to who are EU citizens in this country. They would like physical proof of their status to live here. It is something that unfortunately has not been followed through.
Indeed, the House of Lords European Union Committee made the point that there are real worries that those without physical proof will face similar problems to those faced by the Windrush generation; there is a risk that they will face discrimination because they do not have physical proof of their status. We also had concerns about the availability of an online status; there may be instances when the status is not available for IT reasons. Also, online systems can be hacked. There are real security risks.
Finally, we also have concerns about the newness of the digital-only scheme. It is essentially being tested on over 3 million people. A digital-only identity system like this has never existed before in the UK, and it is being rolled out for a massive cohort of people. We had rather hoped that there would be an opportunity to trial the scheme substantively before people were pushed into a digital-only set-up. Those are the key reasons why we desire a physical document.
Holly Lynch
Q
Luke Piper: The Bill brings freedom of movement to an end at the end of this year, but it is not clear what legal status people will have between the end of the transition period, which is at the end of the year, and the end of June—the end of the grace period. There has been no clarity about, or understanding of, what legal rights people will have. We have simply been told that certain checks, such as on the right to work, will not be undertaken, but it is not clear to us or our members how people will be distinguished, both in practice and in law.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: I caught the majority of the question, but let me repeat what I think you are asking: do we have an understanding of the number and type of people who will not apply on time? Is that correct?
Stuart C. McDonald
Exactly.
Luke Piper: Much as with the number of people due to apply for the scheme, we do not know. We have no idea of the exact number of EU citizens who need to apply under the EU settlement scheme, so we will not have an understanding of the number of people who miss the deadline. An illustration is the way we look at Bulgarian citizens in the UK. Their population has been estimated at 109,000; however, as of the end of March, over 171,000 Bulgarian nationals had submitted applications. It looked as though Bulgarian residents had already applied, yet more applications keep coming. We do not have a clear indication of the exact number of people who will not apply on time.
As for the type of people, we know that those most at risk and who are marginalised and disenfranchised are very likely to not apply, purely for the reasons that Mr Berry set out—various issues to do with connection to society, disability and so forth. Our concern is that the most marginalised and vulnerable in our society will be at risk, and that has been corroborated by a lot of organisations. You will hear from a representative of The Children’s Society after me, who will set out the particular risks for children and young persons. Conversely, we have significant concerns about older people, particularly those with issues such as mental ill health and dementia.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: That is a very important point. The most successful UK scheme that involved people signing up to certain policies was the digital-only scheme—the switch by everyone to digital TV. That was successful, as 97% of people had signed up by the time analogue TV was switched off. If you place that projection over the estimated population of EU citizens, and say that a remaining 3% will not switch, you are looking at more than 100,000 people who will lose their legal right to live in this country and will face all the problems that we talked about of not having a home, losing their job, and potentially facing detention and removal from the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: The declaratory model is what we have advocated for. If we follow through with a constitutive system, which is what is being proposed, simply improving awareness of the scheme will not be sufficient, as is demonstrated by even the most successful campaigns, which do not achieve 100%. There have to be legal mechanisms in place to ensure that people have the safety that they need to transition to their new rights.
In particular, we suggest that amendments be adopted, including amendments setting out clear definitions of who cannot apply after June 2021, as opposed to who can. We feel that it will assist both Parliament and the Home Office if we can clearly pin down exactly who we do not want applying after the deadline. Furthermore, we could introduce mechanisms through which we could extend the grace period if necessary. We should understand what extending the grace period may look like, and what factors will be taken into consideration. We need to recognise that those who apply after June 2021, who will have no legal basis to be here, will need some form of retrospective mechanism, so that when they do secure their status, their previous periods of unlawful residence are secured.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: I think that unfortunately misrepresents our proposal. The declaratory system is a safety net. We are not advocating for a system where people should not have a deadline by which they must register. Indeed, we believe that there should be incentives and encouragement for people to register. The problem is the consequences for those who do not register in time. Under the current model, if you do not apply, you essentially become illegal in the UK, and you face immense amounts of problems, whereas under a declaratory model, the consequence is that you face inconvenience.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: You were a little muffled there, but I think you were pointing to the issues surrounding having pre-settled status, as opposed to settled status. Is that right?
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes.
Luke Piper: On the ratio of those acquiring pre-settled status to those with settled status, the trend is not looking great. The estimates that we have been working to suggest that the number of people acquiring settled status is a lot lower than it should be, and indeed the number of people getting pre-settled status is too high. That will, in effect, mean that rather than there being one deadline—June 2021—there will be lots of deadlines for lots of different people, at the various periods when their pre-settled status expires.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: It does, yes. It has quite significant implications for a person’s rights. Those with settled status have complete access to welfare benefits and housing support, which is vital at a time when a lot of people are struggling to retain their employment and their home. Those with pre-settled status do not have an automatic right to access those services and that support; they have to go through further tests and bear further burdens to access that help. This is causing significant problems for people whom we represent; we have seen a significant increase in the number of people experiencing problems in getting help and support because they have pre-settled status as opposed to settled status.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Q
Luke Piper: We would like a deadline, but want the consequences of missing the deadline minimised, hence our preference for a declaratory system. Of course there needs to be some kind of deadline by which people need to have put in an application; the issue is more what the consequences are for people who miss it.
Let me paint a picture for you of the inevitable problems with missing deadlines. Some people are under the misapprehension that they are fine—that everything is sorted. In my practice, and in speaking to many organisations and colleagues, I regularly come across people who believe that they are “safe”—that there is nothing else that they need to do. After the deadline, when the hostile environment bites, it is they who will feel the problem the most. It is a mis-characterisation to say that we are talking about permanently extending the deadline; we are looking at this in a holistic way to identify clearly, through good evidence and with the Home Office, what the groups are, what the issues are, and what can be done to the law to make it as safe as possible for people to get their new status.
The Chair
I think that concludes our evidence. Thank you for joining us online.
Luke Piper: You are welcome. Thank you for your time.
Examination of Witness
Lucy Leon gave evidence.
The Chair
I take it that we have on the line Lucy Leon, immigration policy and practice adviser for The Children’s Society. Minister, you have a question.
Kevin Foster
Q
Lucy Leon: I am sorry; the line is really unclear. I heard that you were trying to ask me a question about automatic status. Would you be able to repeat the second part of the question, please?
Kevin Foster
You talked about automatic status—granting something under a piece of legislation to someone. Under your suggested system, how, in decades to come, would an adult evidence the status that they were granted as a child?
Lucy Leon: The line is not very clear, so apologies if I have misunderstood the question, but are you asking what it would be like in decades to come if we granted children automatic status?
Kevin Foster
Yes. If they had to evidence their status many years later, how would they do it? How would they be able to define their status, as against someone who arrived in March 2021, for the sake of argument, and was not entitled to that status?
Lucy Leon: We have put forward an amendment about automatic status for vulnerable children, particularly those who are in care or are care leavers. We are not just looking to give them automatic settled status; we want local authorities to be given a duty to identify those children, and a timeframe in which they need to be identified and offered settled status. This would enable a financial burden to be lifted and pressure to be taken off the overstretched local authorities that are struggling right now.
We are not suggesting that children do not go through the scheme. We are saying that they still need to go through the scheme, but should be given indefinite leave, as opposed to pre-settled status, because children are falling through the net and social workers are struggling to understand their roles and responsibilities under the scheme. They do not know the processes, and they are struggling to locate documents for young people.
Kevin Foster
Q
Lucy Leon: Sorry, it is really hard to hear you. The line is really not very clear.
Kevin Foster
Okay, we will leave it there. I think you have made the points that are needed.
Holly Lynch
Q
Lucy Leon: At the moment, this is a significant burden on social workers. We welcome the guidance that has been issued, the funding that has been put in place, the prioritisation of this issue, and the fact that the Minister has taken time to write to council leads to ensure the issue is seen as a priority. However, we know—because we see it in our frontline services—that the information is not trickling down, and many social workers are unclear about what they are meant to be doing and how to help young people.
In the current pandemic, with helplines and embassies being closed and people being unable to travel, it has become even harder for social workers to support young people in locating the right paperwork to help them through this process. Social workers are also not always aware of who needs to apply, and some of the cases are very complex. Some children and young people are entitled to British citizenship, and the struggle to access legal advice and helplines at this time has made that very problematic for social workers. We see the proposal as not only taking the pressure off local authorities, but taking the stress off young people.
We see young people who have been incorrectly given pre-settled status, when they are entitled to settled status. We want to enable automatic settled status at this pivotal moment in young people’s lives, when they are planning their future, thinking about their education and thinking about pathways to work, so that they know that they can have indefinite leave to remain and can stay in this country, which is their only home. We are talking about children in care who would have had a history of abuse and neglect. It is imperative that, as corporate parents to those children, we give them as much stability as possible in the long run.
Holly Lynch
Q
Lucy Leon: I didn’t at all. I’m sorry, Ms Lynch; you cut off.
Holly Lynch
No problem. The Minister had presented a conundrum, but we are saying that if those children—bearing in mind that they have had a very difficult start in life—were granted settled status in a declaratory system through the local authorities, and they had both digital confirmation of that and physical proof, it would resolve the problem that the Minister put to you.
Lucy Leon: Yes. We are very much in agreement. That is why we support the 3million recommendation on physical documents as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Leon: Yes, that is what we are suggesting.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Leon: Sorry, I did not get that full question.
Stuart C. McDonald
I was just trying to draw a parallel with the status of kids who are born British citizens. Their rights come from a statute, just like you are proposing with these kids getting their rights in a statute, but they still end up—at some point, if it is convenient for them—applying to have proof of that status. But the rights come from a statute.
Lucy Leon: I am sorry. I cannot hear the question; the line is not very clear at all.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Bill may mean that we end up with EU citizens and children stuck with “no recourse to public funds” conditions on their visas in years to come. How difficult do “no recourse to public funds” provisions and conditions make life for children and their families?
Lucy Leon: Sorry. It seems that the microphones are now moving around. Were you asking how difficult the NRPF conditions are for children and their families?
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes.
Lucy Leon: We have worked with children and families with no recourse to public funds for well over 10 years. We have a lot of experience through our services, and recently published a policy report called “A Lifeline for All”, which highlights the impact of this condition on children and families. One of the key issues is that families with no recourse to public funds have no access to mainstream services, or to housing and local welfare assistance schemes. Many of those who are fleeing domestic violence cannot access most safe accommodation either.
The policy has been continued under successive Governments, but that really does not mean it is the right one. It is hugely detrimental to children’s welfare to have a childhood characterised by deep poverty throughout, with the family stuck in a cycle of poverty, vulnerability and abuse, and the child at real risk of exploitation because they have no other lifeline to turn to. We also see the hugely detrimental impact that it has on children’s and young people’s mental health and emotional wellbeing to grow up in such long-term poverty.
In terms of educational opportunities and chances, we also see a higher prevalence of special educational needs among those children in families with NRPF that we have worked with. It is more than just financial support that these families need and are missing out on; it is the access to wider services and support.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Leon: We have significant concerns about those families. They are families who are already paying into the system. Most of the families we work with are single parents, often in jobs that are now seen as key worker jobs—working in hospitals, in cleaning, in catering or as delivery drivers. They are working families already; it is just that their income does not meet their family’s needs. They are also paying immigration application fees and the immigration health surcharge, so on top of living with no access to any mainstream benefits or extra support, they continually have to try to save up for the next tranche of fees that they will have to pay every two and a half years. They are stuck in an ongoing cycle of debt.
We have seen families lose contact with their social networks because they have had to borrow money, because that is their only means of survival. We are calling for a reduction in immigration fees to at least cost price, and for citizenship fees for children to be waived, because we are doubly penalising children in those families by increasing the levy charged on them, on top of their restricted access to public funds.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence. I am sorry that the sound quality was not very good, but thank you for making the time and effort to come.
Lucy Leon: That is fine. I apologise for missing some of the questions. We are more than happy to submit further documentary evidence on the questions that I have been unable to answer.
The Chair
I think you should do that. You will be able to see the record, and if you have missed any question, you can always put in supplementary evidence. Thank you for joining us on the line.
Lucy Leon: Thank you for the opportunity.
Examination of Witnesses
Ian Robinson and Alison Harvey gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon and welcome to our session. We have until 5 o’clock. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record?
Alison Harvey: My name is Alison Harvey. I am a barrister at No5 Chambers in London.
Ian Robinson: I am Ian Robinson. I am a partner in Fragomen, the immigration law firm.
Kevin Foster
Q
Alison Harvey: Essentially, it does not have anything to do with that. There has been a lot of talk about the Bill setting up the new points-based system. It does not; it gets rid of the free movement law, and that is all it does. Although I have not sat on it yet, the Bar Council has appointed me its representative to the simplification committee on the rules, and I gave evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee about this a while ago.
If you look at what the Law Commission and the Home Office have published on the rules, it is simpler but not simple. We will not get to a simple system or anything like one until we consolidate the primary legislation. Let us remember that our immigration legislation is built on the Immigration Act 1971, which came into force on 1 January ’73, when we joined the EU. Before that, we had only had four years in this country, in all its history, without free movement. If you go back to 1066 and beyond, you have everyone within the King’s allegiance and dominions moving freely within the allegiance and dominions, subject to the limitations in place in 1066, but they were not legal limits. The passport that you have from Hull is the same as the passport that you have from Bangalore.
We then had the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which cut off free movement, but we were bigger then. As well as our current overseas territories, we had the associated states in the Caribbean, from which people came. That period of March 1968 to 1 January 1973 is the only period in our history when we have been as small as we are going to be from June, so the change is massive.
We are managing with a rickety old Act that desperately needs changing. The problem with immigration law is that every time you change it, you have to deal with the people under the old regime and make transition provision, so change always results in complexity.
Ian Robinson: The simple answer is that we are going from two immigration systems to one. Right now, we have reasonably simple arrangements for free movement and complex arrangements for non-Europeans. We will have one complex arrangement for everybody. In some areas, it will become slicker, I suppose, but it will remain complex.
In an international context, my clients will quickly recognise that the UK has a simpler, more transparent immigration system than many countries. That is great if you are a multinational, but if you are a small or medium-sized enterprise dealing just with the UK immigration system, that does not really help you, and the complexities can still trip you up. Likewise if you are an individual.
Kevin Foster
Q
Ian Robinson: In terms of the skilled part of the system, we will have one of the better skilled immigration systems in the world, in terms of much of the policy and the speed as it relates to skilled people. Where that falls down is the cost. I suspect that there will be more questions about that later, and I can cover them. We are wildly more expensive than other countries. What businesses want is speed. Singapore and one or two central African countries aside, no one can issue visas as quickly routinely as the UK does. We are very good at that. There are on-entry arrangements in Canada, but we are very good at issuing visas.
If I were talking to an American or Canadian audience, they look for predictability. We can offer certainty. It is a fairly tick-box, prescriptive list for a work permit, which is good. In that respect, it is a good system. It becomes more difficult again when you look at cost. It becomes difficult when you look at lower-skilled workers and the fact that the tap will be turned off, unless we have a youth mobility scheme.
My clients are not quite sure where they stand on that at the moment. On the one hand, if you had asked me three months ago, they were very concerned. Covid changes things, but they are nervous about taking the gamble now that there will be enough people in the labour market after the pandemic is cleared.
The final point that I would make is that if you are an established user of the system, used to working with Indian, US and other non-European migrant workers, you are going to experience a much better immigration system when we have a lower skill level, marginally lower salary, and one or two other changes, particularly when the new technology comes in for sponsorship.
But if you have never used the immigration system in that way before, and if you do not already have a licence, there is a real risk that you will have no idea and no time at the moment to apply for a licence. You probably will not have before the end of the year, so you will realise you need to too late, at which point, unless a concerted effort is made not only by the Home Office, but by trade bodies to push employers to apply for licences, we will be back to six-month delays before a company can even begin to make a visa application, which is not great. Steps need to be taken to make sure that employers know what will be expected of them, and that they can, as easily as possible, get the tier 2 sponsor licence.
Kevin Foster
Q
Alison Harvey: You have heard this afternoon—I did not manage to hear his evidence—from Professor Ryan. He has a grasp of the issue that is second to none. Clause 3ZA is very useful and important. I do think that it lowers the protection from deportation for the Irish. The Irish do not deport Brits at all. I think we ought to address that.
My own work has been around giving effect to the Good Friday agreement in the work I have done for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about looking at the Good Friday agreement. I would like to see, as a bedrock that would deal with some of the concerns about deportation and the question of identifying solely as Irish, a right of abode given to all the people of Northern Ireland, whether they identify as British or Irish or both.
A right of abode protects you from deportation. It is as close as you get to citizenship. You get the whole packet of rights. From the point of view of the Administration, the Government, the country, and the people in benefits offices, if you know that if you were born in Northern Ireland, you have a right of abode in the UK, it becomes much less problematic whether you identify as British or Irish or both. You essentially know what your social security entitlements and your health entitlements will be. I think that is the bedrock on which we build the flexibility in identification.
Kevin Foster
Briefly, because I am conscious that others want to come in, there has been mention of the deportation of Irish citizens. Can you think of an example—not of an extradition, I have to say, because that is a different provision?
Alison Harvey: An example where someone was deported?
Kevin Foster
An example where an Irish citizen has been deported from the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland.
Alison Harvey: I was looking at this recently for an article and I think there were examples at the time. I think they fall parallel with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, where we were confining people to Northern Ireland or to Britain or not letting them in, so you have rules on third-country nationals, but they also have the potential to affect citizens of the two countries. It was in that period, and there was an overlap between the security powers that were being used at the time with the roll-over of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the control orders and deportation—
Kevin Foster
They are historical pieces of legislation.
Alison Harvey: Yes, they have totally gone now.
Holly Lynch
Q
Alison Harvey: Very much the concerns that Mr Berry expressed about certainty. If it is said that provisions of retained EU law are not compatible with the Immigration Act, please can we have a list? Tell us what they are. You must know, Home Office, otherwise you are not going to be able to operate the system. As he said, we had the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, both of which essentially give us powers to save EU law. They also give us powers to knock out retained EU law bit by bit, so what is the point of the Bill at all, in substance terms?
I think the point must be, because immigration is a sensitive area and because it involves people, to give you the opportunity to put in place safeguards. I suppose the Bill goes beyond the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act in that it would allow you to build a new system. There are wider powers of delegated legislation. I think most of the repeals could have been done under those Acts. If you want to test that, you go back to March, when the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were passed. Look at some of the things that they do: “Let’s give all Gibraltarians a right to apply for British citizenship.” There are big chunky powers in those regulations that are not in the Bill.
The Bill is an opportunity to put some brakes in. What is astonishing is that the Bill looks almost the same as it did last time it appeared; yet last time we did not have a withdrawal agreement. All the wait and see markers that justified not putting something in primary legislation have gone. Similarly, although the Home Office delegated powers memorandum has got longer it has produced, for example, absolutely no more substance on why the powers on fees are needed. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that this is so unsubstantial you cannot even say it is a skeleton.
There really is no justification to explain why there possibly need to be those powers. It creates tremendous uncertainty. It certainly creates lots of opportunities for litigation; to go in and argue that, no, something is not incompatible. That does not seem to me helpful at all.
Ian Robinson: Alison has said everything that I could and more.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: We have two groups. Proposed new section 3ZA to the Immigration Act is about the Irish in Britain, wherever born—all the Irish; anyone who holds an Irish passport—and it gives them protection wherever they enter the UK, so that if they come from Belfast and go for a weekend in Paris they have not lost all their rights just by spending a weekend in Paris, which technically in law at the moment they have.
The other group are the people of Northern Ireland, who are the people born on the soil of Northern Ireland. Those people, under the Belfast agreement, have the right to identify as British, Irish or both. The question is how you give effect to that right, because at the moment it is argued that you give effect to it by going through a renunciation process, which costs money and makes it very difficult for somebody to identify solely as Irish.
We have provided in the EU settlement scheme for the people of Northern Ireland—those who are born there—to be treated in the same way for family immigration purposes as EEA nationals. That is a fairly short-term right—not a short short-term right, but obviously one that is on the way out because we are leaving the EU and that advantage will disappear over time; it will not apply to new arrivals and it will not apply to the people of Northern Ireland who form subsequent relationships.
So we have said that we will make it not matter whether you are British or Irish, or both, because you will not be at a practical disadvantage. But what people would like to be able to do is identify as Irish without having to give up a British citizenship they never felt they held. That was a point made by Emma DeSouza in her litigation. That litigation ended because it was a case brought by her partner about his EU law rights. So although their arguments were about her ability to identify as Irish, that was not the crux of their case; their case was an EU case, so it died with the changes.
I have put forward in my paper a series of proposals as to how we could fairly simply amend the law to give effect to that aspiration, without in any way damaging the aspiration of those in Northern Ireland who say, “I in no way want to be treated any differently from anyone else anywhere else in the UK”. I think we can square that circle.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: With any change, you have to decide what you do; it takes five years to get to settlement. What perhaps worries me most when I look at the points-based paper and those proposals is that rather than saying, “This is where we want to end up—how do we get there?”, they are all about what we are going to do next. Therefore, the fear is that we will never get where we want to end up, because we are rushing things, in a way.
As I say, this is a massive change. When Vivienne Stern of Universities UK gave her evidence to the Committee, she said, “Universities will recover from this. The question for us is, what is going to happen in the short to medium term?” I think it is very similar for the immigration system. In the short to medium term, maybe the recessionary effects of covid will mean that there is less need for people, but the short to medium term is the bit that that paper does not even regard as a problem; it just says that this is what we want, and I think that is not realistic. The attention has been focused, for good reason, on the stock of EU nationals—the people who are here—but what will really hurt business is the flow, or the cutting off of that flow.
Mr Robinson has made the point that our system is quicker than that of many countries, but employers are used to it being a lot quicker, and the employers who have the least difficulty are the global multinationals, which have the persons already employed in one part and can move them across. The solely British business, which does not have an overseas branch, has the most disadvantages. It is a bit like the recovery after the pandemic, and the supermarkets have actually done really well during it and the corner shop has closed. It is that sort of thing—this change will advantage the very people who you would have thought, given the Brexit ideology, were the people who were supposed to face a bit more competition from the Brits.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: Yes, that is spot on. If I were to have two conversations,
one with an established tier 2 sponsor and one with a new employer using the system for the first time, the first conversation would be to say, “Okay, the systems that you have will become simpler and quicker, because there will be no advertising, no cap and so on. You will be able to bring more people through sponsorship, because skill level is going down.” It will be more expensive and it will be slower than free movement, but overall, frankly, they can absorb it.
If I then pick up the phone to an employer who has never used the system, they will probably spend between two and four weeks collecting documentation in order to put together an application. The application right now is typically taking four to six weeks, against an eight-week service standard. If we have a rush of employers applying for licences, it seems quite possible that, towards the end of the year or the beginning of next year, that lead-in time will become much longer, during which time they could miss out on an opportunity or a worker.
Then you get to the kicker: if you are sponsoring Stuart, who is single and coming in for three years, for an SME that would cost about £4,000 and for a larger employer it would be about £5,500. If you were coming in with a partner and three children for three years, that would be £17,000 in Government fees, not including the other associated costs.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: Yes, that is fair. If you are coming in as a single person and you are covering your own fees, it is broadly £600 for a three-year visa. You will be paying an extra £624 a year for the health surcharge. You get to indefinite leave to remain, which is about £2,200 or £2,300, and then citizenship is about another £1,200. If you add that up, as I am about to attempt to, it would be not far off £10,000 just to get through to citizenship. If we assume that you are on £26,000 a year and clearing however much of that, it is a hell of a cut. If you also have children, you have to pay another £10,000 each.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: We made several suggestions on simplifications for employers and individuals in Scotland: lower salary requirements, faster routes to settlement and so forth. The headline finding was that if the political will were there, it would be quite possible to continue free movement in Scotland after free movement ended for the rest of the UK. I appreciate that that may seem counter-intuitive to some people in the room, but the rationale is that, if you were to continue to operate free movement in Scotland, people would be able to move there and live and work on the structure of their European passport. The obvious challenge is what happens if they subsequently want to move to the UK, as some may, because at that point they would need to have permission to live and work in the UK, just as any other migrant would.
One of the challenges we have had is whether that would turn Scotland into a back door for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is hard to make that argument when you consider that the front door is open, given that there will be no visit visa requirement for Europeans coming to the UK. If you were a German who wanted to work in the UK and were content to do so illegally, there would be no incentive to go through Scotland first. You would jump on an easyJet flight into Stansted, maybe not even see an immigration officer and start work if you were so minded.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: Yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: No. The Government is content that the compliance environment/hostile environment measures that we have in place are sufficient to stop illegal migration and working from tourists. It would be equally capable of stopping that sort of migration from Scotland.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: It is partly that and partly that we are small, so you can travel a long way quickly. If you give someone a visa for one part of Australia, it works very differently. I remember asking the Australian Minister about that, and he said that it was salary that glued people to the Northern Territory.
In our current points-based system, a tier 2 skilled worker works for a particular employer, so it is not that much of a leap to say, “You must work for the employer in X, Y and Z offices.” Applying it generally may be more complicated, but applying it to workers who work for an employer—whether they are highly skilled or low skilled does not matter—is easier. If you are someone who is on a payroll, it is easier to envisage it working. It becomes more complicated to stop people moving around outside the paid employer—they must be employed by that person.
Ian Robinson: A very quick point: right now, you sponsor a particular person to work for a particular employer in a particular location. If that location changes, the Home Office must be notified. I could not say how much scrutiny they give to that—I do not think it is a great deal—but employers are already reporting on that sort of thing.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: I think Wendy Williams has given you an excellent blueprint in the Windrush lessons learned review. Although those recommendations emerged from Windrush, what she is saying is that you get a Windrush when you have a lack of understanding of your own laws. Complexity makes that understanding so difficult to achieve, as happened with Windrush. She recommends the consolidation of legislation. It is obvious. We need to do that through a consolidation Bill.
We have to have a self-denying ordinance so that no one is trying to change it—not the Government, not the Opposition—and we just get in and consolidate what we have got. Then we go in and change it afterwards. It is difficult enough to consolidate it. It can then go through the consolidated Bill procedure in Parliament, which is the only way you would ever get a consolidated Bill through Parliament without abandoning all other business in the Session to deal with it.
If the Immigration Act 1971 was our “going into the EU” immigration Act, we now need to start again and build up from the top. We need to think much more teleologically about where we want to be and what we want to achieve, rather than start with the how. The problem with the current paper is that it starts with the how and ignores where we are. It cannot cope with pressure such as from the pandemic and its effects on the economy. It is a rigid system full of teeny little routes. We do not need that; we need an idea of what the end result looks like, and then we can look at how to get there. We need a lot more sensitivity to regions, so we need to devolve down a great deal to regions such as Scotland, where immigration is needed. In Somerset, where I come from, the agricultural crisis is going to be huge.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I am afraid that it is 5 o’clock, and the rules state that I have now to ask the Whip—it is his moment of glory—to move the adjournment motion.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 11th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 June 2020 - (11 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “, or in connection with,”
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out “this Part” and insert “Schedule 1”
This amendment seeks to limit the scope of the power in Clause 4 to matters concerning the ending of retained EU law rights that currently preserve free movement and immigration-related rights.
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
‘(1A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may only be exercised within the period of one year from the day on which this Act is passed.
(1B) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after a period of two years from the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would restrict the use of the Henry VIII powers contained in Clause 4 to a period of one year from the date of the Act being passed; and would prevent any changes to primary legislation made by exercise of these powers having permanent effect unless confirmed by primary legislation.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if satisfied that the regulations would have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
(5B) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (5A).”
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under subsection (1), in relation to persons to whom the regulations apply under this Act, shall be made in accordance with the following principles—
(a) Promotion of family life, particularly that between children and their parents and that between partners;
(b) That persons in the United Kingdom should have a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against any decision to refuse leave remain, to curtail leave to enter or remain or to make a deportation order;
(c) that where leave to remain is given—
(i) on account of a person’s long residence in the United Kingdom; or
(ii) to a person whose continuous residence in the United Kingdom includes five years of that person’s childhood; or
(iii) to a child who has lived in the United Kingdom for a period of seven continuous years;
that leave is given for an indefinite period;
(d) that leave to enter or remain given to a person for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom is not subject to a condition restricting work, occupation or recourse to public funds; and
(e) ensure that no change to immigration rules or fees is made—
(i) unless sufficient public notice has been given of that change to ensure any person affected by the change who is already in the United Kingdom with leave to enter or remain has reasonable opportunity to adjust their expectations or circumstances before the change takes effect; or
(ii) that would require a person given leave to enter or remain for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom to satisfy more restrictive conditions for the continuation of their stay than were required to do so at the time the person was first given leave for this purpose.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that exercise of the delegated powers in clause 4(1) is guided by certain principles.
Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section 4 and section 7(5) expire on the day after the day specified as the deadline under section 7(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. This group of amendments raises important issues about the scope of the regulation-making power in clause 4. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for speaking to his amendments and for the effort he has put into them. I know that he has a strong interest in the use of the power in clause 4, as he had when the Bill was previously in Committee, in 2019. However, despite the explanations given to him then, he appears still to be misinformed about how the Government are planning to use this power, and I hope that my response will help. A lot has been said today and in the evidence sessions about this power granting Ministers a blank cheque. That is not the case, and if you will permit me, Mr Stringer, I will set out how we intend to use the power and respond to the hon. Member’s amendments as I do so.
The power is intended to enable three broad things via regulations. The first is to ensure that our laws operate coherently once freedom of movement ends and the relevant provisions in schedule 1 are repealed. There are references across the statute book to EEA citizens, their free movement rights and their status under free movement law, which need to be addressed through regulations made under this power.
For example, regulations made under section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 list the documents that must be provided in support of various types of immigration application. One type relates to applications under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which implement the free movement directive. That reference needs to be removed because those regulations are revoked by schedule 1, so there will no longer be applications under them. It is therefore important that the power is wide enough to ensure that all references to the EU and free movement rights in primary and secondary legislation can be amended appropriately as a consequence of, or in connection with, the ending of free movement.
That is why the Government do not and cannot accept amendments 2 and 3, as they would prevent us from meeting our manifesto commitment of ending free movement and introducing a new, fairer points-based immigration system. We also do not want the provision drafted so narrowly as to lead to challenge and uncertainty about whether an amendment is “appropriate” or “necessary” “in connection with” or “in consequence of” the end of free movement. Such an amendment would enable those who oppose the principle of ending free movement, which I accept the Scottish National party does, to seek to achieve that through the courts by challenging these regulations, since they were not able to achieve it at the ballot box in December.
The second reason that the power is important is to align the immigration treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens for those who arrive from 1 January 2021, after the end of the transition period. That will enable us to deliver the new global points-based immigration system under which everyone is treated equally—for example, by removing EEA citizens’ exemption from the immigration skills charge. We also intend to use the power to align the rules on access to benefits, so that EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens are treated the same under the new global points-based system. It is worth me clarifying that the detailed requirements for the future points-based immigration system will be set out in the immigration rules made under the Immigration Act 1971 and subject to parliamentary scrutiny of those changes, not through regulations made under clause 4. Control has been taken back by Parliament and will be there.
Thirdly, the power will enable savings and transitional provisions to be made—for example, to protect EEA citizens’ existing appeal rights under the EEA regulations. That is in addition to the protections to be delivered for EEA citizens resident in the UK by the end of the transition period through statutory instruments, which the Government will bring forward under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
I understand that clause 4 is a complex, technical power. That is why the Government have already produced information to help the Committee understand the power, through the factsheet published on gov.uk. I have also given examples of changes that we intend to make under the regulations. It is absolutely right that Parliament pays close attention to delegated powers such as these. I noted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the report on the Bill in the previous Parliament.
Amendment 4 would remove the provision to make changes in relation to fees and charges. Regulations made under this power may only modify legislation relating to the imposition of immigration fees and charges where that is as a consequence of or connected with the provision in part 1. That enables the application of fees and charges to EEA citizens, who are currently exempt from them, such as the immigration skills charge, which is paid by the employer.
Amendments 20, 21 and 22 would further limit the scope of the regulations made under clause 4. Let me set it out again that we need this power to ensure that our laws operate coherently once free movement ends, to align the immigration treatment of newly arriving EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens from 1 January 2021, and to make relevant savings and transitional provisions for resident EEA citizens that cannot be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
Amendment 20 would prevent the regulations from being used to make amendments that are in consequence of or in connection with clause 2, which protects the unique position of Irish citizens in the UK once free movement ends. I understand the queries about that point. To be absolutely explicit, we intend to use that power in a very limited way to amend provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 that cover entering the UK via the common travel area. We will not use them for wider changes. As I said this morning, the Belfast agreement is fundamental international law, as well as a fundamental part of our constitution.
Amendment 21 is intended, first, to sunset the power in clause 4 by setting a deadline for its use of one year after the Bill is passed and, secondly, to ensure that regulations made under the power expire after two years. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is, I suspect, aware, regulations will need to be made under clause 4 to coincide with the repeal of free movement law by part 1. We have endeavoured to ensure that they make all the changes required by primary and secondary legislation, to come into effect by the end of the transition period. Beyond that, I assure him that we would make further changes under the power only if that were required, and Parliament will be fully engaged whenever it is used.
The power cannot be used to make amendments relating to the consequences of exiting the EU more generally; it can be used only in consequence of or in connection with ending free movement and the clarified status of Irish citizens. Changes cannot be made indefinitely, as they would not be in consequence of or in connection with that purpose. For example, the powers cannot be used to amend future primary legislation or general immigration policies.
The second limb of amendment 21 provides that any regulations made under clause 4 would expire after two years. That would mean that the legislation that had been amended reverted to its former state, creating confusion for the public and leading to a partial revival of elements of free movement, which I suspect is the outcome that the hon. Gentleman is partly hoping for. This is not an outcome that we can accept.
Amendment 22 would require that regulations made under the power in clause 4 complied with a specified set of principles. It would have the effect of continuing to treat newly arriving EEA citizens differently from non-EEA citizens. That is not consistent with establishing a new global points-based immigration system focused on the skills and contributions that people have to offer the UK, not where their passport is from.
Amendment 12, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), is also intended to sunset the power in clause 4 by setting the end date for its use as the day after the end of the grace period, on 30 June 2021, by which time EEA citizens and their family members resident in the UK by the end of the transition period must have applied for status under the EU settlement scheme unless, as we constantly repeat, there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members concerning the important limitations on the use of the power in clause 4. I emphasise that it cannot be used to make amendments that relate to the consequences of exiting the EU more generally, but only in consequence of or in connection with ending free movement and the clarified status of Irish citizens provided by clause 2.
We will endeavour to make all the changes required to primary and secondary legislation in the forthcoming regulations to be made under clause 4 later this year. However, should we identify the need to make further regulations related to part 1, it is important that we have the power to do so, subject to the full scrutiny and approval of both Houses.
When a power to make regulations expires, so do any regulations made under it, so if the amendment were passed legislation that had been amended would revert to its former state, creating confusion for the public and leading to a partial revival of elements of free movement, which may have been the intention. However, that is not an outcome that the Government can accept.
Amendment 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, would ensure that children of EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK were not adversely affected by the ending of free movement rights. She asked specifically about numbers, and I had an opportunity over the break to get the figures for the period up to 31 March 2020—they are published quarterly. Of the under-18s who have applied to the European settlement scheme, and where a decision has been taken, by 31 March, 261,880 were granted settled status and 150,940 were granted pre-settled status. That compares with just 20 refusals of applications from applicants aged under 18. Those refusals may well be on grounds purely of eligibility—that is, not having proof of living within the United Kingdom.
Given the hon. Lady’s specific query, I thought it would be helpful to give that clarity. It is not possible to say exactly how many people may be eligible, because free movement rights and rights relating to those who become eligible to apply to the European settlement scheme still operate up to 31 December. It is impossible to say exactly who will arrive tomorrow, for example, and be entitled under the withdrawal agreement to apply to the European settlement scheme. I hope that gives her some reassurance on where we are. It is worth saying that the overall level of applications to the European settlement scheme is now over 3.5 million and the number of decisions taken is over 3 million, which puts the numbers we are talking about into context.
Amendment 15 would create a two-tier system of family migration, with one set of requirements for the children of EEA and Swiss citizens and another for children of non-EEA citizens. It would lead to EEA citizens potentially being given preferential treatment inconsistent with the new points-based immigration system and with our aim of having a new single approach to migration rules, regardless of where a passport comes from.
The Home Office has, as the hon. Lady touched on, a very clear statutory obligation to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK when carrying out immigration functions. That extends to all children, not just the children of EEA or Swiss citizens. This is contained in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That, together with article 3 of the UN convention on the rights of the child—part of international law, as she pointed out—means that consideration of the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in immigration decisions affecting them.
The amendment could create a separate and preferential family migration system for the family members of EEA or Swiss citizens compared with the family members of non-EEA citizens. The proposed condition under clause 4—that the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on the children of EEA or Swiss citizens—could lead to non-EEA citizens with children and the children themselves being treated less favourably for no reason other than their nationality and with no justification for that, given that the United Kingdom has now left the European Union. This is not a basis on which a new global immigration system can be founded.
The Bill’s core focus is to end free movement. The design of the new points-based immigration system will be developed consistent with our international and domestic obligations to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. For that reason, as set out in our published policy equality statement on the immigration measures in the Bill, we have committed carefully to consider all equalities issues, including the impact on children, as these policies are being developed, but not on the basis of a two-tier approach between non-EEA and EEA children.
It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, and I welcome this, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU and this clause is an essential part of delivering that. It will be used to deliver a clear and coherent statute book and level the playing field for future migration by removing the preferential treatment of EEA citizens and their family members under EU freedom of movement rules.
In future, the UK’s immigration system will be firmer, fairer and global, rather than one based on where someone’s passport comes from. I suspect that I might not have been able to fully reassure Opposition Members on the power under clause 4, but I ask them not to press their amendments, which the Government cannot accept.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for his extensive response, but he is right in one thing, which is that he has not fully satisfied me about the need for these powers. Much of what he said related to how the Government propose to use these powers or what they are planning to do, but that is not how we should go about assessing whether the scope of the powers is appropriate. We need to assess what the scope of these powers would, in theory, allow the Government to do, and that goes way beyond what he set out.
We do not hand powers to the Government on the basis of assurances that they are going to do only a, b and c. Listening to the list of proposals the Minister made, I am utterly unconvinced that that could not be done very simply with a much more narrowly drawn clause and power. Nothing in any of these amendments would stop the Government bringing free movement to an end—sadly.
The Minister alluded to the fact that some of this is about trying to limit the scope for judicial oversight. I am trying to keep MPs in a job here scrutinising legislation, but I am also trying to make sure the judiciary is not excluded from the proper review of the use of Executive power. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that these are “significant” powers and also used the word “disturbing” at one point, so I am afraid I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation that they are justified.
On amendment 22, I am disappointed that the Minister did not engage with the principles themselves, because other amendments have been tabled with respect to the principles of immigration law and we are constrained by the scope of this Bill to limiting these amendments to dealing with EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. Although that does not mean we think we should be confined in this way to them, it is in the Government’s gift to extend this much more broadly, so I am very disappointed that he did not engage with what those principles are. I hope we will have a fuller debate when we come to other amendments. On that basis, I shall press amendment 2 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that EEA nationals, and adult dependants of EEA nationals, who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded.”
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again this afternoon, Mr Stringer? The amendment would give European economic area and Swiss nationals who apply for asylum in the UK the right to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to work if a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it is recorded as having first been made.
The amendment is the legislative outcome of the Lift the Ban campaign, a movement headed up by Refugee Action and with the support of more than 200 organisations, including the likes of Oxfam and the British Red Cross; trade unions, including the National Education Union, Unison and the TUC more broadly; industry players such as Ben & Jerry’s and the Confederation of British Industry; and organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute. We worked on the drafting of the amendment with Refugee Action, as well as with legal professionals, and we are of course truly grateful, as ever, to the Committee Clerks. The proposal is limited to EU nationals to ensure that it falls within the scope of the Bill.
This amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston in the Bill Committee on the previous version of this Bill during the 2017-19 Parliament. At that point, the Government argued that the UK is allowed to treat an asylum claim made by a citizen of an EU country as automatically inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply, and that a claim made by a non-EU EEA national would be considered on the basis that it is likely to be clearly unfounded. The implication was that there would be no one who would benefit from the amendment, and in any case treating asylum seekers from the EEA differently from those from the rest of the world on the grounds of their nationality was not only illogical but discriminatory.
The Minister and I know, though, that the amendment sets out the proposal in principle, within the bounds of what is permissible in respect of the scope of the Bill. It gives us the opportunity and the platform to outline the case for change, and I am delighted that it also has the support of SNP Members.
In August and September 2018, the Lift the Ban coalition conducted a survey with a group that had direct experience of the asylum process and found that 94% of all respondents said they would like to work if they were given permission to do so. We have all met asylum seekers: they are people not dissimilar to ourselves who have often had to flee their own countries when faced with immediate danger. They are often skilled, able to work and want to work. Rose is one example. She is currently in the asylum system, so I appreciate that she is not an EU national, but hers is the experience that we could start to change and transform if the Government accept the merits of the amendment.
Rose has been waiting for a decision on her asylum claim for three years. Not having the right to work while she waits for a decision on her asylum claim is not only putting pressure on her family life but damaging to her children, who are unable to understand why she cannot work. She said:
“Not being able to work, it cripples you…As a parent, you feel that you are not good enough…When you have kids, their daily needs—there are things that you need to give them. If I were working, I would not have to go to charity shops all the time to get hand-me-downs for my kids.”
Rose wants to be given the opportunity to be productive and show what she is capable of. She said:
“I want to work so I can prove myself to my children.”
The amendment would give people in the future asylum system from EEA countries the opportunity to use their skills and make the most of their potential. It would improve the mental health of people such as Rose in the asylum system by giving them a sense of worth and purpose, and it would enhance the opportunities for integration into their new communities, as well as allowing them to satisfy the strong work ethic that Rose clearly has and wants to pass on to her children.
The impetus for this change has only been intensified by the coronavirus pandemic. The brilliant campaigning and advocacy from the group Freedom from Torture has shone a light on the pittance that asylum seekers receive in support rates. At present, people in the asylum system receive a little over £5 a day per person in allowances. While at the onset of the crisis the Chancellor increased universal credit by £20 a week to “strengthen the safety net”, no proportional measures have yet been introduced for asylum support rates.
The uncertainty and rise in demand for specific items due to the pandemic has only exacerbated the difficulty faced by asylum seekers in finding the supplies they need to keep themselves and their families healthy and safe. Even before the onset of coronavirus, 52% of Refugee Action survey respondents reported having to use a food bank at some point within the last 12 months. If the Government are not minded to increase asylum support rates, it is both moral and logical to grant asylum seekers the right to work after six months. To forbid both options is to back some of the most vulnerable people in our society into an unescapable corner.
The Government could transform the financial health of a vast number of asylum seekers by accepting the amendment. Additionally, it would allow asylum seekers to play an active role in getting the British economy moving again, following the immense disruption caused by the pandemic. Refugee Action estimates that this change in policy could benefit the UK economy through net gains for the Government of £42.4 million. This would also be an overwhelmingly popular policy. Refugee Action carried out a survey of the public where 71% agreed that people seeking asylum should be allowed to work.
Accepting the amendment would help to fix the structural and deeply entrenched problems that exist with the current system. People seeking asylum in the UK can only apply for the right to work after they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year. The UK is the global outlier in time taken to give people in the asylum system the right for work. Ireland, Hungary, France, the United States and Poland, to name just a few, all have a much swifter process.
Even then, the few people who are granted such permission are rarely able to work in practice because their employment is restricted to the list of professions included on the Government’s shortage occupation list. This is the equivalent of putting square pegs in round holes, and disregards the skills and potential of many people in the asylum system. Refugee Action found that 74% of survey participants had secondary level education and 37% had an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. People in the asylum system can and should work in a wide variety of jobs that are hugely beneficial to both the UK economy and public wellbeing.
My involvement with the campaign is largely thanks to two amazing women in my own constituency. I pay tribute to Veeca Smith and Florence Kahuro, who set up the wonderful and incredibly effective local campaign group Sisters United. I am sure they would be delighted to meet the Minister in the not-too-distant future—I am sure he would struggle to get a word in edgeways. They are absolutely brilliant. They both sought asylum in the UK and founded the group to offer peer support to others in their situation and campaign for simple things such as accommodation that is not plagued by health and safety issues, and the right to go out and earn for themselves.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate the broad consensus that exists behind this amendment and accept the multitude of benefits that adopting the amendment would bring. It is time we treated people in the asylum seekers with dignity and as people with unrecognised potential to contribute to our society.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I rise in support of amendment 13 and lifting the ban. As with any legislation, there is a requirement to strike a balance between addressing the issue at hand, in this case our withdrawal from the EU, while also being practical and compassionate to ensure that people are not hard done by. The reality is that thousands of asylum seekers in the UK who came here for refuge are unable to work—unable to properly provide for themselves and their children and possibly loved ones, and unable to make what has been a difficult life a reasonable and normal one. Instead, as the Refugee Council highlights, these people must live on as little as £5 a day, which many of us here in this Room could not even countenance. That is £5 a day to feed themselves and loved ones, buy toiletries, pay for transport to go about their everyday lives, and do any other thing that a normal person would do.
Stuart C. McDonald
I echo entirely the comments of both Members who have spoken so far, the hon. Members for Halifax and for Coventry North West. In short, people who apply for refugee status in this country should not as a result be trapped in poverty for months on end, if not years, simply because they made that claim, but that is the situation that far too many asylum seekers find themselves in.
All the arguments in favour of lifting the ban have been set out very well. We all know that an absence from the job market for several months, if not years, can be hugely detrimental to people’s long-term prospects, regardless of all the other challenges that asylum seekers face in terms of integration. This change would provide a route out of poverty, saving money for the Government, given the savings that they would make on asylum support. It is a popular proposal among the public as well and would bring this country into line with many other countries in Europe and beyond.
This proposal should also be popular with MPs right across this House, and I think there are MPs in every single party who support it. While I do not expect the Government to make any major announcements today, I would be interested to hear the Minister say at least something about his thinking on this issue and whether he and his colleagues are giving serious consideration to doing something to stop people being left for months on end without any prospect of work or being able to get themselves out of poverty.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I, too, endorse the speeches we have heard in relation to this amendment. I only want to make two points to the Minister. First, the long delays in processing asylum applications and then appeals is, I think we can agree, a real concern for everybody in this House. The problem with having a ban on asylum seekers working is that there is very little incentive for the Home Office to make rapid progress in dealing with those cases. Indeed, given that 45% of appeals now succeed, it seems that we are taking a very long time to fail to give the chance to work to people who will ultimately obtain it.
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister a question that follows on from the one asked a few moments ago about his personal attitude towards lifting the ban on asylum seekers’ right to work. In the last Parliament, the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), undertook to carry out a review of the policy and to give consideration to whether it needed to be revised. I do not think we ever heard the outcome of that review. It would be helpful to know whether the Home Office continues to conduct that review, when we might hear the outcome of it and whether evidence to support such a review is being sought from civil society and from parliamentary colleagues who might wish to submit ideas. It has been a long time since that commitment was made to the Home Affairs Committee, and it would be good to hear the status of that review.
Kevin Foster
I could make this a very quick response by saying that EEA citizens’ asylum claims are inadmissible, but given the constructive nature of Opposition Members’ speeches, I will respond more fully than the strict wording of the amendment allows me to. To my knowledge, there is literally no one with an outstanding asylum claim from an EEA country because they are inadmissible and therefore would not have to wait six months for a determination.
To be clear, our rules on the inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU citizens derive from the so-called Spanish protocol—part of the treaty of Amsterdam, dealing with this specific issue—which allows EU member states to treat an asylum claim by a citizen of another EU country as automatically inadmissible, unless exceptional circumstances apply. Those will, by their nature, be very rare. Claims from EEA citizens who are not part of the EU are considered by the UK, but on the basis that they are likely to be clearly unfounded. All EEA citizens, including those not in the EU, are considered to be from safe, democratic countries and are highly unlikely to suffer a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm there. For those reasons, and because we do not foresee a change in these circumstances given the nature of the countries concerned, we intend to continue our policy on inadmissibility for EU citizens and rules regarding EEA citizens post the transition period. As a consequence, amendment 13 would be inconsistent with our broader policy on asylum claims from EU and EEA citizens.
Turning to Members’ wider remarks, our current policy allows asylum seekers to seek permission to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list—to use one example cited by the hon. Member for Coventry North West, a doctor—which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. We have recently commissioned the MAC to advise us on the shortage occupation list under the new points-based system. As Members will know, the required skill level is going from RQF6, graduate, to RQF3, A-level, which will potentially expand the number of posts that are available. Given the type of countries and education systems, it is likely that we will have more, for example, skilled chefs, who would be considered to be at level RQF3 and not RQF6.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive tone of his response. We heard in evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee earlier this week that there is quite a significant delay in determining which jobs are on the shortage occupation list. We may well have skills that could be put to good use but have not yet found themselves on that list. Is there not a more dynamic way that we can have another look at that?
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the sentiment. Traditionally the MAC has only operated on commission, when the Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister asks it to look at something. We are in the process of appointing a new chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, and we are looking at how it can work on a more predictable cycle. The call for evidence on the shortage occupation list is open, and with the skills threshold changing, we need to update the list for 1 January 2021. I would certainly encourage any organisations that the hon. Member is in contact with to make submissions, given the quite significant change, which will allow a wider range of practical skills, not just the purely academic skills that the list inevitably reflects by setting the bar at degree level. Senior careworker is a good example of a position that we expect to be between RQF3 and RQF6, rather than not qualifying, and it is worth remembering that that list will apply on a global basis.
Returning to the amendment, it is important to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules. Our wider immigration policy could be undermined if there was an incentive for individuals to try to bypass the work visa rules by lodging wholly unfounded asylum claims in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, unrestricted access to employment opportunities may also act as an incentive for more people to choose to come here illegally, rather than claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach, particularly within the European Union. We cannot have a policy that increases that risk, even though it has to be said that clearly an EEA citizen would not be fleeing war or persecution.
Kate Green
I understand the fear that the Minister is expressing, but does he accept that all meta-analysis of countries that offer asylum seekers a right to work shows that they experience no increase in asylum-seeking, or no relatively higher rate of asylum-seeking, than countries that do not offer such a right?
Kevin Foster
As I touched on, there is some ability to work for those whose claims have been delayed for a significant period of time, but we are not satisfied, given what we have seen with past attempts to use parts of the migration system to avoid the restrictions or avoid having to come through the appropriate process to work here, that what the hon. Lady said would not be the case. We cannot readily dismiss the impact that removing such restrictions would have, nor its impact on our capacity to support genuine refugees who are in need of our protection, given that our system also has to deal with those claims that are unfounded and are more about intending to acquire a right to work in the United Kingdom.
I will take this opportunity to make it clear that I acknowledge the well expressed concerns of Opposition Members. The Government are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay, to ensure that individuals who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible and can start to rebuild their lives. As the hon. Member for Halifax will know, once someone is granted asylum they are given immediate and unrestricted access to the labour market.
I heard the points that were made eloquently by the hon. Members for Coventry North West, and for Stretford and Urmston about the time that it can take to make some of these decisions. That is also a concern for me as a Minister and for the Government, because if people have a founded claim, we want it brought to a resolution as quickly as possible, so that they can move on and rebuild their lives. Similarly, if a claim is wholly unfounded or based on—if I might put it this way—inaccurate information being provided by the applicant, we want to come to a speedy decision to facilitate their removal from the United Kingdom, to ensure that our system is fair as well as firm.
The new service standard for asylum applications, which is intended to try to bring back some balance to the system, is currently being developed. UK Visas and Immigration is engaging with stakeholders as part of these plans and considering any insight that those stakeholders offer as it tries to shape a new service standard, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Coventry North West, as a start in attempting to tackle some of these issues.
Finally, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked about the review commissioned under a previous Home Secretary. We are in the process of reviewing the right-to-work policy, with officials looking at the body of evidence available. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further until that review is complete, other than to say that that process is ongoing.
Having made those comments, the Government cannot accept the amendment and we hope that it will be withdrawn.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful for the Minister’s constructive response, but as I am sure he will appreciate, I am also a little disappointed by it.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West and congratulate her on what I think was her maiden Bill speech, which was an excellent contribution. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] Very well done.
We accept that the spirit of the amendment would not be able to be delivered as intended through this particular measure. However, we will continue to work with Members across the Benches, in coalition, to move towards the change that we would very much like to see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if satisfied that the regulations would have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
(5B) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (5A).”—(Kate Green.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out “other”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out from “(1)” to “is”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 8 will ensure that all regulations made under Clause 4(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment, along with Amendment 9 will ensure that all regulations made under Clause 4(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Stuart C. McDonald
We are back to the nuts and bolts of delegated legislation. This time, rather than considering the scope of the powers, we are looking at the procedures that should be used when they are exercised. Amendment 5 is designed to keep MPs in a job: we should be ensuring that we maximise our role in scrutinising what the Government do with their power to make laws.
Clause 4(6) to (10) sets out the procedures for making these regulations. I apologise in advance, Mr Stringer, if I get some of the terminology wrong. Even after five years in this place, I still regularly confuse my made affirmative, affirmative and negative procedures. As I understand it, the most extreme made affirmative procedure is allowed for the first set of regulations that would be made under the clause. That means that the Government would be able to bring rules into force immediately, before MPs had the chance to scrutinise the proposals. MPs would then have 40 days to pass an affirmative resolution to keep the rules in place. No good parliamentarian should ever be comfortable allowing the Government to bring rules into force before we even have the chance to look at them.
The more usual affirmative procedure would apply to subsequent draft statutory instruments through which the Government were amending Acts of Parliament. That too is a really drastic power, but it would mean that nothing came into force until we positively approved it. Although I object to Henry VIII powers for rewriting Acts of Parliament, if they must exist, that should be the method for regulation making here.
Other regulations that do not directly impact on Acts of Parliament would use the much less satisfactory negative procedure. Although a draft of those regulations would still be tabled before they came into force, they would almost inevitably do so unless, exceptionally, Parliament prayed against that negative resolution. All these amendments do is ensure that MPs have their say, and have a proper role in scrutinising the Government before regulations come into force, which is important given the very important subject, and the effect that these provisions could have on immigration law. I hope the Committee will be sympathetic to what we argue for.
Holly Lynch
As the SNP spokesperson says, this group of amendments, like most of those in the previous group, continues to seek to limit the transfer of powers to the Executive and away from Parliament. We have gone over the arguments against such sweeping Henry VIII powers in principle at length, so I will not repeat those. This group largely seeks to ensure that regulations made under clause 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and to leave out subsection (6).
Martin McTague from the Federation of Small Businesses was I think the only witness who said in his evidence on Tuesday that he actually did see some merit in the powers in clause 4, yet when asked further, he was keen to stress that
“the Home Secretary will be answerable to Parliament about the decisions that she or he has made. That would be a way in which Parliament could ensure there was proper scrutiny.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 14, Q29.]
However, as the Bill stands, proper scrutiny will be missing.
As has been said, proper scrutiny is exactly what we are in the business of in this place. It is why the Government say they have thrown caution to the wind in returning to a physical Parliament when we could have been undertaking our duties from home, as is still the public health advice. If the Leader of the House is such a big fan of parliamentary scrutiny, why are we going to such lengths to avoid it with these powers? Putting changes through the affirmative procedure has to be the way forward if we are to shape legislation for the better and deliver on parliamentary democracy. That is why we support this group of amendments.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for speaking to his further amendments on clause 4. Amendments 5, 6, 8 and 9 deal with the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under the clause 4 powers, as has been outlined. The made affirmatory procedure is needed in the event that there is a short window between the Bill’s Royal Assent and the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. This is why the provision for the affirmative procedure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Halifax have suggested would not work. Free movement must end on 31 December at the end of the transition period, and it is important to ensure that regulations made under this power align the treatment of European economic area and non-EEA citizens who arrive in the UK from 1 January 2021.
To clarify, under the made affirmative procedure, Parliament will be asked to approve the regulations within 40 days of their being made to enable them to continue in force, so Parliament does have scrutiny of the use of this power. If either House does not approve the regulations, they will cease to have effect, but subsection (10) preserves the effect of anything done under these regulations before that point to ensure legal certainty—in essence, for someone who is granted immigration leave after applying under a rule that would come into effect on 1 January.
Using this power does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. The secondary legislation to be made under this power is still subject to full parliamentary oversight under the established procedures, although I expect the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East may actually be disappointed at just how limited and benign they end up being. It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU, and this clause is an essential part of delivering that and ensuring that it can be done, with the new system in place, on 1 January 2021. We therefore cannot accept these amendments.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am not convinced that there will be a time problem between the Bill coming into force and the end of the transition period, so I insist on pressing amendment 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for admission of EEA nationals as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons.
(12) Regulations made under subsection (1) may require that the EEA nationals entering as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons can be ‘maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds’ but in deciding whether that test is met, account must be taken of the prospective earnings of the EEA nationals seeking entry, as well as an third party support that may be available.
(13) Regulations made under subsection (1) must not include any test of financial circumstances beyond that set out in subsection (12)”.
This amendment would ensure that UK nationals and settled persons can be joined in future by EU spouses and partners and children without application of the financial thresholds and criteria that apply to non-EEA spouses, partners and children.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 34—Visa requirements for certain family visas: coronavirus—
“Section E-LTRP.3.1 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules will not apply to persons who have lost free movement rights under section 1 and schedule 1 until the Coronavirus Act 2020 expires as set out under section 89(1).”
This new clause is designed to ensure EEA and Swiss nationals are not prevented from qualifying to remain in the UK as partners, merely because they cannot meet financial requirements in the Immigration Rules during the coronavirus pandemic
Stuart C. McDonald
I have put amendment 1 at the top of my list because the subject is very close to my heart. It is on a huge issue with our so-called family migration rules. I call them anti-family migration rules, because they have been responsible for splitting apart tens of thousands of families; they have some of the most draconian requirements in the entire world. I cannot believe that most Conservative MPs are not at least uncomfortable with the rules, if not downright embarrassed and ashamed. Theirs is the party of the family, for goodness’ sake.
By imposing the financial threshold on our constituents, we say to many of them—half the population, in fact—“You do not earn enough money to live in your home country with your family if you were to marry somebody from outside the EU,” and in future it will be anybody outside the common travel area. We are saying to them: “You have to choose between your country and your family.” That is absolutely barbaric. The impact of the rules will grow every year if we pass this Bill as it is, because the rules that apply to those in relationships with non-EEA nationals will for the first time extend to those in relationships with EEA nationals.
I want to start with a neat summary of the issue in a statement made by Bishop William Nolan and Bishop Paul McAleenan, the lead bishops for migrants and refugees from the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of Scotland and of England and Wales respectively:
“The minimum income threshold for family visas unjustly separates tens of thousands of couples, parents and children. Without reforms, the end of free movement will result in even more families being kept apart by this policy. Some key workers who have played a vital role during the Covid-19 pandemic are among those who cannot be reunited with their families because they do not meet the minimum income threshold. This separation not only has serious implications on family life, but also has a direct impact on the development and wellbeing of children who are isolated from their parents in another country.”
That is the issue in a nutshell. There are other egregious features of the rules that I will come to in a minute.
The Children’s Commissioner for England prepared a report called “Family Friendly? The impact on children of the Family Migration Rules”, which is a review of the financial thresholds that the amendment and the new clause focus on. It was published in 2015 and it concluded:
“the financial requirements introduced in 2012 have been responsible for the separation of thousands of British children from a parent.”
Such requirements
“cannot be met by almost half of adult British citizens, including many in full-time work, particularly the young, the retired, women, ethnic minorities and those living outside London and the South East.”
What we usually get back by way of defence from the Government is, “We asked the Migration Advisory Committee and it came up with the threshold of £18,600.” It is true that that committee was tasked with a bit of work, but it was not asked to come up with a general view of how the family migration rules should be formulated. It was asked to come up with a figure at which it could be said that people could support a family without becoming a burden on the state; that is how it was put. That is a perverse way to pose the question, given that when people come here on family visas, they are not allowed to become a so-called burden on the state because they are prohibited from accessing public funds.
As the MAC made clear, in doing its work, it was not in any way making recommendations that gave consideration to what is required of the UK under its international and domestic human rights obligations to respect private family life or consider the best interests of children.
Holly Lynch
We are enormously sympathetic to all the points that the Scottish National party spokesperson has just made on amendment 1, but I want to focus my comments on new clause 34, which we support. It would ensure that EEA and Swiss spouses of UK nationals were not ineligible for visas because of job cuts and furloughs resulting from the coronavirus. For many families, the coronavirus crisis has already led to loss of livelihood and prolonged separation. Now, families of British citizens with EU spouses fear that they will be permanently separated if their partner cannot secure a visa because their job security has been affected by coronavirus and they no longer meet the income threshold to settle in the UK.
We feel strongly that we should at this time give families as much security as possible. In the crisis, unemployment has crept up significantly, and there are limited work prospects. A recent publication for the Institute for Public Policy Research, using data from the labour force survey, found that migrants to the UK are far more likely to be working in industries affected by the crisis, including accommodation and food services. Migrants are also more likely to be self-employed and in temporary work, which puts them at particular risk of losing income, or having diminished income, as a result of the crisis.
We can foresee a ruthlessly competitive job market in the aftermath of the crisis. The new clause seeks only an appropriate grace period for the duration of the crisis on the minimum income requirement, for those who were working hard to ensure that they met it. It seems entirely appropriate to use the expiration of the Coronavirus Act 2020, as set out in the new clause, to set that.
A constituent of mine who worked at McDonald’s needed to meet the threshold so that his wife could stay in the country, and will fall short, having been furloughed. Another woman who contacted me has a one-year-old and is pregnant with her second child. Having been furloughed, she has had to get a second job to top up her income, to meet the minimum income requirement for her partner to join her. A raft of visa issues have been exacerbated by coronavirus, and I do not think that I am being unreasonable in saying that the Government have not been particularly swift in offering clear, effective advice about the status of citizens throughout lockdown. That is causing huge additional and unnecessary anxiety for affected families at what is already a worrying time.
We have heard that there has been ambiguity about information on the Government website this week. The Home Office issued information for those on furlough, announcing on 9 June that if someone had earned enough to meet the minimum income requirement in the six months before March 2020 but their salary had dropped on being furloughed, they could still apply as if they were earning 100% of their income. That is welcome, but are the Government minded to extend consideration to those who lost their jobs entirely, and to grant them a grace period of some kind?
I should be grateful if the Minister responded to those points and considered the new clause as a way not to pile further worry and uncertainty on to families who are looking to reunite.
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the intention behind amendment 1, which is to create a means whereby, in future, EEA citizens would be able to join a spouse, partner or parent in the UK who was either a British citizen or settled here, without being subject to the current and established financial requirements for family migration. I also appreciate the intention behind new clause 34, which is to extend the concessions that the Government have already put in place for people subject to the minimum income requirement who are affected by covid-19 and the measures necessary to tackle it.
So that those subject to the requirement will not be unduly affected by circumstances beyond their control, a temporary loss of income during the pandemic will be disregarded. I hope that members of the Committee will appreciate that it would be difficult, and probably not appropriate, for me to go through an exhaustive list of circumstances that we might consider. However, new guidance is certainly online; I have just checked. I have summarised some of the details at least in one answer to a parliamentary question this week. It is my clear understanding that if someone is furloughed and, under their contract of employment, their potential earnings at 100% would be over £18,600—there are a couple of caveats to that, but we will stick with £18,600 for now—but the 20% furlough effect takes them below that figure, that drop in income will be disregarded. It is their substantive income that we will take into account, if they are still in their job and able to return to it when furlough comes to an end. For convenience, I will write to the Committee setting out the guidance we have given so that Members have it to hand, given the concern and interest that has been shown.
Let me be clear from the outset that the effect of amendment 1 and new clause 34 would be to create a separate and preferential family migration system for EEA and Swiss nationals and their families when compared with the situation of British or settled people’s family members who are non-EEA citizens. That is the intention of the amendments. That would lead to a perception that non-EEA family members were being discriminated against for no reason other than their nationality and would likely be regarded as unlawful for that reason, given that we have now left the European Union and the basis for having a two-tier immigration system has fundamentally been removed. I accept that Members would argue that they would like to change the rules overall, not just for EEA citizens, but the focus of the Bill is EEA citizens; it is not a general migration Bill.
Holly Lynch
Does the Minister not accept, however, that the difference for British citizens in EU countries is that when they took decisions to form relationships and families elsewhere in Europe, they did not envisage that the rules would change and that free movement rights would be taken away from them? The immigration rules have changed for them in a way that they have not for other British citizens in other countries around the world.
Kevin Foster
When anyone takes the decision to go and live abroad, there is no guarantee that migration rules will not change while they are living abroad; rules have changed over the years for British citizens living outside the EEA. However, we have put in place a longer transitional period, which I think will be to 2022—it will be nearly six years after the referendum by the time that is implemented—for those who have moved abroad on freedom of movement. Even then, they will still have the ability to move back under the family migration rules, the same as UK citizens living anywhere else.
It is also worth noting that someone who might apply for a spousal visa could also apply under tier 2. To touch on the point about potential earnings in this country, someone who qualified for a skilled work visa would be able to apply through that route if they were not able to apply through the spousal visa route. They would not, for example, be barred from settling with a UK citizen here because they were on a tier 2 visa rather than a spousal visa. Actually, under some of the provisions, particularly if they were a healthcare worker, they would potentially be quicker to settlement overall if they took that opportunity. I know that is a point that has been raised about those who might have an earning potential.
Let me go into some of the details of why we do not think amendment 1 is the right approach. The amendment seeks to replace the minimum income requirement for British citizens and settled persons to sponsor EEA family members with a test that has three separate components: being able to maintain and accommodate the family without recourse to public funds; taking account of the prospective earnings of the EEA nationals seeking entry; and taking into account any third-party support available. Let me address those in turn.
The first component—the simple ability to maintain and accommodate without recourse to public funds—would take us back to the policy that was in place before the minimum income requirement was introduced in 2012. It was partly because the test for whether a family could maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds was difficult to apply consistently that the minimum income requirement was introduced. The minimum income requirement provides certainty to all by ensuring that family migrants are supported at a reasonable and consistent level that is easy to understand. As Opposition Members have alluded to, the minimum income requirement has been based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.
I turn to some of the points about differentials across the United Kingdom. The Migration Advisory Committee found no clear case for differentiation in the level of the minimum income requirement between the UK’s countries or regions. A single national threshold provides clarity and simplicity. Data also show that the gross median earnings in 2018 exceeded the minimum income requirement in every country and region of the United Kingdom.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I will not press either amendment 1 or new clause 34 to a vote, but for slightly different reasons. On new clause 34, I am grateful for the assurances with regard to the impact of the coronavirus shutdown on incomes, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter, which I will obviously look at closely, and the scheme that is being put in place. We will no doubt return to that issue in the weeks and months ahead.
I will not press amendment 1 to a vote because I may wish to revisit it on Report. I do not think that people fully grasp the impact that this issue is having on families out there. The tier-2 alternative is not realistic for lots of families. My recollection of the test of maintaining and accommodating one’s family without recourse to public funds was that it worked perfectly well but, as I said in my original submissions, there are other ways in which we could do it: we could have a lower threshold, such as the minimum wage or the living wage. We could do things differently and still provide certainty.
On the subject of certainty, it is no reassurance to someone if their only certainty is that they cannot live in this country with their loved ones. The Minister said that the threshold had been set at a suitable level, but it excludes almost half of the country from being able to be joined by their husband, wife or partner from overseas—in Northern Ireland, I think, it even excludes more than half, because of the different wage levels.
The so-called “exceptional circumstances” route just does not work; that was the bare minimum that the Home Office had to put in place because of a Supreme Court challenge about how awful these rules were. In terms of public confidence, I think that the more members of the public find out about these rules, the more they will be horrified at how the UK Government treat UK citizens.
These are miserable rules. I hope people will go away and think again, even if they do not want to go back wholesale to the position as it was before 2012. We cannot let this continue—more than that, we cannot let it escalate. Tens of thousands of families are already impacted, and in the next decade there will be tens of thousands more. They will all come to our surgeries. The Government have been warned. But I will keep that point for Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision enabling UK citizens falling within the personal scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement or the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement to return to the UK accompanied by, or to be joined in the UK by, close family members with whom they lived while residing in the EEA or Switzerland.
(12) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as at the date of this Act coming into force.
(13) References in subsection (11) to the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This amendment would mean UK citizens who had been living in the EEA or Switzerland but wish to return to the UK, could continue to be accompanied or joined in the UK by close family members who would otherwise lose their rights (under the Surinder Singh route) because of this Act.
I am being kept busy this afternoon. I am pleased to move amendment 14. Once again, it is all about family. We are talking about what became known as the Surinder Singh route, because of a judgment of the European Court of Justice. I talked in my previous contribution about the unfairness of separation that immigration rules can cause; in the case of the Surinder Singh families, that is coupled with a real sense of unfairness and the loss of a legitimate expectation.
We are talking about UK citizens who have gone to live somewhere in the EEA at a time when the rules were quite clear that the UK was part of the European Union, so there would never be any conceivable difficulty about being able to return to this country with family that they may have settled down with in another EU country.
To my mind, we should say that they had a legitimate expectation when they left that they would be able to return to this country at the appropriate moment with their EU family members. The problem now arises that if they return after the transition period that the Government have put in place—it is better than nothing; that is absolutely true—they will face the £18,600 threshold, which I previously alluded to.
There are folk over there with huge dilemmas to address. The briefing we have had from British in Europe sets out a very typical example. Sarah is a 48-year-old British national living in Germany with her 52-year-old German husband and children. She is the only child of an elderly mother in the UK. Career and schooling reasons mean that she cannot realistically return to the UK by March 2022. What happens if Sarah’s mother becomes so frail or ill that she needs the care of her daughter in five years’ time? Sarah will have a huge decision to make: either to uproot her family at a hugely disruptive and inconvenient time, to come back to look after her mother, or to leave her family behind and come back to look after her mother. Alternatively, she will just have to hope that her mother is able to cope.
Sarah was not negligent in going abroad without taking this future prospect into account when she made the decision to travel and live in Germany, because it just did not arise. We were part of the EU and free movement was always going to be there.
I am grateful for and welcome the fact that the Government have reviewed the immediate cut-off, but 2022 does not give enough time. Why do we not have an open-ended cut-off for the people from this country who have made their lives in other parts of the European Union or the EEA, and let them return here under the regime that was in place when they left? That is the purpose of amendment 14, and I hope it will have a sympathetic hearing.
Holly Lynch
Once again, we are very sympathetic to the amendment. As we have already heard, it is not dissimilar to amendment 1, and it would offer reassurance to the 1.2 million British nationals who live in EU countries. Failure to implement measures such as those proposed in the amendment would show the Government’s indifference to British citizens who decided to make their homes and lives in Europe and, as in the example we have just heard, could force people to choose between loved ones there and loved ones here.
The example provided by British in Europe paints a picture of something that is affecting thousands of people and has the potential to affect thousands more in future, as family members age and their circumstances change. The amendment characterises the significance of forming laws and policies; what is discussed and decided on in this building has far-reaching implications and consequences affecting vast swathes of people in their day-to-day lives.
Until March 2022, any citizen going to live in an EU 27 country did so with the security of knowing that if they were to form a relationship and/or have a family, they would have the right to return to the UK with their partner and family, with no or very few conditions attached. That was the point I made to the Minister in challenging and seeking further clarification on some of his points about differences being potentially discriminatory against returning UK citizens and spouses from other parts of the world, not just EEA countries.
As I am sure we can all appreciate, families and relationships can be complex. The provisions afforded to British citizens through freedom of movement would allow any citizen to return to the UK with their partner and family if a situation arose where they needed to do so, potentially at quite short notice. If the UK citizen returned to be either employed or self-employed, there would be no conditions on their return; if they returned to be a student or to be non-economically active, they would have to have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the UK, and have comprehensive health insurance.
In comparison, under the proposed new immigration rules, spouses and partners who wish to enter the UK with their British partner will have to meet the minimum income requirement of £18,600, and the figure is increased if the family have children. That is a wholly restrictive requirement that will severely deter families from returning and coming to the UK. In some cases, it may stop British citizens returning to the UK altogether.
As highlighted in evidence by Jeremy Morgan, the right of citizens to return with their families to their country of origin was deemed outside the scope of the UK-EU withdrawal negotiations, resulting in a serious inequality between UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. Bizarrely, the UK Government are discriminating against their own citizens in this instance, since nationals continue to enjoy their right to return to their countries of origin with their non-EU family members.
Furthermore, EU citizens resident in the UK and covered by the withdrawal agreement also have an unconditional lifelong right to bring in family members, including non-EU members, to the UK, provided that the relationship existed before the end of the transition period. The amendment tabled would address that discrepancy.
The coronavirus pandemic has only heightened the need for the Government to carry out their basic duty to support UK citizens living abroad. What if the pandemic had occurred after 29 March 2022? As countries began lockdown, British citizens in Europe would have been faced with the unenviable choice of remaining or hastily returning to the UK. The minimum income requirement would have meant that many British citizens and their families would have been simply unable to return, despite both global and personal crises.
Kevin Foster
I again thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and his colleagues for tabling amendment 14 and allowing us to have this discussion. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the amendment would require the Government to include in regulations, made in consequence of this Bill ending EU free movement law, lifetime rights for UK nationals to bring their close family members to the UK on EU free movement terms, where the UK national was resident in the EEA or Switzerland in accordance with EU law by the end of the transition period at the end of this year. Those family members would thereby continue indefinitely to bypass the immigration rules that otherwise apply to family members of UK nationals.
I will set out the Government’s policy for this cohort of family members before I explain our reasons for rejecting the amendment. In certain circumstances, family members of UK nationals who have resided together in the EEA or Switzerland are able to come to the UK under EU free movement law. That applies where a UK national has exercised free movement rights in the host state—as a worker or self-employed person, for example—for more than three months. That is sometimes referred to as the “Surinder Singh route”, after the relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Surinder Singh family members are not protected by the withdrawal agreement, as was said. None the less, as a matter of domestic policy, the Government decided that UK nationals resident in the European Economic Area or Switzerland under EU free movement law until the end of the transition period, which is the end of this year, will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child or dependent partner—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 unless the child was born or adopted after that date, and it must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK, for obvious reasons.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I will have to go and look at the drafting of my amendment. While it may not be technically correct, I absolutely stand by the principle of what it is trying to achieve.
The Minister and the Department have listened to UK nationals living in Europe and the EEA, which is why they put in place the transition period and the cut-off point of March 2022. However, I listen to those very same people, who say to me that that will leave an awful lot of them with a huge dilemma. I just do not understand why the UK Government insist that it has to happen like that. There is no need for a balance to be struck or for any cut-off point.
This is not, as the Minister expressed, a question of people bypassing domestic immigration rules. The aim of the amendment is to help people who moved abroad and formed family relationships in good faith at a time when there was no prospect of their right to return to this country with a family being impeded; they could have done so at that time, on the basis of free movement rules. With your leave, Mr Stringer, I will withdraw the amendment. In the meantime, I will go away and work on it, but I stand by the principle and intention behind it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(11) Subject to subsection (13), regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for ensuring that all qualifying persons have within the United Kingdom the rights set out in Title II of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and implementing the following provisions—
(a) Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (Issuance of residence documents);
(b) Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (Issuance of residence documents); and
(c) Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (Issuance of residence documents).
(12) In this section, “qualifying persons” means—
(a) those persons falling within the scope of the agreements referred to; and
(b) those eligible under the residence scheme immigration rules, as defined by section 17(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
(13) Notwithstanding subsection (11), regulations must confer a right of permanent, rather than temporary, residence on all qualifying persons residing in the UK prior to 5 March 2020.”.
This amendment would mean that EEA and Swiss citizens residing in the UK would automatically have rights under Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (and equivalent provisions in the EEA EFTA and Swiss citizens rights agreements) rather than having to apply for them, and ensure that for the overwhelming majority, that status is permanent.
I feel a little like somebody who has been banging his head against a brick wall, and I am sure other hon. Members feel the same. This is a return to the debate about whether the European Union settlement scheme should be a constitutive or a declaratory scheme. That sounds quite technical, but it is not really. The Government say, “We’ll give you a right to remain, and you can retain your rights, if you apply.” That will inevitably mean a—hopefully small—percentage missing out and losing their rights in this country. Scottish National party Members say we should put it into the Bill that EU and EEA nationals automatically have these rights. Doing so would fulfil a promise made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the referendum campaign, when they said quite expressly that everybody would retain their right to be in this country, and that there would be no need for any application at all.
Before we go too far into the debate, I want to say that Ministers quite often stand up and tell us about the success, and fairly so, of the settlement scheme so far. Opposition MPs obviously asked questions, such as about why it was not working on the Apple iPhone or whatever else, how the numbers were progressing or why so many people were given pre-settled status. However, I am happy to say, as I have many times before, that it has exceeded my expectations. The Home Office has reached more EU and EEA nationals than I anticipated. It does not have a wonderful record with IT over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, but on this occasion it has done a decent job.
However, the fact remains that—with the best will in the world, even if the Home Office gets to 95% of its target crowd—that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people who will fail to apply in time. I have asked repeatedly what estimate the Home Office has made of how close to 100% it will get, and what the implications of that are, in terms of dealing with the 100,000 folk who will overnight be without rights this time next year. We really need to get to the nub of this.
Other amendments offer alternatives, exploring different cut-off points and different solutions as to how to treat applicants who come to the Home Office after the cut-off date, but we still insist that the much simpler solution would be to say, in this or another Bill, that if someone meets the criteria, they retain their rights, even if they do not apply.
The Home Office seems to suggest that folk will not apply. In fact, during an evidence session on Tuesday, the Minister asked a question on how looked-after children would prove that they had rights. It is simple: they would apply to the EU settlement scheme. We are not saying, “Just ditch all the work that has gone on for the past 18 months to two years.” We are saying, “Keep that work, but make it so that it is not the digital whatever you get that gives you the rights, but that the rights come from the legislation, and you get that document”—if we have our way—“or a digital code to prove your rights.”
Probably the best way to explain this would be with reference to British citizenship, which is the most obvious example I can call to mind of another declaratory system. No one in this room gets their rights as a British citizen from their passport or from any other document; we have our rights to British citizenship declared in law, in the British Nationality Act 1981. It does not cause us difficulties if for the first few years of our lives we do not have proof of that; indeed, if we do not go abroad on holiday, we can actually go through until we are perhaps 14, 15 or even 18 years old without having to access that proof. That is not a problem.
That works perfectly well for British citizenship—it becomes convenient for lots of people, at a certain time, to get a passport or wherever else to prove that they can exercise their rights—and it would be exactly the same with the EU settlement scheme. All these people will want to work or to access social security or housing, if they are subject to the right-to-rent scheme, so they will still have every incentive to apply to the EU settlement scheme. The amendment would just mean that if, for whatever reason, they did not apply, their rights were protected.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether perhaps one reason some people, particularly in Scotland, would not apply for the scheme is because, despite his having praised it today and said it has exceeded his expectations, SNP politicians in Scotland have encouraged people not to apply? I raised this issue when he and I were members of the Home Affairs Committee. The messaging that comes out should be far clearer. Does he accept that, whether or not he agrees with the scheme, the advice not to apply that some SNP politicians are giving is unhelpful?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have had that intervention before, and I think I answered it. There is one individual who would be expected to apply to the scheme but at some point in the past—I am not sure what his current position is—he said that as a point of principle he does not want to apply. I have said previously that I do not agree with him, but the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly accuse the Scottish Government or the SNP of not being clear about the messaging—they have invested considerable sums of their own money in outreach and in attempting to get as many folk as possible to sign up to the scheme. For that reason, I do not accept the premise. I disagree with that one colleague, but I absolutely reject the premise that we have been anything other than clear in encouraging people to sign up.
The reasons folk will not sign up are not related to the position of an individual politician. Folk will not sign up because they are vulnerable, as we have spoken about—care leavers; children; elderly people who perhaps were settled and had permanent residence under the old EU scheme; and people who quite simply just do not understand that they have to do it.
There are really complicated questions involved. For example, lots of folk will think, “Well, I was born in the United Kingdom, so I am British,” but in actual fact whether or not they are British depends on a million different things. It depends on the marital status of their parents, depending on when they were born. It depends on their date of birth. It might even depend on when a particular country joined the EU, as that can have an impact on the conferring of nationality. There are millions of different issues.
It is beyond doubt that on 1 July next year we are going to wake up in a United Kingdom that has 100,000 people who do not have the right to be in this country. We have to be constructive and come up with a solution, but we do not yet have enough from the Government on what they want to do. We get told, “We’ll be reasonable,” but that really does not cut. We need to do better than that, which is why we have tabled other amendments to push the Government to be much more explicit about how they are going to treat folk who apply after the deadline, for whatever reason.
The simple point, which is consistent with all the work that has gone before and does not undermine it in any way, is to turn around now and say, “Right, we are doing well, but we are just going to say that everybody has these rights. Continue to apply so that you can go about living your lives without being refused renting or a job or whatever else, but you have these rights.” It is a simple matter and would avoid a tremendous headache that would make Windrush look almost insignificant. That was cataclysmic; this situation risks being considerably worse.
Holly Lynch
Yet again, I rise to echo a great deal of what has already been said by the SNP spokesperson. The Opposition have spoken consistently in favour of a declaratory approach, and the Home Affairs Committee has also tabled an amendment outlining its preference for that approach, so, while we have sought to deal with the scheme in front of us by way of our amendments and new clauses, should he push amendment 16 to a vote, he would certainly have our support.
In our 2019 manifesto, we committed ourselves to ending the uncertainty created by the EU settlement scheme by granting EU nationals the automatic right to continue living and working in the UK. This new declaratory system would allow EU nationals the chance to register for proof of status if they wished, but they would no longer have to apply to continue living and working in this country. This would help to secure reciprocal treatment for UK citizens living in the EU, prevent a repeat of the shameful Windrush scandal and avoid unnecessarily criminalising hundreds of thousands of EU nationals.
Kevin Foster
This has been a useful debate. As has been pointed out, amendment 16 would require the Government to establish a declaratory system for those eligible for residence rights under the withdrawal agreement or the immigration rules for the EU settlement scheme. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who speaks for the SNP. It is a familiar argument we have been having over the last couple of years, and I suspect we will continue having it over the next year or two.
As the hon. Member alluded, EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by the end of transition period and their family members can secure their rights here through the EU settlement scheme and through applications that are free of charge to make. So far, more than 3.5 million applications have been received and more than 3.2 million concluded, despite the efforts of one or two people to encourage people not to take part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray highlighted. This is with still more than a year to go before the deadline for applications on 30 June 2021 for those resident here by the end of the transition period on 31 December.
It is worth pointing out that the UK’s immigration system has long been predicated on individuals applying to the Home Office to be granted leave to enter or remain, under what we call a constitutive system. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the constitutive system, introduced through the EU settlement scheme, is the best approach to implementing the citizens’ rights elements of the withdrawal agreements. It provides EEA citizens and their family members with clarity about what they need to apply for and by when, and with the secure evidence of their status that they need.
A requirement to apply for individual status by a deadline provides a clear incentive for EEA citizens living here to secure their status in UK law and obtain evidence of this, whereas a declaratory system, under which individuals acquire an immigration status under an Act of Parliament, would significantly reduce the incentive to obtain and record evidence of status. Indeed, the amendment does not include any requirement to do that, so in decades to come it could result in some of the issues we saw in the Windrush scandal: people with a status that has been granted, but for which there is no clear or recorded evidence.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to take on board what the Minister says and redraft the amendment to include, for example, a £50 fine if somebody does not have a document proving their settled status. That would be much less serious than leaving them without any right to be in this country at all. Would he consider a declaratory system on that basis?
Kevin Foster
Well, I do not think I would. Like I said, we would be reasonable in accepting late applications—for example, if somebody did not have EU settled status because they were a child in care or mentally incapable at the time when they should have applied. I suspect that when we publish the guidance those two situations will be among the list of reasonable reasons for late applications. It would be rather odd, however, to then issue them with a £50 fine. We think it right that at some point a line be drawn, although we would be reasonable in respect of the circumstances of a late application. Certainly, in the early stages after the deadline, it is likely that the bar to cross will be fairly low, in terms of what is a reasonable reason for not having made the deadline.
As was touched on, we are up to more than 3.5 million applications already. It has been a very successful scheme. It is slightly ironic that the organisation representing EU citizens in the UK calls itself the3million, because the Home Office has already found 3.5 million and there is still a good stream of applications coming in every day, as there has been throughout the recent period. The Government are confident that we have already found many more than 3 million, and all of them are our friends and neighbours. We want them to stay, and we welcome the fact that they have taken the opportunity to apply to the European settlement scheme to guarantee their rights.
The Government are adamant that we must avoid a situation where, years down the line, EEA citizens who have built their lives here find themselves struggling to prove their rights and entitlements in the UK. That is why we have set up this system. I fundamentally believe that changing a system that is working well would have the opposite effect to that which the amendment is intended to achieve. It would reduce the certainty of a grant of status under the EU settlement scheme, which has already been given to more than 3 million EEA citizens and their family members.
The amendment provides that a right of permanent residence would be automatically acquired by EEA citizens resident here before 5 March 2020—when the Bill was introduced—regardless of how long they had been continuously resident in the UK. I do not wish to speculate about why the amendment is designed to exclude people who arrived on 6 March, or about why the Bill being introduced is a more significant moment than the end of the transition period or the day that Britain left the European Union. The general requirement under the EU settlement scheme to have been continuously resident here for five years before becoming eligible for a right of permanent residence—settled status—reflects the rights under the free movement directive, which are protected by the withdrawal agreement. To reassure hon. Members that we are talking to people who work with the EUSS, there will be efforts put in place, using the contact details provided to the EUSS, to prompt people should they be approaching the five-year period.
It is right that someone should demonstrate sufficiently long residence in the UK, in line with our current EU law rights, before being eligible for all the benefits and entitlements that settled status brings, including access to those provided by public funds. The amendment would mean that any length of residence in the UK prior to 5 March 2020, however short, would be sufficient. I do not believe that is the right approach. It is a rather strange date to choose, even though it is the introduction. Why would that be logical? It is worth explaining why someone was not covered on 6 March but was covered on 5 March. I therefore suggest to the Committee that we should not accept the amendment; we should stick with a system that is working and doing a great a job at getting those who are our friends and neighbours the status they need for the long term and the surety that brings. I therefore suggest that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The amendment would not negate the good work that has happened in managing to process applications from EU nationals and provide them with digital proof of their status; it would build on it.
The Minister always insists that such a system would give people less of an incentive to apply, but that is just not the case. We would not say to anyone who was a victim of the Windrush fiasco that they did not have an incentive to apply for documentary proof. In fact, all the Windrush citizens had the right to be in this county, but that was not enough. They had to get documents, and the result of not being able to access documents was that they went through absolute hell. That is a lesson that we must learn. If we make the system declaratory, people will still apply because they need digital proof of their status to access work, social security, education and whatever else.
I do not accept the Minister’s explanation of why we retain the constitutive system. If he wants to talk about incentives, there is a big problem for anyone who misses the deadline of 30 June 2021. When they find out that they have missed it, they suddenly think, “I thought I was British, but I am not. I thought I had rights here because I had status under the old EU system, but it turns out I don’t.” Those hundreds of thousands of people will be absolutely petrified of applying to the Home Office because they have no assurance that they will be granted status here. There are vague words about being reasonable, but that did not really cut it for the Windrush generation, and this is a much bigger problem. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 11th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 June 2020 - (11 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch your electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, although I might turn a Nelsonian blind eye if I see any. I remind Members about the importance of social distancing—as if you did not know already. The main body of the Committee Room has capacity for a maximum of 11 Members. If more than 11 Members are present, the remainder will have to sit in the Public Gallery, which I am pleased to see some Members are doing already. I will suspend the sitting if I think anyone is in breach of social distancing guidelines. The Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members emailed copies of their notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules, following the debates on the relevant amendments. Obviously, if we spend a long time on the amendments, we cover all the ground and so it may not be necessary to have a stand part debate, but I will take advice from the Opposition on that. I am anxious to be helpful to them and to the Government. I hope this explanation is helpful.
I have talked to Graham Stringer, my fellow Chair, about one further point. The Bill is very important but quite narrowly focused. Therefore, I do not really want to have long speeches about how terrible it is to leave the European Union or how wonderful is that we are leaving the European Union. We will just leave that on one side. We are going to focus on the amendments that we have in front of us. Generally, if you focus on the amendments, and if speeches are not discursive, the Committee can hold the Government to account in a better way. I hope you do not mind me saying that, but I had a word with Graham Stringer and we agreed that we should make that clear.
Clause 1
Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I will take on board the comments you have just made. If you will permit me, I would like to make a few introductory remarks—at the start of Committee proceedings and before we begin to debate the detail—on the purpose of the clauses.
The Bill delivers the ending of free movement of people and lays the foundations for introducing a fairer, firmer skills-led immigration system. The coronavirus pandemic is the biggest crisis we have faced in our lifetime. We need people, regardless of nationality, to continue coming together, using their skills and expertise to support the United Kingdom’s recovery.
As you will know, Sir Edward, legislating is not an academic exercise; there must be a point to it. The point is that we will introduce a new system by ending preferential treatment for EEA citizens. That will mean a system that prioritises the skills people have to offer and how they will contribute to the United Kingdom, not where their passport comes from.
The Government recognise the tremendous contribution people are making to keep vital services running during this incredibly difficult time and the dedication shown by millions demonstrates to employers the skills and work ethic we have here. Colleagues may well recall that this Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament. There have been no substantial changes to the content since it was previously considered. The only changes made are minor drafting clarifications in places and updates to the list of retained EU law to be repealed.
We remain committed to delivering a points-based immigration system that benefits the whole UK from January 2021. We will open key routes from autumn 2020, so people can start to apply ahead of the system taking effect on 1 January 2021. I want to clarify that the details of the future system will be set out in the immigration rules and not in the Bill, as is the case now for the non-EEA immigration system and has always been the case under previous Governments. The rules will be laid before Parliament later this year.
Turning specifically to clause 1, this introduces the first schedule to the Bill, which contains a list of measures to be repealed in relation to the end of free movement and related issues. The clause fulfils a purely mechanistic function to introduce the schedule.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, as we start line-by-line scrutiny of this particularly important legislation in these highly unusual times.
I thank the Minister for his opening speech on clause 1 and schedule 1. Early in proceedings, I want to put on the record my thanks to the Clerk of the Bill Committee. He has been absolutely invaluable to all Committee members with assistance on the amendments and new clauses before us.
I also want to put on the record—I am sure that the Minister will join me, in the spirit of some early unity, as might you, Sir Edward—an expression of our disappointment about the audio arrangements for Tuesday’s evidence session. The poor sound quality was problematic not only on the day, as on occasion exchanges between Members and witnesses were seriously restricted, but for Hansard during the afternoon sitting. Colleagues worked incredibly hard to make that Hansard report available, but, unfortunately, it was not published until after 11 o’clock last night. That made preparations for today’s line-by-line scrutiny based on that evidence incredibly difficult.
That said, I turn to clause 1 and schedule 1. As the Minister is aware, we voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and the clause is the Bill in a nutshell. We will go on to discuss in great detail the various clauses and to outline our reservations at the different stages, but, ultimately, we fear that the Bill—right now, and in this form—holds none of the answers to the problems facing the country and actually stands to exacerbate them.
It is not difficult to see how implementation of the Bill could have severe consequences for the health and social care sector, a point made by several of the witnesses on Tuesday. The sector will require special consideration. The policy statement published in February on what comes after clause 1 specifically comes into effect simply saying to those earning less than £25,600:
“We will…end free movement and not implement a route for lower-skilled workers.”
Many of the people on the frontline fighting the coronavirus earn less than that. We need them now, and we need them to recover. The policy paper and the Minister state that they are looking to the domestic workforce to plug those gaps, but on Tuesday we heard from the Migration Advisory Committee—we can all see and feel this—that systemic failures underpin the problems in social care, and those will not be resolved by January. If we put a hard stop on free movement without having resolved some of those issues, there will be consequences when the country can least afford that.
Concerns about the clause fall into two distinct groups: ensuring that we have done the right thing by the some 3.5 million EU citizens who are already here under free movement rules when those come to an end, and certain groups in particular, and looking ahead to the future impact of restricted migration flows. Since the Bill’s predecessor was presented to the House in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament, the EU settlement scheme has come into effect to give European citizens who reside in the UK a pre-settled and a settled status.
The numbers coming through the scheme are positive, but there are concerns about certain groups, some with specific vulnerabilities. Eligible children in care, for example, are one cohort that we will return to under the new clauses. The impact of coronavirus on Home Office capabilities alone, in addition to its impact on applicants, inevitably has heightened our concerns that some groups will need more support than ever to access the scheme.
Turning to the impact that ending free movement will have on migration flows in key sectors, the Bill provides more questions than answers. It is incredibly narrow in scope, as we have discussed, which is extraordinary given that it will create the biggest change to our immigration system in decades. Instead of putting forward a new immigration system, which Parliament could discuss, debate, amend and improve, the Bill grants powers to Ministers to introduce whatever system they like with extensive Henry VIII powers.
The Government’s February 2020 policy statement indicated what such a system might be like. Properly debating most of that new system will be deemed out of scope for this Bill and this Committee, but we will do what we can within scope to set out principles and solutions for when clause 1 comes into effect.
A number of the witnesses on Tuesday were critical of the Government’s planned £25,600 threshold—not just on health and social care—and transitioning on to a visa system and sponsorship routes will cause headaches and shortages for a range of businesses, exacerbating economic uncertainty. For example, the Bill fails to address the UK’s need for migrant workers to allow the agriculture sector simply to function, which is another issue that we will explore when we debate the new clauses.
To be clear, Labour has no problem with an immigration system that treats all migrants the same, no matter where they come from, but that is not the system the Government propose. A points-based immigration system could be effective. However, it would be predicated on receptive analysis of occupation shortages, parallel education and skills strategies that seek to fill long-term job gaps with domestic talent, and a pragmatic yet empathetic Border Force. The Bill fails to do any of that, and we will seek to remedy this, within the bounds of its scope, through our amendments and new clauses.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, albeit at a longer distance than we are accustomed to. I thank the Clerks for dealing with what were probably some horrendously drafted amendments by the bucketful during the last couple of weeks.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in our detailed line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. It will be with a sense of déjà vu that I am sure the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also feels, having sat in the same Public Bill Committee this time last year. The real shame is that, this time last year, nobody listened to a thing that we said, and this Bill is in the same form as it was back then. Looking around the room, however, I see a much more discerning Committee this year, so I am filled with optimism that we may indeed be able to deliver some change.
We have serious concerns; we do not just make things up. As Opposition MPs, we have lots of concerns that stakeholders have raised with us. My preliminary point is that the two previous Immigration Acts that passed all the way through Parliament, in 2014 and 2016, contributed in a very serious and significant way to the Windrush scandal. In her review of what happened, Wendy Williams highlighted all the warnings that came from the same stakeholders about the problems that those Bills would cause. Indeed, she quoted from some of the contributions made by Opposition Members during the passage of the Bills. Hon. Members might not agree with everything we say, but sometimes we are worth listening to, even if we do not manage to achieve change in this Committee. I plead with the Home Office and members of the Committee to engage seriously with the concerns that we are flagging up.
At the weekend, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), wrote that
“the Home Office has yet to implement the process of root and branch cultural change necessary in the aftermath of Windrush.”
I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we receive some signals that the cultural approach of the Home Office, and its attitude to listening, is changing.
Clause 1 is the Bill in microcosm. I will not repeat my entire stage 2 speech, which I am sure hon. Members followed very closely indeed, but I take your advice on scope, Sir Edward. I am sad to say again that the SNP totally opposes clause 1, because it brings to an end what we regard as a valuable, simple and well-functioning immigration system of free movement. As a result, it extends what is a complex, expensive and unjust domestic system to EEA nationals. That is bad for the individuals caught up in it, who will face prohibitive fees, complicated procedures, broken families and diminished rights, but it is also bad for the economy. I do not think that any hon. Member present who paid attention to the evidence that we heard on Tuesday can remain 100% enthusiastic about the Government’s proposals for the immigration system come January. It will be an abject nightmare for many industries that have already been totally decimated by the coronavirus shutdown. We did not even hear from the tourism and hospitality industries, which are at the forefront of facing the challenges.
Clause 1 is also bad for Scotland—for our population growth, demographics, economy and tax base. If the task had been to design an immigration system for Scotland alone, nobody in their right mind would have come up with this one. The same is true—probably even truer—of Northern Ireland, with its land border with a country where free movement will continue. We will explore all these issues as we go through the Bill in more detail and discuss the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled. From my point of view, there is nothing much to celebrate and lots to regret about clause 1, and indeed schedule 1, and we oppose them both.
Kevin Foster
I will reply briefly. I recognise the position of the Scottish National party on the Bill and on these particular proposals. There is a fundamental difference, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is always worth listening to, even when we disagree. He laments the absence of the tourism and hospitality industries on Tuesday. Regardless of our views on the Bill, we all look forward to an era when those industries will be able to think about recruiting again, rather than being in the position that we expect them to be in of significant job losses, including in my constituency, over the coming weeks and months, given the impact of recent weeks.
To turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Halifax, I was listening on Tuesday to the evidence from Professor Brian Bell, interim chair of the MAC, particularly on social care, and I cannot remember him saying that a general route for employers in the social care sector to recruit abroad at or near the minimum wage would be good news for the social care sector. In fact, I think he said precisely the opposite. To be clear, the general salary threshold is being reduced to £25,600, but where an occupation is deemed to be in shortage, it will be subject to a lower salary level of £20,480 a year.
It is also worth pointing out that for more than 20 categories of healthcare professional and allied healthcare professional, their eligibility will be based on the national salary scales paid in the NHS, rather than the general salary scales set out in the wider immigration rules. That is linked to the creation of what we are looking at as a healthcare visa to give fast-track access and reduced fees to people under that scheme. It is important that we keep placing those facts on the record so that people are aware of them, given some of the not very well informed commentary we have seen in the media, such as the claim that nurses will not be eligible, when in fact they will be fast-tracked and prioritised under our system.
Holly Lynch
I am concerned that the Minister has put words in my mouth in relation to what the MAC said about social care. What we did hear loud and clear from a number of witnesses, however, was that there is no plan to address workforce issues in social care when free movement ends. Is he minded to have specific remedies for social care in his future plans, before we end free movement?
Kevin Foster
Again, if people think, from what we have seen in the last few weeks, that the remedy for social care is to recruit more people at or near to the minimum wage from abroad, that is an odd conclusion to draw.
Kevin Foster
We will certainly talk to the Employment Minister. Again, I am conscious of the scope of the Bill and not going off more widely into our labour market strategies.
One conversation I recently had with the Employment Minister was about how, sadly, a lot of people in my constituency, and I am sure in the hon. Lady’s constituency as well, need to find new employment opportunities. Social care, and the healthcare sector more widely, will be part of providing some of those opportunities, not just through entry level jobs, but by ensuring that education, colleges and others are training people towards skilled jobs and providing real career progression.
For me, that is the solution for social care, rather than looking to the migration system as the overall labour market solution. I am sure we all share the sentiment, whatever any of us thinks of ending free movement, that the sector needs to be more invested in and more valued, and that there need to be clearer paths of career progression that people can see when they are deciding what they want to do for a job and a career.
I am conscious, Sir Edward, of what you said about the scope of the Bill. We could have an interesting discussion about the overall labour market strategy, but for now, this is a focused debate about why clause 1 is important and delivers the core of what the Bill is about.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph 4(2).
I am moving this amendment because, as we heard on Tuesday from Adrian Berry, the drafting of paragraph 4(2) —there are similar paragraphs in schedule 1—is far from satisfactory.
In tabling this amendment, we are asking the Minister, how is it that this paragraph is supposed to work? Why must we leave it to ordinary citizens to work out whether they still have certain rights by checking back whether these provisions are inconsistent with or could impact on the interpretation of decades of immigration laws, both Immigration Acts and legislation made under them? Why has the Bill not done that job for them? As Mr Berry said, the Home Office must know how these rights interplay with earlier provisions of immigration legislation. Why is that not set out in the Bill?
As we just heard, schedule 1 does the heavy lifting of repealing large parts of retained law in relation to free movement of people. Over three parts, schedule 1 lists, in considerable detail, the various bits of primary and secondary legislation of retained EU law that are to be omitted and revoked.
For large parts, the schedule is pretty clear. For example, it says:
“Article 1 of the Workers Regulation is omitted.”
I do not like that, but I cannot complain that it is lacking in clarity. As Adrian Berry pointed out, however, elsewhere the drafting lets people down. Even with the help of immigration lawyers like Mr Berry, it will be incredibly difficult for people to know whether other rights that they have under the workers regulation are still effectively in force.
Other articles in the workers regulation are important. These are not trivial matters. They include, for example, the right to equal treatment in various spheres, such as education, employment rights and family rights. It will be important for folk to know, in a straightforward manner, whether they still enjoy these rights, but schedule 1 totally fudges this question.
The offending paragraph states that these provisions
“cease to apply so far as—
(a) they are inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts (including, and as amended by, this Act), or
(b) they are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
I find that very difficult to understand, as a parliamentarian and somebody who many years ago was an immigration lawyer.
For example, is a protection offered against discrimination on vocational grounds in paragraph 6, contrary to the Immigration Acts or any provision made under them? The Immigration Acts are a specific list of provisions. Again, as Mr Berry pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to think that the Home Office knew exactly which workers regulation articles were not impacted at all and which were, and to what extent.
That should be in the Bill, so that folk know where they stand. It is as simple as that. Otherwise, the consequence would be endless confusion and litigation. The query and question for the Minister is, why is the Bill still drafted in this way?
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, does anybody else wish to speak? In that case, over to you, Minister.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Sir Edward. I just thought I would be courteous, in case there was another hon. Member who wished to speak.
Amendment 18, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and his colleagues, would remove paragraph 4(2) from schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies provisions of the workers regulation, which conflict with domestic immigration law. This would mean that the UK remained bound by EU law in relation to the rights of EEA citizens to access the UK’s job market, which might in part be the hon. Gentleman’s intention, given his well-known view on that subject.
The Government, therefore, cannot support this amendment, because it would effectively result in free movement rights for workers and their families continuing after the end of the transition period. The Government are committed to ending the free movement of people now that we have left the EU, so therefore this proposal is incompatible with that. The Government are committed to ending the free movement of people now that we have left the EU, so therefore this would be incompatible with that.
We have made it clear that we will bring free movement to an end on 1 January, and introduce an effective and fairer points-based immigration system that takes into account the needs of the whole of our United Kingdom and works for the whole of our United Kingdom. It will be a system that reflects the skills and contributions that someone has to offer, not where the person comes from.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is right that I would love to see all these rights retained, but that is not the motivation behind this amendment. I accept that the Government want to go about repealing some rights, but the Bill does not really do that. It says, in a peculiar way, that the rights are “sort of repealed” and one has to check back through immigration legislation for decades to work out to what extent. Why has it been done in this way rather than setting out specifically which rights are retained and which are not?
Kevin Foster
The answer is partly that it is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list of directly affected law in terms of the EU because court judgments will affect that. One reason for the wording is to make it clear that it relates to the Immigration Act 1971 and does not create a wider enabling power around the workers regulation. I am also clear that those who are subject to the withdrawal agreement are covered by those provisions.
During the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 we discussed in great detail the provisions for protecting the rights of EEA citizens resident in the UK by the end of the transition period, which is 31 December this year. The EU settlement scheme, which was fully opened on 13 March 2019, was specifically introduced for this purpose. One of the rights protected by the status granted under the scheme is equality of access to employment, benefits and services, in the manner outlined by the workers regulation.
Retaining sub-paragraph (4)(2) of schedule 1 will in no way compromise our commitments to upholding the rights of resident EEA citizens already working in the United Kingdom. It will simply ensure other provisions of the workers regulation, which are not specific to immigration, do not have ongoing effects on UK immigration law, but continue to have their effects for other purposes, hence the wording of the sub-section. Otherwise the UK would be required, for example, to provide all EEA citizens with an offer of employment as though they were British citizens, meaning they could not be subjected to any restrictions on access in the UK labour market, directly undermining the new points-based immigration system, which will not provide preferential treatment for EEA citizens.
The changes made by sub-paragraph (4)(2) only relate to immigration aspects of the workers regulation and will not affect any other rights provided by that regulation. For example, the right to equal treatment in respect of positions of employment and work, and the right to join a trade union are unaffected by the provision, because this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle in which to consider them or to look for a power to alter or amend them.
It is less than six months since the British people voted to take back control of our borders and introduce a new points-based system to control immigration, which will deliver for the UK for years to come. This provision, ending the immigration rights provided by the workers regulation, is one the steps needed to pave the way for the new system. For those reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for his explanation. I absolutely understand what the Government are trying to achieve and that some of the rights in the workers directive have been put in legislation, including in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. However, that is not the point that this amendment is trying to make. The point is about how the Bill is—or is not—going about repealing the workers directive.
It is essentially a point about the rule of law. When I intervened, the Minister said that it would not be possible to draw up an exhaustive list of exactly how these rights were affected by Immigration Acts and other provisions. If the Government cannot do that, how on earth is the ordinary citizen supposed to be able to tell what their rights are? I think we should take this paragraph out of the schedule and, if the Government are unhappy with the implications that has in leaving things on the statute book, they should come back on another occasion with a clear list and fix it that way. I would like to push the amendment to a division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I would like to ask the Minister some questions about paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which potentially disapplies any retained EU law relating to the immigration context. It is a similar set of questions to those we were discussing a moment ago in relation to amendment 18, but with a different focus. It arises from evidence that was given to us on Tuesday afternoon by Adrian Berry on behalf of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which I thank for its help in preparing for this Committee.
I apologise that it was not possible to get an amendment tabled on this paragraph. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax pointed out, we have been doing a number of things in relation to this Bill at a rush, and we did not have the transcript of Tuesday afternoon’s sitting until last night. I am very grateful to the Hansard writers for the work they have been doing—I know they have a lot of Bills on—but that has caused part of our problem.
My concern is that the breadth of the wording in paragraph 6 could lead to the repeal of legal protections that go far beyond the realm of free movement, which is the purpose of this Bill. I hope the Minister may be able to put some assurances on the record in relation to my concerns about the Government’s future intentions. As we heard a few moments ago, certain provisions of EU law, as retained EU law, have been brought within UK law by a number of different instruments—some EU law has been brought into domestic law through statutory instruments and so forth. They are saved by section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Direct EU legislation is saved as retained EU law by section 3 of the 2018 Act. It is explicitly defined and does not include treaties or directives; it is things such as EU regulations with direct applicability.
Any other powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that could be enforced in the UK because of EU law are carried over by section 4 of the 2018 Act. That includes things like treaties and directives that are directly effective. It is, however, important to note that section 4(2)(b) limits the enforceability of directives to the extent that retained EU law is only the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures arising under an EU directive that are of a kind that have been recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom in a case decided before the end of the transition period.
Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 disapplies those provisions of EU law to the extent that they are either inconsistent with or otherwise incapable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts, or otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration. The problem is that the carve-out basically all EU immigration law retained by virtue of paragraph 4, because
“capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”
could basically mean just about anything. The question I am asking the Minister is what EU law that paragraph applies to. What exactly are the Government trying to target?
We get some help from paragraphs 68 and 69 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which suggest the Government may be trying to affect what we have come to call derived rights cases, in the free movement context. For example, cases of so-called Zambrano carers. These are situations where the European Court has recognised that, because of rights within the European treaties available to European nationals, certain rights must be given to those nationals and their family members or carers in order to ensure that the European national can actually enjoy their EU rights. I accept that, if one is trying to get rid of free movement, as the Bill is, these categories would need to be removed from UK law. That is exactly what ending free movement means, but if that is the scope of the Government’s intentions, it should be much clearer in the Bill.
Unfortunately, paragraph 6 goes much wider than that, addressing not only provisions made under the Immigration Acts, as the Minister suggested a few moments ago, but any matter capable of being seen as in connection with immigration. That could include, for example, the anti-trafficking directive, which prohibits removal of a victim of trafficking if they never received sufficient support and assistance under article 11 of the directive. Other directives that could be caught under involving the exercise of functions in connection with immigration include the reception conditions directive, which supports asylum seekers, the EU victims’ rights directive, and potentially others.
One way of protecting all these directives would be simply to say that paragraph 6 of schedule 1 does not affect directives that form part of retained EU law. After all, the Government’s own explanatory notes do not identify any directives that they wish to disapply in the immigration context, even though I accept that the list in paragraph 69 is described as non-exhaustive. Alternatively, the Government could list the directives specifically to be protected, as set out in the explanatory notes, directly within schedule 1 of the Bill.
I have to say that if the Government do not follow either of those paths, vital protections for vulnerable people could be at risk of becoming collateral damage in the ending of free movement. I am absolutely not suggesting that the Government intend to remove those protections, but if they do not intend that, I hope the Minister can give us clear assurances to that effect today and explain why they appear to fall within the scope of the Bill as drafted.
As things stand, the breadth of the language in paragraphs 6 and a lack of sufficient objective parameters to ascertain its intended targets make it impossible to accurately predict which areas of retained EU law could be affected by the Bill. That is exactly the problem we were discussing a moment ago in relation to paragraph 4. It raises fundamental legal concerns. Migrants and their representatives, Home Office caseworkers and judges must be able to ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty what the law is. Indeed, that is one of the core lessons learned from the Windrush review carried out by Wendy Williams. I do not believe that this provision meets that standard.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech and her interest in this section of the Bill. To be clear, paragraph 6 disapplies the directly effective rights deriving from the EU law that will form part of retained EU law at the end of the transition period if they are inconsistent with immigration legislation or affect immigration practices. They are being repealed so that people cannot in the future attempt to rely on such directly effective rights to bypass the system to enter and reside in the UK, other than under the points-based system. We have been clear that provision will be made in the EU settlement scheme for those currently exercising their EU derivative right of residence in the UK, and that has now been provided, as I touched on.
Some people have asked for examples of rights that paragraph 6 would disapply. They include the rights of Turkish nationals to preferential immigration treatment under the European Economic Community-Turkey association agreement. They also include, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said, derivative rights of residents under EU law such as Zambrano carers, and the Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases, which will cease from the day that paragraph 6 comes into force. Those rights stem directly from the treaty on the functioning of the EU and need to be disapplied because otherwise people could continue to cite and rely on them to bypass the future immigration system.
The Government do not intend to use the provisions to avoid our responsibilities under international law. We are very clear that our system of protection routes will continue to operate separately from the system of migration rules, as they always have. Family migration will not form part of the points-based system; it will be based on the family migration rules. The wording has to be the way it is so that the paragraph is not too wide in scope. This is about citing it in relation to immigration—trying to cite an EU right to work in the UK rather than applying the provision in a situation where we would, for example, be breaching our international obligations. As I said during the evidence session on Tuesday, under statutory instruments and regulations, Ministers cannot act against international law. We could have a long constitutional debate about whether Parliament can still pass primary legislation in relation to international law, but that is probably not relevant to this particular schedule.
In essence, the schedule is about being clear that it will not be possible to use a range of rights to undermine the points-based immigration system that we are putting in place. We want to make it clear that EEA and non-EEA citizens should look to migrate under the points-based system.
Question put, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Kevin Foster
I do not expect this clause to be controversial, but given some of the evidence that we heard, it may be useful to set out one or two responses, especially the Government’s long-standing policy on deportation of Irish nationals. As Committee members will know, clause 2 protects the status of Irish citizens in the UK when free movement ends. British and Irish citizens have enjoyed a unique status and specific rights in each others’ countries since the 1920s as part of the common travel area arrangements.
Under clause 2, when free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK without permission or restrictions on how long they can stay. British citizens, as you are probably aware, Sir Edward, enjoy reciprocal rights in Ireland, again reflecting the unique historical position of the Republic of Ireland and the UK.
The clause provides legal certainty and clarity for Irish citizens by inserting a new section 3ZA into the Immigration Act 1971. New section 3ZA will ensure that Irish citizens can enter and remain in the UK without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from. This is already the position for those entering the UK from within the common travel area, but Irish citizens travelling to the UK from outside the common travel area currently enter under EEA regulations. This clause will remove that distinction by giving Irish citizens a clear status once free movement ends. While that may not have been impactive, it is there in a technical, legal sense, which is why this clause is necessary.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for a lot of the clarification in his opening remarks. We welcome clause 2, and its content is indeed necessary. We will, however, be asking for some further assurances through new clause 27, largely to reaffirm what the Minister has just said. That new clause asks the Secretary of State to
“publish a report detailing the associated rights of the Common Travel Area”.
We heard from both Alison Harvey and Professor Ryan that although clause 2 is welcome and offers a degree of clarity as free movement rights are stripped away from both Irish and British citizens, as well as those in Northern Ireland who identify as both, there are some outstanding areas that require further clarification, including the scope of reciprocal rights under the common travel agreement. Clause 2 shows that many of the rights granted to Irish citizens through the common travel area are facilitated through freedom of movement. If not in the present Bill, do the Government plan to legislate to enshrine the provisions of the common travel area as reciprocal rights, rather than purely as changeable administrative arrangements, and, if so, when?
As Professor Ryan highlighted on Tuesday, more must be done to clarify the status of acquisition of British nationality, for British-born children, children born to Irish parents and Irish citizens wanting to naturalise. At the moment it is incredibly hard to ascertain the exact immigration status of those individuals and to know, for example, whether they have time limits on their visas or have ever breached immigration laws. If the Government truly want to redefine the British immigration system, they must answer those questions to clear up the ambiguity surrounding British citizenship law.
I am sure that the Minister will understand some of the nervousness about deportations. He referred to it in his opening remarks on the clause. To give the Committee some context to work with, I asked Professor Ryan at column 35 in the evidence sitting on 9 June whether he was aware of examples in recent history when an Irish citizen had been deported, either because a court had recommended deportation on sentencing, or because a Secretary of State had concluded, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, that the public interest required deportation. If I am not mistaken, the Scottish National party spokesperson also put a similar question to Alison Harvey. No specific examples could be provided. If the Minister is aware of any, I should welcome it if he would share them with the Committee to support the discussion.
We still do not know the Government’s proposed threshold for deportation of Irish citizens. It would be helpful if that could be clarified. Ideally, the Government would enshrine that in legislation or at least make a commitment during the passage of the Bill to state explicitly how deportation and exclusion will be used for Irish citizens in future. Professor Ryan has said that owing to the arrangements in the common travel area the threshold for deportation and exclusion of Irish citizens is notionally higher than that of other nations. Seemingly, it is more rarely, if ever, exercised.
As I have mentioned, the Good Friday agreement allows people born in Northern Ireland the right to identify exclusively as Irish or British, or as both. Irish citizens are referred to in the Bill, so can we assume that that reference includes Northern Ireland-born citizens who do not identify as British? If so, will the Minister make it clear in the Bill that people in Northern Ireland who identify exclusively as Irish, per the Good Friday agreement, are exempt from deportation and exclusion?
Without such a commitment, there is inevitably some anxiety. Alison Harvey made a case for mitigating the risk through the right to abode. If that were implemented, it would guarantee a raft of citizenship rights, so I welcome feedback from the Minister on that approach. As well as clarifying the status of Northern Irish citizens who identify solely as Irish, the right to abode would also alleviate the loophole through which someone with an Irish passport is not granted protections on arriving in the UK, because they have travelled from a country outside the common travel area.
We are supportive of the clause and will not oppose it, but will return to some of its content in debate on new clause 27.
Stuart C. McDonald
Given what the Minister and shadow Minister have said, I can, I hope, be helpfully brief. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position on deportation, but the shadow Minister raises a reasonable point. The Minister has clarified the policy— but why not put it on the face of the Bill? I very much welcome the Minister’s confirmation of how Irish nationals will be able to come from outside the CTA with family members. It is a welcome clarification.
I want briefly to refer to the broader issue of common travel area rights. We are often told about the historic common travel area, and the fact that the rights go back many decades. That is true, but in recent years most of those rights have become embedded in and entangled with free movement rights. In the Bill, we are repealing those rights but not replacing them with common travel area rights. The Government keep talking about reciprocal rights, but we need them to be set down in statute.
So far, as the Minister said, there seems to be a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the Government of Ireland, and a Government position paper, setting out the fact that there will be rights to work, study, social security and healthcare access, and vote. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, essentially those CTA rights are “written in sand” and for the Committee on the Administration of Justice the CTA can be characterised by loose administrative arrangements of provisions that can be altered at any time. So we need to return to this issue of when we will actually see a detailed scheme of rights for the common travel area.
There is some urgency about this matter, because at the moment, for example, there are people in Northern Ireland who choose to be Irish citizens and who have the option of applying under the EU settled status scheme, but they will have to make that decision without really knowing how the benefits of the EU settled status scheme compare with the benefits of the common travel area scheme, because that has not been spelled out in great detail yet. There are practical issues that have been flagged up by the organisations I have mentioned about cross-border rights to access healthcare and education, and so on. All these questions need to be answered, and fairly urgently.
Finally, I will echo what the shadow Minister said about Alison Harvey’s evidence on the right of abode, and I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering achieving some sort of resolution of these issues by using the right of abode. However, we will return to these issues when we debate the new clause that the shadow Minister has tabled.
I welcome clause 2, but we still have a considerable way to go in making sure that the common travel area persists and works properly, and that folk know where they stand.
Kevin Foster
I thank the SNP and Labour spokespersons for their overall support of the clause. I think I have been clear that there is a very strong commitment to the common travel area. Elements of its operation are inevitably required due to the provisions of the Belfast agreement, which is actually international law; it is a treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, so it is not something that can just be amended on a whim. Far from it—it is underpinned by the strong consent of both communities, north and south, as expressed in referendums at the time it went through.
The commitment of both Governments to the common travel area has persisted for decades and will continue to do so. Irish citizens can apply to the European settlement scheme. I do not see any detriment that would come to them from doing so, but neither is there a requirement for them to do so, given the clarity that the clause brings to their rights within the United Kingdom. To be absolutely clear, the clause looks to remove that difference in the technical definition between an Irish citizen who has arrived in the United Kingdom on, for the sake of argument, the Eurostar from France, as opposed to arriving in the United Kingdom on a plane from Dublin.
It is probably worth saying that it would be interesting to work out how that definition could have actually affected someone’s life, apart from some of their more theoretical rights. However, I will be clear on that front that the Bill removes that difference. For an Irish citizen within the United Kingdom, it applies regardless of which country they travel from—whether they have travelled to the United Kingdom from within the common travel area or, for example, from the United States of America—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Halifax was reassured by that.
Effectively, Irish citizens become identified —I accept that this is perhaps a slightly controversial thing to say in the context of people’s identity—as British in our system of migration. Effectively, their Irish passport becomes equivalent to a UK national’s passport.
As for the provisions around deportation, I was asked whether there was a particular example. My officials in the Home Office have spent some time over the last week or two trying to find an example under current legislation —not under legislation, perhaps, from previous eras—of someone being deported from the United Kingdom to the Republic. We struggled; so far, I cannot find a specific example. I do not see any Member of the Committee who is about to jump up and give me an example, in order to contradict me on that point.
In particular, we are not aware of there ever having been, even at the heights of the troubles, a particular stream of deportation from Northern Ireland into the Republic. Partly, that is because we would all have to question the practical effect of deporting someone from County Londonderry to County Donegal; how on earth would anyone effectively enforce that in any way? Also, however, the spirit between the two Governments has been very much that we respect the rights of those who are there and, to be clear, that is set out in a 2007 written ministerial statement. That was not done under a Government formed by my party. The written ministerial statement has been there for 13 years. I wrote to the Irish Government about the fact that the provisions were in the Bill, and we have not received negative representations. The minimum threshold would have to be an offence that carried a 10-year prison sentence, so we are talking about very serious criminal offending, or the court would have to recommend it.
Kevin Foster
The clause is minor and technical in its nature, but it is important for the implementation of the Bill and for a fully functioning statute book. Effectively, it states that the Bill will be one of the Immigration Acts. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Holly Lynch
There is so little in clause 3 that we will not make a contribution to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Consequential etc. provision
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State may only make regulations which are necessary rather than those which the Minister considers appropriate.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “, or in connection with,”
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out “this Part” and insert “Schedule 1”
This amendment seeks to limit the scope of the power in Clause 4 to matters concerning the ending of retained EU law rights that currently preserve free movement and immigration-related rights.
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
‘(1A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may only be exercised within the period of one year from the day on which this Act is passed.
(1B) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after a period of two years from the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would restrict the use of the Henry VIII powers contained in Clause 4 to a period of one year from the date of the Act being passed; and would prevent any changes to primary legislation made by exercise of these powers having permanent effect unless confirmed by primary legislation.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if satisfied that the regulations would have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
(5B) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (5A).”
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under subsection (1), in relation to persons to whom the regulations apply under this Act, shall be made in accordance with the following principles—
(a) Promotion of family life, particularly that between children and their parents and that between partners;
(b) That persons in the United Kingdom should have a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against any decision to refuse leave remain, to curtail leave to enter or remain or to make a deportation order;
(c) that where leave to remain is given—
(i) on account of a person’s long residence in the United Kingdom; or
(ii) to a person whose continuous residence in the United Kingdom includes five years of that person’s childhood; or
(iii) to a child who has lived in the United Kingdom for a period of seven continuous years;
that leave is given for an indefinite period;
(d) that leave to enter or remain given to a person for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom is not subject to a condition restricting work, occupation or recourse to public funds; and
(e) ensure that no change to immigration rules or fees is made—
(i) unless sufficient public notice has been given of that change to ensure any person affected by the change who is already in the United Kingdom with leave to enter or remain has reasonable opportunity to adjust their expectations or circumstances before the change takes effect; or
(ii) that would require a person given leave to enter or remain for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom to satisfy more restrictive conditions for the continuation of their stay than were required to do so at the time the person was first given leave for this purpose.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that exercise of the delegated powers in clause 4(1) is guided by certain principles.
Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section 4 and section 7(5) expire on the day after the day specified as the deadline under section 7(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
Stuart C. McDonald
I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments. At this stage I expect to get the Government Members excited because I am urging them to take back control, by which I mean take back control of immigration policy from the Home Office and keep MPs in a job. Like most hon. Members I have become familiar with the broad powers of delegated legislation and sweeping Henry VIII powers in recent years through both immigration legislation and more recently through Brexit. The Government are taking increasingly more and more powers to rewrite not only subordinate legislation but primary Acts of Parliament with very little constraint. I do not think that anyone here would dispute that in certain circumstances such powers can be sensible and useful, but they should be exceptional and limited. Instead, the practice has become so routine that if it goes on we might as well shut down Parliament or end its role as a legislator.
I am grateful to the witnesses who spoke on Tuesday and to the organisations that provided briefings, including the Law Society of Scotland, Amnesty International, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Justice, Liberty, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others. There are big concerns about this clause.
In tabling the amendments I have also relied on the report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its 46th report in the last Session, which was an analysis of the predecessor Bill. It is fair to say that their lordships were not impressed with clause 4. It is noticeable that they went out of their way to prepare the report in advance of Committee stage so that we could benefit from their advice. I regret that the Home Office is still not listening to that sage advice at all.
The sweeping power is set out first in clause 4(1), where the Home Secretary can make any provision that she thinks “appropriate” in relation to the whole of part 1 —in other words, related to free movement. Clause 4(2) makes it clear that this can include amending any Act of Parliament as well as retained EU legislation. There are various subsections about the procedures that would be required to be used when exercising those powers, which is something that I suspect we will return to later.
The word that appears several times in the House of Lords report is “significant”. Their lordships had significant concerns about significant delegation of powers from Parliament to the Executive on such a significant issue that concerns a significant number of people. Amendments 2, 3, 20, 21 and 4 are designed to cut those powers done to size and to keep MPs in a job. It is quite informative to look at the explanatory memorandum to the same Bill from this time last year. The memorandum explains, for example, how the powers would be used to set up appeal rights for EEA nationals. All those things have already been taken care of in the year that has passed, yet nothing has changed in the formulation of clause 4. The Government still say they need such powers, even though they have done everything that they envisaged using those powers for in the explanatory memorandum from this time last year.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was passed at the start of the year, and it contains a whole part on citizens’ rights of residence, frontier workers, deportation appeals, non-discrimination and so on. It includes extensive powers of delegated legislation as well, but at least they are constrained by the requirement that they should be exercised in order to implement the provisions of the withdrawal agreement that relate to citizens’ rights. As I say, a lot of what the Government originally envisaged they would use these powers for has already been accomplished.
Amendment 2 refers to an argument that we have had many times before. It is about requiring use of the powers to be “necessary” rather than merely considered appropriate by the Minister. Again, there is no genuine objection to being able to make rules if we suddenly have to make changes for a deal or a no-deal situation in the future relationship, but that should not just be at the whim of Ministers deciding what is appropriate and what is not. Their lordships and various stakeholders have recommended a test of necessity, and that is what is in amendment 2.
Amendment 3 is probably the most critical amendment and takes out the words “in connection with”. I refer again to the House of Lords Committee report, which said:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
So their lordships are not very happy at all with what the Government propose.
Amendments 20 and 21 come from the House of Lords Committee report, but there have been perfectly sensible suggestions from Amnesty International, with similar ideas from other stakeholders. Amendment 20 would limit the scope of powers so that regulations cannot be made in relation to any old provision in part 1; they must relate specifically to schedule 1. Again, I emphasise that it can be acceptable to have limited powers in order to tidy up the statute book and the detailed list of provisions in the schedule. As matters stand, however, clause 2 means that we could have sweeping changes made to the rights of Irish citizens on the whim of the Secretary of State. Indeed, on the face of it, delegated powers could be used to alter clause 4 in order to increase the Executive’s powers yet further. That cannot be acceptable.
Amendment 21 would put a simple sunset clause of one year on the use of these powers. Should the Government have not tidied up the statute book by this time next year, something seriously wrong will have happened. Alternatively, something seriously positive will have happened and we will have extended the transition period by a couple of years. In either case, there will be plenty of time to legislate afresh. Everyone gets the argument that sweeping powers should not be left on the statute book forever; hence the sunset clause.
Amendment 22 puts a sunset clause on changes made by subordinate legislation. If the Minister really thinks there is such a rush that he cannot proceed by primary legislation, he should make the regulations. He should then come back to the House of Commons with a proper Bill, so that we can do our job as legislators and decide whether to keep those provisions in force or let them lapse.
In some ways, I am just sticking up for MPs. I want us to be able to continue to be the primary legislators in the field of immigration law and that we should start taking back some control from the Home Office.
Holly Lynch
I rise to speak to amendment 12, as well as demonstrate support for amendments 2 to 4, which also have our full support. With your permission, Sir Edward, I will focus my comments on the amendments relating to the transfer of powers in clause 4, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston will speak specifically to amendment 15, which is part of this group but is on a slightly different issue and relates to the impact that this legislation will have on children.
It is a pleasure to follow the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who made an articulate speech on the concerns about the Henry VIII powers. The reason we are all here physically today and not fulfilling our duties from home is this Government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. Unfortunately, this transfer of powers seems to be inconsistent with that approach.
The arguments were incredibly well rehearsed on Second Reading during the previous Parliament, in Committee and in the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as we have already heard. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have not reflected on that feedback and adapted their approach.
Clause 4 as it stands confers an extremely wide power on the Home Secretary to make whatever legal amendments they consider appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of the immigration part of the Bill. That includes the ability to amend primary legislation. I am sympathetic to the Government’s stated intention behind the clause—namely, that it will ensure coherence across the statute book following the substantial changes brought about by the ending of free movement, and deliver the required tweaks to legislation. However, clause 4 is drafted so widely that it could relate to almost any aspect of immigration law, and given that there is no time restriction on the clause or the powers within it, the concern is that there is potential for those powers to be used far beyond the aims of this Bill.
Adrian Berry of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, whom we heard from earlier this week, commented on the powers referenced in the Bill, including in clause 4(5). During that evidence session, he said:
“How is the ordinary person, never mind the legislator, to know whether the law is good or not…if you draft like that? You need to make better laws. Make it certain, and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions. There must be a…list in the Home Office of these provisions and it would be better if they are expressed in the schedule to the Bill.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 52, Q106.]
He went on to confirm that any responsible Opposition would have to table the amendments in this group in the absence of that list.
As we have heard, amendment 2 would replace the word “appropriate” with “necessary” in clause 4, line 34 on page 2 of the Bill, and amendment 3 would leave out “, or in connection with,” on the same line. With amendment 4, we seek to leave out subsection (5) altogether. We are also supportive of amendment 20.
On the specific proposed changes, as has already been said, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the almost identical version of the Bill in the 2017-19 Parliament. It said:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
The Committee expressed significant concerns about subsection (5), recommending that it be removed altogether, which is exactly what we are seeking to do,
“unless the Government can provide a proper and explicit justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power.”
The reason is that
“it confers broad discretion on Ministers to levy fees or charges on any person seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who, pre-exit, would have had free movement rights under EU law.”
I argued on Second Reading that this approach is bad not just for parliamentary democracy, but for our public services and for the economy—a sentiment shared by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry in an evidence session this week. Parliamentary scrutiny is the most effective way for stakeholders to work with MPs to shape legislation to respond to the needs of the country, and they are being denied that opportunity with the transfer of powers in this clause. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the British Medical Association, London First, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, trade unions and the Children’s Society are just a sample of the cross-section of organisations that have all expressed concerns that this transfer of powers to the Executive is not the way to develop quality and robust legislation.
During the attempted passage of the Bill in the last Parliament, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), set out a number of reasons why the powers in clause 4 were necessary. As the SNP spokesperson has already said, a number of those reasons have since been addressed, yet the powers remain.
Since then, almost all those powers have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of other pieces of primary and secondary legislation. I will rebut just a couple of arguments. The then Minister said:
“In the unlikely event that we leave the EU without a deal, the power will enable us to make provision for EEA nationals who arrive after exit day but before the future border and immigration system is rolled out”.
There is now a deal on citizens’ rights in place, so they will not be affected by negotiations on the future relationship.
The then Minister also said that the clause would allow the Government to
“align the positions of EU nationals and non-EU nationals in relation to the deportation regime”.—[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2019; c. 183-84.]
However, regulation 17 of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 makes amendments to deportation thresholds, so it is unclear why any further transfer of power is necessary in the Bill.
Kate Green
Amendment 15, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, aims to place the welfare of children at the heart of the way in which Ministers exercise their powers under clause 4. Children’s wellbeing is of central importance, both in UK law and to comply with our international obligations. We are a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of the child and to the global compact on migration, which contains 38 paragraphs on the welfare and treatment of children.
Domestically, the Children Act 1989 sets out the principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of children in matters relating to their care. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 provides that immigration functions must be discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom. With all that in place, the Committee may feel that we already have a framework that adequately protects children’s interests in immigration matters. However, the powers conferred on Ministers by clause 4 are very broad, and the way in which they are exercised could have a significant impact on children, whose best interests could be overlooked.
My amendment would embed protection against that happening as freedom of movement is ended. It would ensure that policies and rules introduced under the provisions of clause 4 can have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are resident in the United Kingdom, and would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a statement to explain why he or she is satisfied that that is the case.
The loss of free movement rights in the Bill means that some EEA national children will inevitably fall within the ambit of immigration legislation in the future. Some will be new arrivals to the UK, and others will have been here already but failed to secure the status to which they are entitled, becoming undocumented and subject to the compliant environment as a consequence.
Let me say a word briefly about the children who are at risk of being detrimentally affected, starting with those already in the UK who may none the less have failed to secure status. The number of such children could be substantial. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium estimates that there were as many as 751,000 non-Irish EEA and Swiss national children in the UK in 2019, but only 415,140 grants of status were made to children under the EU settlement scheme as at the end of March this year. Some of those children will be very vulnerable. My hon. Friends and I tabled new clause 58, which would secure status for looked-after children and young people leaving care, and I hope the Committee will have the opportunity to debate it in the days to come.
The impact of the Bill’s provision on those eligible for status who fail to apply is not limited to looked-after children alone. For example, parents may not understand whether their UK-born children are automatically British, whether they need to apply to register as British, or whether they should apply to the EU settlement scheme. The complexity of the system and the lack of access to advice means that some children may miss out on getting status or fail to obtain the highest status to which they are entitled. Some may be granted only pre-settled status and will need to be reminded to apply for settled status after five years or risk losing their right to remain in the UK.
Another group of children about whom I am concerned is those who have been in custody. Like adults, children applying to the EU settlement scheme are affected by time spent in custody. As well as not counting towards the five-year qualification period for settled status, periods in custody also reset the clock. Any child who spends time in custody will have to recommence their journey to qualify for settled or pre-settled status upon their release. That represents a troubling anomaly in the treatment of children who offend. Our criminal justice system generally takes the view that juvenile criminal behaviour should be treated differently from adult criminal behaviour, but that is not the case in relation to the EU settlement scheme. Is the Minister able to say how many children have been or may be unable to secure settled status as a result of that provision?
The examples I have cited are just that: examples. Any EEA and Swiss national children who do not secure status—those who were born here and those arriving in the future—could be affected by rules that may be introduced under the powers in clause 4. Hon. Members have already identified a number of potential harmful effects on EEA nationals, including children, as a result of the abolition of free movement and the imposition of new or more stringent rules. Some are reflected in the amendments and new clauses we have tabled and include the impact of fees and charges on citizenship applications; data-sharing policies; the application of income thresholds for the admission of family measures, including parents and children; no recourse to public funds conditions, which can affect children; the position of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; and provisions relating to detention, deportation and removal. As we discussed earlier, schedule 1 may disapply certain provisions of EU law or EU-derived rights, and that, too, could affect children in some cases, such as those who are victims of crime or trafficking.
In all those circumstances, my amendment would provide assurance that the impact of any rules made using the powers in clause 4 would be subject to the requirement that they have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK, whatever led them to be here and whatever their status while here.
The second limb of my amendment refers to the requirement to produce a report to Parliament, which would impel the Home Office to develop processes to undertake a systematic assessment of the impact on children of any planned new immigration rules, which does not appear to happen routinely at the moment. Such an approach would also underpin a best interests approach to the application of immigration rules in individual decisions, buttressing the provisions of section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. Again, there is little sign that a systematic approach to children’s best interests is embedded in Home Office decision making, and the requirement for immigration rules to protect children’s rights and interests must be supported in the design of decision-making processes and appropriate staff training. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I apologise, Sir Edward, but in my excitement over the Henry VIII clause and various other delegated powers, I forgot to speak to amendment 22, so I will speak to it briefly. It is slightly different from the amendments I spoke to earlier, which sought to rein in the powers the Home Office is trying to give itself in clause 4. Amendment 22 is more about setting out some guidance as to how those powers should be used, and to set out some principles. I, and I dare say any MP, could come up with 10 or 20 principles by which we would like the Home Office to abide. I have discussed these proposals with Amnesty International and they are good examples of the sort of framework we should provide at the Home Office, rather than giving it a blank cheque to introduce whatever system it sees fit.
The first of the amendment’s five principles is that these rules should be exercised to promote family life. Why have we allowed the Government to deliver tens of thousands of what England’s Children’s Commissioner called “Skype families”, separated by some of the most draconian anti- family migration rules in the world? Why did we watch as the Home Office simply withdrew the concession that generally allowed families with children who had been here seven years to settle permanently? The amendment would lay down a principle that would guide the Home Office to exercise its delegated functions in a way that promotes family life rather than undermining it.
The second principle relates to appeal rights. Everyone in this room believes in the rule of law, a facet of which is that a person should have a ready and accessible means of challenging their removal from the country in which they have made their home. To disagree with that simple proposition would be to ignore some of the key lessons from Windrush.
Thirdly, we need to stop putting so many people through a tortuous process before they have security of residence in this country. If people have been here for years on end, especially during childhood, why are we charging them many thousands of pounds over a 10-year period, with application after application after application? It is a disaster for the families affected and a total waste of Home Office time and resource. Let people move on.
Fourthly, if people are here for family reasons and fall on hard times, do we really want to say that they will just have to suffer and that the safety net we provide for others in a similar situation should not be available to them? If people are here to accompany family, why are we saying to them that they have to put their lives on hold and that they cannot seek work? These features of our immigration system are regressive, counter-productive and, frankly, prehistoric.
Finally the fifth principle is about treating people fairly and not pulling the rug from under their feet once they are here. Of course, rules and policies will change from time to time, but it is highly regrettable that we allow people to come to the UK on a particular visa route and then change the rules so that they apply not just to new people coming in but to those who are already here, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to remain. A perfect example was the change to the financial threshold for tier 2 visa holders seeking settlement. Imagine if someone has been here for three or four years and met all the salary requirements, only for the Home Office to then say, with a year to go, “This was the salary threshold you had before, but actually we have upped it by £5,000 or £6,000 or £7,000.” That is a retrospective rule change, and it is totally unfair to operate it in that way.
I could have added many more principles to those I would like to see guiding the Home Office. These principles say that if we are going to give the Home Office these powers, we want them to be exercised in the interests of family, the rule of law and stability, protecting against retrospective rule changes and providing financial security. For too long, the Home Office has disregarded those principles. It is time that we as MPs say that it should stop doing that.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 16th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2020 - (16 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Obviously, we will maintain social distancing. Like last week, the Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members sent copies of their speeches to hansardnotes @parliament.uk. We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill—the selection list is available in the room.
Clause 5
Power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Given the nature of the clause, I will spend a few minutes outlining its impact to the Committee. The clause and associated schedules 2 and 3 provide an essential legislative framework to ensure that the Government can make changes to our social security system when the transition period ends, alongside the launch of the future immigration system. The provisions will enable the Government to amend the retained European Union social security co-ordination rules and to deliver policy changes from the end of the transition period.
The clause provides a power to the Secretary of State, the Treasury or, where appropriate, a devolved authority to modify the social security co-ordination regulations. Those EU regulations provide for social security co-ordination across the European economic area, and will be incorporated into domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 at the end of the transition period. Clause 5(4) gives the Government the ability to make necessary consequential changes to other primary legislation and other retained EU law to ensure that the changes given effect by the main power are appropriately reflected. That power may be used, for example, to address technical matters, inoperabilities or inconsistencies. Schedule 2 sets out the power of the devolved authorities under clause 5.
This social security co-ordination clause confers powers on Scottish Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department to amend the limited elements of the social security co-ordination regulations that fall within devolved competence. It is important that we provide the devolved Administrations with the powers that they need to amend the aspects of the regulations for which they are responsible, just as it is right for the UK Government to have the powers for the laws that affect the UK as a whole. The powers are equivalent to those conferred on UK Ministers and will allow the devolved Administrations to respond to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in areas of devolved competence, either to keep parity with Westminster or to deviate in line with their own policies.
Without the powers in the Bill, the devolved Administrations would need to bring forward their own parallel legislation to give them equivalent powers to amend the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations in areas of devolved competence. Before the Bill was introduced, letters were sent to the devolved Administrations to seek legislative consent in principle, in line with the Sewel convention.
Schedule 3 provides further detail on the form that regulations will take under the clause, whether as statutory instruments, statutory rules or Scottish statutory instruments. The schedule provides that the use of the power is subject to the affirmative procedure. It also gives clarity on the procedures that the devolved Administrations will need to follow. Paragraph 5 permits other regulations, subject to the negative procedure, to be included in an instrument made under the clause.
Without the clause and associated schedules 2 and 3, the Government and relevant devolved authorities will have only the power contained in the 2018 Act to fix deficiencies in the retained system of social security co-ordination, restricting our ability to make changes. I reassure the Committee that the power in the clause will not be exercised to remove or reduce commitments made either in relation to individuals within the scope of the withdrawal agreement, for as long as they remain in the scope of that agreement, or in relation to British and Irish nationals moving between the UK and Ireland.
We are currently in negotiations with the EU about possible new reciprocal arrangements on social security co-ordination, of the kind that the UK has with countries outside the EU. The clause will enable the UK to respond to a variety of outcomes in those negotiations, including when no agreement is achieved by the end of the transition period. The clause will be necessary to deliver policy changes to the retained regime that will cover individuals who fall outside the scope of the withdrawal agreement, to reflect the reality of our new relationship with the European Union.
The Government have been clear that there will be changes to future social security co-ordination arrangements, including, as announced at Budget 2020, stopping the export of child benefit. The social security co-ordination powers in the Bill will enable the Government to deliver on that commitment and to respond to the outcome of negotiations with the EU to deliver changes from the end of the transition period. I therefore beg to move that clause 5 stands part of the Bill and that schedules 2 and 3 are agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Good morning, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship. Social security arrangements set out in EU regulation 883 of 2004 and elsewhere are currently directly applicable in the UK. They cover the co-ordination of social security, healthcare and pension provision for people who are publicly insured who move from one EU state to another.
The regulations ensure that individuals who move to another EEA are covered by the social security legislation of only one country at a time and are, therefore, liable only to make contributions in one country; that a person has the rights and obligations of the member state where they are covered; that periods of insurance, employment or residence in other member states can be taken into account when determining a person’s eligibility for benefits; and that a person can receive benefits that they are entitled to from one member state, even if they are resident in another.
The co-ordination regulations cover only those social security benefits that provide cover against certain categories of social risk, such as sickness, maternity, paternity, unemployment and old age. Some non-contributory benefits fall within the regulations but cannot be exported, and benefits that are social and medical assistance are not covered at all. Universal credit, for example, is excluded.
As we heard from Jeremy Morgan of British in Europe in his oral evidence to the Committee last week, most UK nationals resident in the EU are of working age. It is important to note that the number of people claiming the working-age benefits that are covered by the regulations—jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance—has declined sharply since the introduction of universal credit. We might therefore expect social security co-ordination arrangements to apply to a declining number of working-age adults. The regulations will, however, still be of importance for a sizeable number of individuals, and not least for pensioners.
The co-ordination regulations also confer a right on those with a European health insurance card to access medically necessary state-provided healthcare during a temporary state in another EEA state. The home member state is normally required to reimburse the host country for the cost of the treatment. Under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, protection of healthcare entitlements is linked to entitlement to cash benefits.
Clause 5(1) provides an appropriate authority with the power to modify the co-ordination regulations by secondary legislation. The power is very broad, placing no limits on the modifications that appropriate authorities are able to make to the co-ordination regulations. By virtue of subsection (3), the power explicitly
“includes power—
(a) to make different provision for different categories of person to whom they apply…
(b) otherwise to make different provision for different purposes;
(c) to make supplementary…consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision;
(d) to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter.”
The power is further enhanced by subsection (4), which provides for the ability to amend or repeal
“primary legislation passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”
and other retained direct EU legislation.
Since the UK left the EU at the end of January this year, the relevant EU regulations pertaining to social security, pensions and healthcare have been retained in UK law by section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I accept that the Government need to be able to amend co-ordination regulations to remedy deficiencies in them resulting from the UK’s exit from the EU, but the 2018 Act already contains a power in section 8 to modify direct retained EU law. Indeed, the Government have already exercised this power for four of the co-ordination regulations. Any changes that do not fall within the scope of the power in section 8 of the 2018 Act must necessarily, therefore, not relate to any ability for the law to operate efficiently or to remedy defects, but be intended to achieve wider policy objectives. I think the Minister acknowledged as much in his opening comments.
I was, however, surprised that the Minister said that only the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided such powers. My reading of the legislation is that the Secretary of State has further powers as regards social security, healthcare and pension rights for those who are protected by the withdrawal agreement under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. Section 5 of that Act inserts new section 7A into the 2018 Act so as to secure withdrawal agreement rights in domestic law, and that protection is buttressed by section 13 of the 2020 Act, which confers a power to make regulations in respect of social security co-ordination rights protected by the withdrawal agreement. Given the powers that already exist under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, as well as the fact that those powers have already been used by the Government, why does the Minister feel they are inadequate?
Paragraph 30 of the delegated powers memorandum is instructive. It states that the Government want to use the power in clause 5 to
“respond flexibly to the outcome of negotiations on the future framework and make changes to the retained social security co-ordination rules.”
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, given the proliferation of judicial reviews and the test cases that often come forward, it is better to adopt a belt-and-braces approach so that we underline the Government’s intention in both the Bill and the withdrawal Act?
Kate Green
The issue is the mission creep and scope creep involved in using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation and retained EU rights, particularly a mission creep that now encompasses the ability to make significant policy changes.
As we heard in oral evidence from our witnesses last week, it is important to recognise the considerable importance of policy and legislation in relation to social security co-ordination. It is vital to labour mobility, and to protect the rights of EEA nationals who come to live in the UK and UK nationals who go to live in EEA member states. Policy in this area has the potential to impact the lives of millions, affecting their right to receive benefits to which they are entitled through national insurance contributions over periods of residency, and which they have a legitimate expectation that they will receive. Changes to policy in these important areas should, I submit, be given effect in primary legislation.
In response to the evidence that the Committee took from British in Europe last week, the Minister said that the Secretary of State could not make regulations that would breach an international treaty, and he offered some reassurances this morning to those who fall within the scope of the withdrawal agreement. However, as British in Europe pointed out last week, the powers in clause 5 mean that Parliament will not be able to properly scrutinise regulations that might breach our international treaty obligations—if not deliberately, then inadvertently.
The Minister also referred to the need to be able to reflect the ongoing negotiations with the European Union, and we heard from Adrian Berry of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association last week about the UK’s draft social security treaty, which is an annex to the Government’s proposed future trade agreement. Mr Berry highlighted the Government’s intention to continue the protection of the European health insurance card scheme for short-term travel and the uprating of old-age pensions, but noted that disability pensions and healthcare attached to pension rights are missing from the draft treaty. He also highlighted the limitations of the new EHIC, which would require those with long-term health needs to get prior authorisation from the UK Government, and that there would be no S2 cover, which enables people to obtain healthcare in the EU that they cannot get on the NHS in the UK. Will the Minister put on the record whether such changes could be introduced using clause 5, and can he confirm which classes of person they can be applied to?
The Government have argued that the use of the powers in clause 5 will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, through the use of the affirmative procedure. Will the Social Security Advisory Committee have a role in scrutinising regulations introduced under this measure? Does he not in fact accept that changes in this important area require full debate and scrutiny in Parliament, and that the principles of any future policy should be set out in primary legislation?
Finally, clause 5(5) states that EU-derived rights cease to apply if they are “inconsistent” with any regulation made under the section, but the Government are under no obligation to specify where and when such inconsistencies arise. This creates considerable uncertainty for individuals who are affected, for their advisers, and indeed for politicians and the wider public. As we discussed last week on clause 4, such an approach is inimical to good lawmaking. The Government should spell out which parts of retained EU law might be affected by these provisions, and I hope that the Minister will do so in his response.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for setting out the nature of these regulations in quite some detail, and also for explaining why they are hugely significant for a large number of people.
We acknowledge that there is a need for the appropriate authorities to have some powers in this area, but those powers should be focused on making technical fixes rather than providing carte blanche. The powers in the clause are hugely broad. In fact, they are basically without any limit, either in terms of scope or time, and it is worth reflecting on what exactly clause 5(1) says:
“An appropriate authority may by regulations modify the retained direct EU legislation mentioned in subsection (2).”
There is no constraining test at all.
As Adrian Berry argued when he gave evidence last Tuesday, all these clauses should at least have the test of being “appropriate”, if not being “necessary”, as a qualification. Opposition MPs have been championing the “necessary” test, but the Government have always preferred the test of appropriateness. However, even that is absent from the clause. On paper, therefore, we are creating powers to make inappropriate regulations, which seems quite an unusual concept. More than ever, we need reassurance on what exactly the intended use of these regulations is, and we will look carefully at what the Minister said about that this morning.
I also want to raise an issue on schedule 2, which the Minister also referred to. Schedule 2 sets out who can make use of the powers in clause 5, and I want to flag up an issue in relation to devolution that needs to be addressed. It was flagged up by the Scottish Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee last year in relation to the predecessor Bill. The Committee reported on that Bill precisely because there are implications for some devolved competences around social security.
There are three routes by which the clause’s powers could be used in relation to devolved social security competence. First, Scottish Ministers could exercise these powers, sometimes with the requirement to consult UK Ministers, if that were required where a different route was used to achieve the same means. The Committee found those powers acceptable.
There is also a route for joint exercise of the powers, which would be considered where a change is so significant that it would be appropriate for joint exercise and scrutiny. Again, while the Committee sought some clarity on precisely when that route would be used, it supported the idea in principle.
Thirdly, however, there is the route of UK Ministers acting alone, by laying regulations in the UK Parliament that could still relate to devolved competence. The Committee’s report says:
“The Committee emphasises that as a matter of principle the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of legislative powers”
by the Executive. However, it notes that the Scottish Parliament has no formal role in relation to the scrutiny of secondary legislation passed by UK Ministers acting alone.
The Committee went on to note that there was silence in relation to the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for UK Ministers to exercise powers in relation to devolved social security acting on their own. It noted that there was nothing on the face of the Bill requiring UK Ministers to seek the consent of Scottish Ministers prior to the exercise of the powers in that way by relevant UK Ministers or the Treasury. It repeated the view that it had provided in relation to the Bill that went on to become the European Union (Withdrawal) Act—that UK Ministers should be able to legislate in devolved areas only with the consent of the devolved Administration, also advocating for a role for the Scottish Parliament in that process.
Kevin Foster
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. On the powers under clause 5, the Government have been given clear advice that they are necessary, particularly when we look at the ongoing negotiations. There are two parties to the negotiations, and the purpose of having a wider scope is to reflect whatever the outcome of the negotiations is. Hopefully, we will quickly be able to implement an agreement, in the same way that we have an agreement with Ireland bilaterally in terms of the co-ordination of social security, given the unique position of Irish citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Ireland, who are considered settled from day one. That is where we are.
One of the examples Opposition Members gave was of those protected by the withdrawal agreement. It is worth noting that this measure looks towards those who arrive after the end of the transition period and starts to look towards changes there, rather than at those who specifically have their rights protected by the withdrawal agreement.
In terms of the scope and whether the powers would be used in a devolved area, the UK Government continue to respect the devolution settlement. We are in discussions —officials certainly are, and I and my colleague in the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to the relevant Scottish Minister last week to set out where we are. We hope to have a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, but we have also set out what the position is if we do not get an LCM—for the Committee’s benefit, the Government would amend the Bill on Report to remove the powers in relation to devolved matters in Scotland.
Fundamentally, the clause is intended to ensure that we can implement powers and make the changes necessary, as outlined, to deliver the specific policy changes that we made clear in our manifesto, particularly around the export of child benefit, and also to ensure that we do not end up in a bizarre position where the UK is trying unilaterally to implement what is meant to be a reciprocal system, should we not be able to get a further agreement or if we have an agreement but are not able quickly and promptly to implement it.
Again, I would point out that using the affirmative procedure means that both Houses of Parliament will scrutinise any regulations and will have the opportunity to block them if they felt they were inappropriate. To be clear, if a Minister made wholly inappropriate regulations, such matters in secondary legislation, unlike primary legislation, can be reviewed in the courts as well.
It is therefore right that we stick with the clause as it is, certainly to ensure that we can implement whatever the outcome of the agreement is, including if we need to look at putting in place a system that reflects the fact that there has not been a further agreement.
Stuart C. McDonald
I just want to clarify whether the Minister would at least consider putting in a requirement that, before UK Ministers exercise these powers in relation to devolved competencies, they would consult Scottish Ministers. A cross-party Scottish Parliament Committee made that recommendation this time last year. It is surely at least worthy of consideration before Report.
Kevin Foster
To be clear, we will continue with our position of respecting devolution in areas of social security, hence the respect we have shown to the Scottish Government by consulting them about the Bill. We have also set out the Government’s position, were there not a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, in the letter we sent last week to the relevant Scottish Ministers. Obviously, separate discussions are going on with the Executive in Northern Ireland.
This is the right process. Parliament still has the appropriate ability to scrutinise how the powers are used and, if it wishes, may block the use of those powers under the affirmative procedure. This is about ensuring clear certainty that we can deliver whatever we can agree with the European Union on, we hope, a continuation of a reciprocal arrangement, which we cannot do if we do not have the powers in the clause. In other areas, powers are more restricted.
These are wide powers, but that reflects the wide range of outcomes that are still possible in the next six months. It is right to have a functioning and effective social security system and co-ordination of it. That is why the Government have brought the power forward in this Bill, as in the previous one. We maintain that the clause and the attached schedules are appropriate to the Bill.
Kate Green
Does the Minister anticipate, in the event of an agreement and treaty before the end of this year, a further piece of primary legislation to give effect to that? If so, would it not be possible at least to encompass the principles agreed into that primary legislation?
Kevin Foster
A lot would depend on the nature of the agreement. If it is part of a wider treaty, we may well see further legislation. However, our understanding is that if we can achieve agreement on this area, we would look to implement it rapidly through regulation, which is why the power is in the Bill. Our priority would be to avoid a situation where something is agreed of benefit to both UK citizens going to live in the European Union and EEA citizens coming to live here, with which we and the European Union are happy, but we are unable to provide that benefit because we are still going through a parliamentary process to implement it. That is why we believe the clause to be appropriate. It allows us to react to circumstances as necessary.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 1 and Schedule 1 of this Act do not extend to Scotland.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 33—Differentiated immigration policies: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of a system of differentiated immigration rules for people whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must consider the following—
(a) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to nominate a specified number of EEA and Swiss nationals for leave to enter or remain each year;
(b) the requirements that could be attached to the exercise of any such power including that the person lives and, where appropriate, works in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and such other conditions as the Secretary of State believes necessary;
(c) the means by which the Secretary of State could retain the power to refuse to grant leave to enter or remain on the grounds that such a grant would—
(i) not be in the public interest, or
(ii) not be in the interests of national security
(d) how the number of eligible individuals allowed to enter or remain each year under such a scheme could be agreed annually by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State;
(e) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to issue Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Immigration Rules, as appropriate, setting out the criteria by which they will select eligible individuals for nomination, including salary thresholds and financial eligibility.
(3) As part of the review in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Government;
(b) the Welsh Government;
(c) the Northern Ireland Executive; and
(d) individuals, businesses, and other organisations in the devolved nations.”
Stuart C. McDonald
Clause 7 sets out the extent of the Bill, so here we come to how it impacts Scotland and the other devolved nations. Amendment 17 would disapply provisions ending free movement to Scotland. The new clause simply calls for the Government to consult on, and to review, establishing a differentiated set of immigration rules focused on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and lists a set of issues that we want the UK Government to consult upon. The Government would then report and lay that report before Parliament. There is little here that is too onerous. It is a perfectly reasonable request of the UK Government.
We heard plenty of concern about the implications of the Bill during evidence last Tuesday. It is fair to say that that concern is felt acutely in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also in Wales and some regions of England. Scotland needs in-migration, and free movement of people has been a significant benefit to that country. The Government’s own risk assessments indicate a huge impact on the number of EEA workers who would qualify under the proposed new salary and skills requirements of the new regime. That is before we take into account the visa fees and the red tape, which I regard as ludicrous, that businesses will be bound up in. That has profound implications for Scotland’s economy, demographics, public finances and devolved public services.
Scotland’s economy relies significantly on small and medium-sized enterprises, which, as we heard last Tuesday, will find the tier 2 system very difficult. Small tourism or food and drink businesses, for example, that have regularly relied on the EU labour market are finding it well-nigh impossible to fill posts domestically. Instead of being able to interview a Portuguese food-processing worker or a Polish hotel worker, there is a significant chance that they will not be able to employ them at all. If they are able to employ them somehow, processes will be very different indeed.
The worker will have to seek entry clearance from their home country, so recruitment practice will have to change. Business will have to shell out for a sponsor licence and possibly on legal advice on how to do all that. The worker will have to pay visa fees plus upfront NHS health surcharges, not just for the main applicant but for the whole family. A skills charge will also be levied. As we heard last week, that could take the costs to the applicant to many thousands of pounds.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but would it not attract more people to stay and work in Scotland if it was not the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom?
Stuart C. McDonald
That is factually not true, so that is the end to that point. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the changes to the rate of income tax that we have made in recent years, there is no evidence that they have made a blind bit of difference. In fact, there are more people in Scotland paying less income tax, and that is before taking into account council tax and various other matters, so that point does not arise at all.
It seems that a huge proportion of the burden of all these fees falls to be paid by the individual worker. Realistically, however, why would a Portuguese food-processing worker or a Polish hotel worker pay £10,000 for the privilege of working in Scotland when they face no charge to work anywhere else in the European Union? The lower income tax that we pay in Scotland would be attractive, but it does not outweigh the £10,000-plus they would have to pay just to turn up.
Scotland has become a country of regular net in-migration, largely thanks to the free movement of people. But for in-migration, our population would have again been in decline since 2015—something that is projected into the future, with more deaths than births. Ending free movement risks pushing Scotland back to a future of population decline. Like other countries, our population of older people is increasing. That is not unique to us, but unlike other countries, in the UK in particular, our working-age population will rise only fractionally in the years ahead, according to various projections.
That brings us to the issue of public finances and devolved public services. There has been a welcome devolution of tax-raising powers in recent years, to which the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred. However, with those tax powers now in place, the problem is that we are suddenly seeing the tax base shrunk by immigration policies. That has a direct impact on income tax receipts and also on the economic growth and tax revenue that companies’ VAT.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Another report that is publicly available is the SNP’s White Paper ahead of the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman outline the proposals for immigration in that policy?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have no problem in outlining the paper. This point was got up on Twitter, as if it was a gotcha for the SNP. In that White Paper we advocated a points-based immigration system for those coming from outside the EEA, but we also advocated for the free movement of people. [Interruption.] The Minister looks as if I have been caught in some sort of trap. I am perfectly happy to support a points-based system for Scotland for people coming from outside the EEA. That is not a problem at all. But there are points-based systems and there are points-based systems. [Interruption.] People are chuckling away as if I am talking nonsense, but the Canadian points-based system is significantly different from the points-based system in Australia. The system proposed by the UK Government is barely a points system, and if hon. Members speak to anyone who knows the first thing about immigration law policy, they will say that there is barely a resemblance. Despite all the rhetoric, there is a tiny resemblance between what the UK Government are proposing and what the Australian points-based system is proposing.
On the issue of flexibility and regionality, the Australian points system includes some variation to take account of the different needs of different provinces. If the Australian points-based system is so wonderful, why has it not been replicated in any meaningful sense by the UK Government, including in respect of regional flexibility? Yes, the 2014 White Paper did refer to a points-based system for people from outside the EU—one that would be tailored for Scotland’s circumstances, not one that is completely inappropriate for it.
Ian Robinson and Fragomen, leading international practitioners, looked at the example of Canada, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand and put forward a whole host of possible options. As they said last week, one of those options would be simply to allow the free movement rules to continue to apply in Scotland. If a hotel in the highlands of Perthshire is recruiting, it can continue to recruit from the EEA just as it does now.
However, there is a huge range of possibilities, from more radical suggestions, such as retaining free movement, all the way down to tailoring the points-based system to suit Scotland’s needs. That brings me to a very modest suggestion that I am bound to bring up; it is a suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) that I think he may have raised directly with the Minister. It is simply to ensure that points are awarded in this system for Gaelic language skills as well as for English.
This is not just about Scotland, however. The challenges in Northern Ireland will also be unbelievably acute and perhaps even more so, given the land border that it shares with a country not only where businesses benefit from free movement of people, but that runs a completely independent immigration system, tailored to meet its own needs, while still being part of the common travel area. Business in Northern Ireland may face thousands of pounds in immigration fees just to try to attract the very same people who, a few miles down the road, could take up the position totally free of cost and bureaucracy. Merely saying that this system will work for all of the UK does nothing to address that problem.
Even if the Government do not want to properly engage in debate and discussion with SNP MPs or Ministers in the Scottish Government, I urge the Minister to listen to and engage with other voices who are speaking out on this issue. Businesses, business groups, think-tanks, civic society, universities and public sector organisations are all hugely concerned about it. The Minister just needs to do a Google search for commentary in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular on their response to the Government’s most recent proposals.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that figures released only this morning show that the unemployment rate in Scotland is now the highest in the United Kingdom, at 4.6%, compared with a UK rate of 3%? That means that unemployment has risen by 30,000 to 127,000. Does he not think that those are the sort of people we should be getting into jobs in Scotland and that we should not be looking to the EEA to provide the people?
Stuart C. McDonald
The economic impact of coronavirus is of course a tragedy, and every lost job is an absolute tragedy as well. Yes, of course we will focus our efforts on ensuring that people are back in work as soon as we can do that, but we cannot design our immigration system for the next decades based on this calamity. If the only reason Conservative Members can come up with to support this system being implemented in Scotland is that we are going through a pandemic, that is pretty farcical, given that these proposals have been in existence for the last few months, so no, I do not accept that it is any reason for shying away from the points that I am making. The system will cause huge long-term damage to Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s public finances. It is not just me saying that; a whole host of organisations have real concerns.
Again, I am not expecting the Government to do a 180-degree U-turn today, but I do want at least some recognition that there are genuine issues that require more than just our being told that this system will somehow work for Scotland, Northern Ireland or any other devolved nation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. Although the United Kingdom’s population is projected to rise by about 15%, it is reckoned that the population of our rural areas, including my own constituency of Argyll and Bute, will fall by as much as 8%. The situation is absolutely unsustainable because, despite Argyll and Bute being an exceptionally beautiful part of the world, we have an ageing and non-economically active population and our young people leave to spend their economically productive years outside Argyll and Bute.
To give credit to the council and to the Scottish Government, they are doing what they can to make Argyll and Bute a place that young people do not feel that they have to leave before coming back to retire—many of them do—but before that long-term goal reaches fruition, a cornerstone of Argyll and Bute Council’s plan for economic regeneration was predicated on continuing access to EU nationals and attracting them into the area. Regrettably, and through no fault of our own, that option has been taken from them; and the UK Government, having taken that option from them, now have a responsibility to provide a solution that will help those areas suffering from depopulation to recover. It is becoming increasingly clear that a major part of that would be the introduction of a regional immigration policy similar to that which works in Canada, Australia, Switzerland and other countries, and one that reflects the different needs of different parts of the country. There is no reason, other than political will, why that cannot happen here.
Douglas Ross
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore suggest that if we had an independent Scotland, with its own immigration system, there would be a regional variation between Argyll and Bute and Edinburgh?
Brendan O’Hara
Ultimately, that would be a decision for any incoming Scottish Government to make.
Brendan O'Hara
Personally, I think that the greater devolution of power, as widely as possible across any nation state, is an exceptionally good thing. Anything that can attract people to come, live, work, invest and raise families in our rural communities must be looked at and broadly welcomed. It was broadly welcomed in the recent Migration Advisory Committee report, which said:
“The current migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems remote communities experience. If these problems are to be addressed something more bespoke for these areas is needed…The only way to address this question in the UK context would be to pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas, then monitor what happens over several years and evaluate the outcomes.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, that idea was welcomed by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove in a ministerial answer on 23 July 2019, where he accepted the need for the development of a pilot scheme. To date, there has been very little movement and we fear that there has been backtracking by the UK Government about what they plan to do next about setting it up.
The Minister knows that the Scottish Government stand ready to work with him to design and develop a solution that is tailored to meet Scotland’s needs. I can tell him that if the MAC is willing to provide the advice, and the Scottish Government is minded to follow that advice, then Argyll and Bute is prepared to put it itself forward as a pilot area for such a scheme. I spoke yesterday to the chief executive of Argyll and Bute Council, Pippa Milne, who confirmed that the council would be happy to work with the UK Government and the MAC to see how a bespoke regional immigration system would work in practice. Will the Minister act on the MAC recommendation, which was supported by the former Home Secretary, and help Scotland to fight the curse of depopulation?
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Edward. I will briefly outline our position on amendment 17 and new clause 33. We are entirely sympathetic to amendment 17 for the reasons that have just been outlined, seeking to protect Scotland from the impact of this hard stop on free movement without a plan for mitigating the effects on key sectors. On more rural areas, our focus will continue to be on finding a solution for the whole of the UK rather than just Scotland. We understand that the Scottish National party has not given up on its aspiration of independence for Scotland, but I am afraid that that is where our parties diverge. To have an immigration system for Scotland that is different from that of the rest of the UK without that broader sense of a more regional approach affecting every area of the UK would open a raft of further questions around the management of that system and the means of enforcing it geographically. We say this in the spirit of loving Scotland and wanting it to stay and prosper as part of the United Kingdom. On that basis, we cannot support amendment 17.
We welcome the approach behind new clause 33 in principle, but again feel that it misses the opportunity to consult with the English regions as part of the process. Richard Burge of the London chamber of commerce said in last week’s evidence session that the MAC was slow and unwieldy. He said that it needs
“to involve business much more directly and that, it is hoped, will enable it to be much more responsive”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 12, Q18.]
Frustration with the MAC and a genuine and well-founded scepticism that, without radical reform, we would not be able to respond in anything like realtime to emerging workforce issues and skill shortages was a recurring theme in the evidence session and has been throughout our engagement with stakeholders ahead of the Committee. With this in mind, we are inclined to agree that one way of making immigration rules and shortage occupation lists more responsive would be to grant the devolved Administrations a greater say.
As I have already said, however, the glaring omission in new clause 33 is that it does not propose to consider the needs of the English regions in quite the same way. As a Yorkshire Member, it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that the population of Yorkshire is comparable to, or greater than, those of the devolved nations. We hope that a report of the kind outlined in new clause 33 might take into account our needs and those of other regions, alongside those of the devolved Administrations. As a party, we will be looking to review the MAC and the shortage occupation list process in their entirety, shaping our own proposals for transformation in due course. On that basis, we broadly support new clause 33, but we will be shaping our own proposals in the coming months.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and his hon. Friends for tabling the amendment and new clause. Having said that, there was a certain predictability about them given the SNP’s aim of separating our United Kingdom and wish for borders to be created across this island.
I turn to some of the more specific points. I have had direct contact with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. He is very passionate about the Gaelic language and the role it plays in contemporary life. I have also had representations from Ministers and Members in Wales about the strong role that the Welsh language plays in our culture today, enriching our Union as a whole. Certainly, we will see what we can do to incorporate Welsh, Irish and Gaelic into our migration system. It is probably worth noting that the vast majority of fluent speakers of those three languages are either citizens of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, and therefore effectively not subject to migration control; they have rights to live and work within the United Kingdom and settle in any part of it they choose.
It was interesting to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Halifax, my Labour shadow, about how separate systems would be enforced. Like me, she does not want to see an economic version of Hadrian’s Wall between England and Scotland, although I recognise that others on the Committee perhaps do.
We are looking at how to make the Migration Advisory Committee’s role responsive and how it can choose some of its own reports—we will come on to that when we discuss some of the new clauses. The issue is not purely about a commission. I am thinking particularly about how the MAC can send out a more regular drumbeat of reviews, and commentary on reviews, for the shortage occupation list. That should fit in with our wider labour market policies rather than being considered apart from our skills and training policies. I hope we can find some sensible consensus on that.
The MAC has launched its call for evidence for the shortage occupation list and the advice that it is going to give Ministers about the new points-based system. I hope people will engage with that; there is certainly good strong engagement from many businesses. It would be good to see the Scottish Government promote the idea that businesses in Scotland should be getting involved and positively engage in the process—not least given that the MAC has indicated its intention for there to be shortage occupation lists for each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. It will probably not be a great surprise if many of those are very similar, given the similar types of skill shortages across the United Kingdom.
I was interested to hear the comments from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, in particular the idea that we could start having immigration policy for individual council areas. That is interesting. It is worth saying that the MAC suggestion was about remote areas. We both went to see the first HM naval base on the Clyde, in his constituency; as he knows, he is not exactly remote from the vibrant heart of culture and economy that is Glasgow—that is rather different from the concept of, let us say, eastern and western Australia in terms of distance.
I will be very clear: a range of powers is available to the Scottish Government. If the same pull factors that created the challenges today still exist, this look into the migration system is not going to provide a solution. With other Members from Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, we have looked at the fact that there is a determined drive—luckily, the Scottish Government have the powers around economic development—to create those strong opportunities in communities. Ultimately, if we create a migration opportunity but the pull factors are still there and have not been addressed, the situation will become a revolving door. That is why we have to look at those core issues first —why people are moving out—and not just look to a migration system as a magic bullet for those problems.
Brendan O'Hara
At the risk of giving a geography lesson, I point out that when the Minister visited Argyll and Bute he visited the easternmost tip of the constituency, nearest to Glasgow. The constituency spreads over 7,500 sq km, has 26 remote island communities and is not part of the vibrant central belt hub. That is why it and many other areas of the highlands and islands of Scotland need a bespoke solution. The problems we face in Argyll and Bute are not those that many large conurbations in the United Kingdom face. There is a need to recognise that.
Kevin Foster
Perhaps the point has been made, then, that this is not about having an immigration system based on a council area, but about having one for an area smaller than that of a council. I think that that would lead to confusion, with multiple areas.
There are many issues across large stretches of the highlands, and also rural parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. The fact that there are challenges in ensuring that younger people in particular have opportunities, and options to stay, is a facet of the issue that is not unique to parts of Scotland. However, if we do not deal with the core issues, most of which fall under the remit of the devolved Administration in Edinburgh, those pull factors will still exist, and the migration system is not a magic cure for them.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a question of having strategies in place to address the challenges, but I want to pin the Minister down on the question of the remote areas pilot. That is a recommendation from the MAC. Can the Minister say categorically that this morning he is ditching it, and that there will not now be a remote areas pilot scheme? That would be really bad news.
Kevin Foster
We made it clear in the policy statement that we put out in February that we were not planning a remote areas pilot. Again, the thing that we must focus on is that many of the pull factors exist. It is within the competence of the Scottish Government to deal with those issues, and to create something and tackle them.
I have seen how Members of Parliament in the north-east of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), are pushing for the creation of those economic opportunities that they want in parts of rural Scotland. Perhaps the one hope that we have on this point is that there is a Scottish Parliament election coming next year. I hope that there will be a more business-focused, opportunity-based Administration in Edinburgh, which will be focused on developing Scotland, not separating it.
Douglas Ross
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister’s point about the number of factors that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and on which the Scottish National party Government of Scotland have failed.
We have heard from SNP Members that they want their own immigration system. Indeed, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that they would design and tailor one. Does the Minister share my concern that we heard similar reassurances from the SNP Scottish Government about social security—yet they had to tell the UK Government that they could not take those powers because they could not implement the changes quickly enough in Scotland?
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend, as always, hits the nail straight on the head with his arguments. Yes, we had many demands for devolution of policy, but then the Scottish Government did not want to take them up. Suddenly there was a new group of Unionists wanting the United Kingdom Government to deal with something in Scotland.
Stuart C. McDonald
Will the Minister do us the favour of explaining how his immigration policies will make the challenges easier rather than harder for Scotland?
Kevin Foster
The first thing that our immigration policy will do is provide a points-based system on a global basis, based on RQF3 and on having a shortage occupation list. Businesses in Scotland can recruit globally on that basis. Also, we can look at the first reform, which we have already carried out—a route that I was pleased to launch in Glasgow. I have seen it at first hand—the best talent being brought into our universities, and particularly into the University of Glasgow. Under that system, on a global basis, teams can be recruited to tackle and research some of the most challenging questions that mankind faces. On the occasion in question the issue was tackling malaria, and the huge impact of that.
Those are the sorts of benefits we want: high value and high skill—the attractions are there. It is a vision for Scotland, whose natural beauty is second to none, based on skills and the attractiveness of a high-skill, high-value economy—not on saying that the main thing Scotland’s economy needs is the ability to put more people on the minimum wage on a global basis.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister mentions his visit to Glasgow all the time. While he was there, did he speak with Universities Scotland, which is among the organisations that has spoken out in favour of a differentiated system? This is not just coming from the SNP. The Minister has also spoken about the benefits of his new system, but his own risk assessment says that it will cause levels of immigration to Scotland to fall. How is that in Scotland’s interests?
Kevin Foster
We engage strongly with partners, particularly our high-compliance Scottish universities that are sponsors of tier 4 visas. We very much welcome the contributions they make, as well as those that they make as part of wider groups, such as the Russell Group, that operate on a UK-wide basis.
There are two visions, I suppose. There is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and his colleagues from Scotland bring us: a high-productivity, high-value Scotland, an attractive place to live with a thriving economy, recruiting on a global basis. Then there is the Scotland that the Scottish National party brings us; the only reason someone would go there would be to pay low wages or recruit at, or near, the minimum wage on a global basis. That, to me, is not a particularly inspiring vision.
Many of the powers to deal with the pull factors that lead to depopulation in rural areas are already in the hands of the Edinburgh Administration. As with so many other things—this has been touched on in relation to social security—it is time to see the Scottish National party getting on with the job of governance, rather than the job of grieving or looking to separate the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will not be surprised to hear that the Government’s position has been made very clear on this issue, but I will briefly set it out again. Immigration and related matters, such as the free movement of persons from the EU, are reserved matters, and the immigration aspects of the Bill will therefore apply to the whole United Kingdom. The Government are delivering an immigration system that takes into account the needs of the whole of our United Kingdom and works for the whole of it, not for the political needs of those whose goal is its separation.
We do not believe that it would be sensible, desirable or workable to apply different immigration systems in different parts of the United Kingdom, and the independent Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly advised that the labour markets of the different nations of the United Kingdom are not sufficiently different to warrant different policies. That was an independent report—the type that people seem to want, but then do not seem to want to listen to.
Kevin Foster
No, I have given way many times. As we heard in the evidence sessions, the simplistic argument saying that Scotland is different from England for political reasons ignores the variation within Scotland itself, given the strength of the economy in Edinburgh compared with the economies of more rural areas.
I do not propose to address new clause 33 in detail; as I say, we have seen the MAC’s conclusions on this issue. The Government’s objection is one of principle: immigration is, and will remain, a reserved matter. We will introduce an immigration system that works for the whole of our country and all the nations that make up our United Kingdom by respecting the democratically expressed view of the people in the December 2019 general election and the 2014 vote of the Scottish people, which rejected separation. Both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon used the phrase “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” about that vote; now, only six years later, we see how short a generation has become. Free movement will end on 31 December, and we will introduce a points-based immigration system that ensures we can attract the best talent from around the world to Scotland, based on the skills and attributes they have, not where their passport comes from.
It will come as no surprise that SNP Members and I will have to agree to differ, as we regularly do on issues that relate to the constitutional future of Scotland. I obviously hope that the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Argyll and Bute and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West will withdraw their amendments—although I have a sneaky feeling that they may not—and I particularly hope that others on this Committee who have also voiced their opposition to separatist politics will join the Government in opposing these amendments if they are put to a vote.
Stuart C. McDonald
I sort of thank the Minister for at least making a contribution, but I have to say that, having shadowed about six or seven immigration Ministers for five years, I think that is probably the most regrettable speech I have heard from any of them at any time; the second most regrettable was the one the Minister made during the Opposition day debate a few months ago. It might play well with some MPs in this place, but I watched the faces of some Scottish Conservative MPs that night, and they were not impressed.
The Minister is speaking not just to the SNP, but to business groups and public service organisations—a whole host of concerned organisations in Scotland. He might get away with it in this Committee, but he cannot really get away with dismissing their concerns as “nationalist nonsense” or “separatist rubbish”. These are very serious people with very serious concerns about the implications of his Government’s migration system for Scotland. It seems to be not so much a case of, “We hope it will be all right on the night”, but one of, “We don’t care—stuff you!”
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 8, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5) This Part of the Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of this Act on faith communities in the UK.
(6) A report under subsection (5) must consider in particular the ability of members and representatives of faith communities from the EEA and Switzerland to enter the UK for purposes related to their faith.
(7) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(8) In this section,
“faith communities” means a group of individuals united by a clear structure and system of religious or spiritual beliefs.”
This amendment requires the government to report to Parliament on the implications of this Bill for faith communities, including the ability of members of faith communities to come to the UK for reasons connected with their faith.
Some 18 months or so ago, the then Minister of State for Immigration issued a written statement announcing changes to immigration rules. Apparently, those changes were to ensure that ministers of religion could no longer apply for a tier 5 religious worker visa; instead, they would have to apply for a tier 2 minister of religion visa. As I understand it, that was done because of a fear at the Home Office that people were coming in under the tier 5 visa route and leading worship while not having the level of English that the Home Office decided would be necessary to perform such a function. The explanatory memorandum said:
“The Immigration Rules currently permit Tier 5 Religious Workers to fill roles which ‘may include preaching, pastoral work and non-pastoral work’. This allows a migrant to come to the UK and fill a role as a Minister of Religion without demonstrating an ability to speak English.”
For some reason, the Home Office also decided to introduce a cooling-off period. The explanatory memorandum said:
“The ‘cooling off’ period will ensure Tier 5 Religious workers and Charity Workers spend a minimum of 12 months outside the UK before returning in either category. This will prevent migrants from applying for consecutive visas, thereby using the routes to live in the UK for extended periods, so as to reflect the temporary purpose of the routes better.”
I have been in discussions with representatives of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference about migration to both Scotland and England. They tell me that most Catholic dioceses previously used tier 5 religious worker visas for priests to come here on supply placements while parish priests were away for short periods because of sickness, training or annual leave. Those supply placements were essential, as they allow Catholics to continue attending mass while keeping parish activities running smoothly. That allows the parish to continue to function while the parish priest is off through illness, going on a retreat or accompanying parish groups on outings, or even just taking a holiday.
A supply placement priest will lead the celebration of holy mass, including the celebration of the sacrament of marriage. He will lead funerals, including supporting bereaved family members, and visit the sick and elderly of the local community. In an age when social isolation and loneliness are increasing, the parish is a place where people can gather as a community to support one another and engage in friendship. It is not just about worship, but about the community hub that the church provides by offering spiritual and practical help and supporting the sick, the elderly, the needy and the vulnerable.
Mr Goodwill
In my own constituency there is a Coptic Christian community; it is a closed order, so they do not preach. The system already works very well for non-EEA residents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if we do not extend the scheme to the EEA, there will be barriers for people coming to the UK in the way that he describes?
Stuart C. McDonald
I will come to that point in a minute. In short, the point made to me by the Catholic Church and other faith groups—we had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall around the time of the changes—is that, actually, the system for non-EEA nationals used to work but does not work now, precisely because of the changes that the Home Office made 18 months or so ago.
The system is much more expensive now, and it is beyond most parishes’ ability to pay the fees for ministers to come in and lead worship. If they come in under tier 5, which is the much cheaper option, they are no longer allowed to lead worship or whatever else. They can perform a range of functions, but not the ones that are really needed, including leading worship.
The issue is already a problem now and it will be made infinitely worse, because at the moment parishes can still rely on priests or other leaders coming from the EEA. They do not have to pay for the expensive tier 2 visa; they can just come in under the free movement of people. When free movement comes to an end, the same regime will apply and parishes will have to pay all sorts of fees, even to have priests come in from France, Italy, Poland or wherever else. They are not looking forward to that prospect at all.
As I was saying, visiting clergy not only allow the local community to continue to function, but benefit and enrich the whole community, as the community gains from cultural exchange and from sharing the knowledge and experience of priests from other parts of the world. They educate new communities about life in their country, and they open up avenues for local parishes to support communities in need. What was most surprising about the changes was that, as far as the SNP was aware, there had been no problems with visas for the Catholic Church or any of the other faith organisations that made use of the tier 5 route. The new requirement introduced in 2019 for anyone preaching to use tier 2 minister of religion visas has instead more than doubled the costs incurred by parishes arranging supply cover. For some parishes that is unsustainable, compromising people’s opportunity to practise their faith.
Furthermore, they point out that seminaries conducting formation in English are not necessarily recognised by the Home Office as meeting the English requirement under the tier 2 route, meaning that many priests educated to postgraduate level in English are nevertheless required to take a language test, with the extra logistical and cost implications. The new arrangements more than double the costs, making supply cover essentially unaffordable. I have heard directly from religious leaders in my constituency that that is the impact of those arrangements. Unless reforms are made, the situation will be worsened by the end of free movement, as I said in response to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Robert Goodwill). I simply ask the Government to engage with faith communities about the challenges that this is causing them to face, and to see if we might be able to come to a solution that makes these sorts of arrangements continue to function in the years ahead.
Brendan O'Hara
As my hon. Friend said, the tier 5 religious visas were operating perfectly smoothly for the many Churches and religious organisations that relied on them until these unexpected changes were made. Catholic parishes throughout the UK—including my own in the Archdiocese of Glasgow—regularly used these visas as routes for priests to come to the UK on supply placements.
The changes that came into force in January are already causing something of a headache for a whole host of religious organisations that require clergy to visit to cover for periods of illness, holiday, religious retreat, or when priests or other clergy are away on pilgrimage. This is a time of a crisis in vocation, clergy are becoming increasingly elderly, and more and more parishes and dioceses are turning to priests from outside the UK to cover such absences, sicknesses and holidays, so it beggars belief that the measure would have been introduced in this way.
It is important that the Minister realises that the tasks of a parish do not stop when the existing or resident priest falls ill, or goes on a well-earned holiday or retreat. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the church is more than just a place of worship, it is also a community hub providing both spiritual and practical support to the sick, elderly and vulnerable, as demonstrated by the great work of a number of organisations including the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has been clear in saying that much of the positive work done in and around Catholic parishes which engenders that sense of community is being seriously undermined and compromised by these changes. The Home Office has to understand and recognise the benefits of allowing priests from other parts of the world to come in on a tier 5 visa. They enrich the whole community. It is a cultural exchange, it is a share of knowledge, a share of experience by priests and clergy from other parts of the world.
It is not just the Catholic church. Indeed, the Church of Scotland is on record as saying that it opposes the measure. Many of us are confused as to why these changes were deemed necessary. What grave issue has arisen that needed to be addressed in such a draconian fashion? The Scottish bishops said that for years they had sponsored priests through the tier 5 process, and they are completely unaware of any abuse of the system whatever. For years, priests came here, they worked and preached in Scotland and across the UK, and then returned home. Indeed, 25 years ago this summer at St Helen’s church in Shawlands in Glasgow, Father Stephens from Malawi was the celebrant who married me and my wife, rather successfully I am happy to report. But the question remains: why did this have to happen? What was the motivation behind it? Can the Government not see the harm they are doing to our religious communities, and can they not act to stop it?
Finally, exactly a year ago in a debate on that in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) invited UK Ministers to meet the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland. Did Ministers take up that invitation? Did that meeting ever take place and, if it did, what was discussed and what outcomes were agreed? If it never took place, why not?
Kate Green
I support the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Argyle and Bute and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. There have been considerable benefits to our faith communities from their ability to take advantage of freedom of movement and welcome EEA nationals into their communities. Faith communities, especially Churches of all denominations, have congregations with many EEA nationals among their membership and they are also often individuals who act as pastors, counsellors, youth workers and musicians.
As we have heard, many faith organisations have needed EEA nationals to cover short-term or sometimes longer-term appointments into leadership positions. That is especially true in areas where it has been hard to recruit. Free movement has also allowed faith communities some flexibility in terms of shared mission work, with UK nationals working overseas, undertaking mission trips, musicians performing in Europe at faith-based events or running camps and youth conferences. Faith communities have been able to bring EEA speakers and volunteers to help communities and to run events without the associated costs and rules around visitor visas and the tier system.
There will be a number of consequences for those communities as a result of the loss of free movement. First, while many faith groups have been effective in pointing their members to the EU settlement scheme where that is relevant, uncertainty remains about the scheme, what it means for families, for continuity of residence and for faith communities who are trying to keep people in their communities.
Faith communities looking to employ or to bring in volunteers from the EEA will now have to navigate the tier system, as they would for non-EEA nationals. As we heard, that brings complexity. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I do not think it is the case that all faith communities have found that an easy system to navigate or to get the relevant approvals. There are also significant additional costs for sponsorship licences and visas. Indeed, it will not be cheap, especially when we include the additional NHS surcharge. A religious worker will be able to stay for up to two years. The cost for a one-year visa before administration costs is around £244, plus the NHS surcharge of £624, added to that the sponsorship licence fee and associated costs. On top of that, the community will have to fund any dependant costs and may also be providing the cost of flights, accommodation and training for the religious workers, and sometimes a small stipend. For smaller faith communities, that starts to become a very significant expense.
Many faith communities that rely on overseas workers tend to be found in the poorer parts of the UK. Poorer communities and poorer congregations are part of a poorer overall landscape and so the faith organisation itself will be less well resourced. It cannot draw on a wealthy congregation. That has a particular impact on smaller denominations and diaspora Churches, which will find that the loss of free movement will mean that poorer communities, who could benefit most from additional pastoral support, will feel the impact the harshest.
Proof of savings is difficult for some orders, which have vows of poverty, making it difficult for individuals to prove they can sustain themselves even if the order will cover all their living arrangements. If a person is needed quickly to cover a gap—the hon. Members for Argyle and Bute and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East talked about the potential absence of a priest for a range of personal reasons—the procedure will now mean that there will be delay in bringing in that cover. I am not talking here about roles that fall short of being a full minister of religion, but there are roles that will still involve some level of religious duty. For example, there continues to be uncertainty about those coming in to work with children, and about pastoral work and preaching, and an understanding of the definitions of what those roles encompass, which is a particular issue with some particular faiths of particular traditions.
There is also a concern, as I have said, among faith communities that bring in musicians who may be self-employed and who may work in multiple settings. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East pointed out, seminaries that conduct formation in English are not necessarily regarded as meeting the English language requirement.
I hope the whole Committee will agree about the benefits of facilitating religious workers to come in to support our faith communities. In that spirit, I will ask the Minister a number of questions. What assessment have the Government made of the level of upscaling needed in the Home Office to process additional sponsorship licences for the purposes of ministers of religion or religious workers, or charity workers and faith communities, due to the removal of free movement?
Echoing the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, what conversations are the Home Office having with faith groups regarding preparation for the immigration system that will affect them post-December? What help will be provided with regard to navigating sponsorship licences and understanding the costs that faith communities will have to meet?
At times, non-EEA nationals who have wanted to come to the UK for a short-term conference or to speak at an event have been denied visas; I have seen that in my own constituency. What assurance can the Minister give to faith communities that EEA nationals entering the UK for a conference or event for short-term study will not be restricted from doing so, and that appropriate decision-making will take place?
Will the Minister commit to reviewing the definitions of “minister of religion” and “religious worker”, and actively consult a wide variety of denominations and faith communities? What will the Home Office do to improve faith literacy among decision makers? I have to say that the asylum system has not given me much confidence that religious literacy in decision-making is where it needs to be.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact on creatives, such as musicians used by faith communities? Will they still be able to come to the UK? Will those in a different visa route be able to transfer if they take on a role in a faith community? For example, could someone who has arrived in the UK as a student transfer routes if they become a religious worker? Will it be possible for individuals to come to the UK as volunteers in faith communities and, if so, what restrictions will be applied to their activities? What discussions have the Government had with faith communities about their responsibility to carry out right-to-work checks?
This is an important issue for an important element of all our communities. I do not think the Government intend the impact of the removal of free movement to harm the operation of our faith communities, but the changes will cause real difficulties across a range of faiths, and particularly in those communities that most need the support that visiting religious workers can provide. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee.
Kevin Foster
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling this amendment. He always speaks with real passion, even when we disagree, as we did in the last debate, and his comments on this amendment have been no exception. We can perhaps be slightly more consensual now, even if the Government do not agree with the amendment.
I will deal briefly with a couple of points that have just been raised. First, in relation to decisions that would be taken on visitor visas for EEA nationals visiting faith groups, we have already made it very clear that EEA nationals will be non-visa nationals. Therefore, those looking to make visits to the United Kingdom would not be required to apply for a visa. They would be able to come through the e-gates and their visiting experience would be very similar, for example, to that of a New Zealander, a Canadian or a Japanese citizen at the moment, who can come through the e-gates and be granted visit leave. In a moment, I will come on to speak in a little more detail about the range of activities that a visitor can perform.
As a constituency MP, I have similarly sometimes been involved in decisions about faith communities, particularly a couple of years ago, when there needed to be some representations about how the income of Paignton parish church was considered, and whether a medieval church was an established organisation. I was only too happy to vouch that a church built in the 13th century is an established organisation, and that it was not set up for an immigration purpose, for pretty obvious reasons. I am genuinely always happy to hear representations from particular communities about that, as I did in that instance as a constituency MP.
We published the impact assessment for the Bill. I am clear that a lot of the Churches’ right-to-work checks will be the same as now anyway, because they have to do that for EEA citizens and UK nationals. When there is a right-to-work check, every one of us should be asked to present evidence that shows our right to work, as with right-to-rent checks; I recently had to show my passport to comply with those requirements, and rightly so. We are clear that there should be no discrimination there; those checks should be applied irrespective.
On the other points made, similarly, many faith communities, and certainly the larger faith communities present in the United Kingdom, are already sponsors. Much of that will transfer into the new system, so in many ways the experience of non-EEA nationals—non-visa nationals, to be absolutely clear—will be transferred over with the various concessions and opportunities, such as pay, performance, engagement and other items.
On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, I do not have officials’ or my predecessors’ diaries to hand, in terms of meetings, but as I met other faith communities at the invitation of Members of Parliament, I am certainly more than happy to meet the Scottish Catholic bishops representatives and to engage and have a conversation with them. They are a key partner. I certainly recognise the valuable social role that many Catholic churches play in communities across the United Kingdom. I am always happy to have a conversation about some of the definitions, particularly around visitor, tier 5 and tier 2. Some things, as I will come on to in a minute, will actually be covered by our visitor provisions, as well as under tier 5. Again, I am happy to have a conversation with them on those points.
I am genuinely grateful to the SNP for initiating this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to put on the record how the Government value the role faith communities play in this country, and more importantly, the contribution that many people who have migrated here have made and are making to the functioning and wellbeing of our faith communities. Faith communities enhance our national life, and they are stronger because people from around the world come and contribute to every aspect of their work, not least in bringing their skills to leadership in communities across the UK, hence why, in our future points-based immigration system, there will continue to be routes for those connected with faith and religion to come to the UK. Within the current immigration system, there are two routes specially designed for them, and this will continue in the future, to assist with consistency.
As referred to already, the tier 2 route for ministers of religion—effectively a skilled worker route—is for religious leaders such as priests, imams and rabbis, as well as missionaries and members of religious orders, taking employment or a role in a faith-based community. They can come for up to three years initially, which they can extend to six years, and they may qualify for settlement—indefinite leave to remain—after five years. Again, those who receive indefinite leave to remain are then exempted from the immigration health surcharge and will also have a permanent unlimited status within the United Kingdom.
Additionally, we have the tier 5 religious workers’ route. It should be clear to the Committee that this was designed with a very different purpose in mind. It permits stays of up to two years and caters for those wishing to undertake supportive, largely non-pastoral roles. In common with all tier 5 categories, as it is temporary at core, there is no English language requirement.
That last point is crucial. As I indicated, we welcome faith leaders from around the world, and in many communities regular conversations and events bring faith communities together in opposition to those who wish to sow the seeds of division between them. It is therefore right that those who want to lead a faith community, which involves both preaching and helping the faith community to interact with the wider community in their leadership role, should have a proper command of English to enable this—especially the valuable inter-faith work that goes on in so many communities.
I think of what happens locally in Torbay, and of the type of exchanges facilitated in the midlands, particularly by Coventry cathedral, given its background in different faiths. Those exchanges really cannot be facilitated if there is not a good command of a working language within the local community.
Mr Goodwill
Will the Minister pay tribute to John Sentamu, the recently retired Archbishop of York, who came from Uganda during the time of Idi Amin and has made a fantastic contribution to religious and general life in our country?
Kevin Foster
I am only too happy to do so and to put the Government’s thanks to him on the record. He provided an inspiration and a ministry that will be remembered for a very long time, and he broke the mould of what people expect from someone in such a senior position in the Anglican communion. Such contributions are very welcome and we want them to continue. We want to see that sort of person, particularly from the worldwide Anglican communion, as well as from the See of Rome—we have seen some amazing people come and be part of that community here in the United Kingdom. It is well worth paying tribute to such an example of someone who has achieved amazing things and revealed what he saw as God’s purpose for him as Archbishop of York. I am sure that we all wish him a very long retirement—not from holy orders, of course, which are a calling for life, but from his duties as archbishop.
I have heard the concerns expressed today about those who come to the UK for a very short term to provide cover while the incumbent minister is on holiday. It is worth pointing out our visitor rules, which will extend to EEA nationals as they currently extend to non-visa nationals, as I indicated earlier. In the immigration rules, the list of permitted activities specifically states that visitors may
“preach or do pastoral work.”
That allows many faith communities to hear inspiring preachers or hear about their faith’s work in other countries, especially in support of overseas aid and development work. Visitors are permitted to lead services on an ad hoc basis, which may provide a solution for communities that wish to invite visiting clergy to cover short-term absences, although they may not be paid for it—in many religious communities, that would not necessarily be a bar to providing a period of short-term cover.
It is worth my reminding the Committee that we have confirmed that EU citizens, who are the focus of the Bill, and EEA citizens more widely can continue to come to the UK as visitors without a visa, without prior approval, and use e-gates, where available, on arrival in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the SNP will consider its position on amendment 11. I say gently that we all need to reflect on whether it is appropriate to have faith communities led by those without a command of English adequate for the task—not least at a time when we need to come together more, not be separated by barriers of language. I therefore believe that the review that the amendment would put in place is not necessary. I invite the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the amendment, but I am always more than happy to discuss further how we can ensure that our faith communities are supported and that there is clarity on the three routes that I have outlined for ministers and those involved in faith communities to come to the United Kingdom and play the role that many have done in an inspiring way over many years.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for their detailed contributions to the debate, and to the Minister for his response. We are back in much more convivial and consensual territory, and I much prefer it; I feel much more comfortable there. I am particularly grateful for the Minister’s offer to meet the Bishops’ Conference, which I am sure will be very welcome. This debate has helped us clarify how close we are to making sure the system works for all interested parties.
I scribbled down the fact that the Minister highlighted two routes, but of course there are three. Tier 2 is much more about the longer term, and affects ministers who want to come and settle, and the tier 5 route is not for people who will lead worship. Then there is the visitor category, but, as the Minister said, it does not allow for payment to be made, and the organisations that I have spoken to say that if somebody is here for a couple of months, there are challenges if they cannot offer to pay.
We are close, but those three routes do not quite resolve the difficulties that we have highlighted. If the Minister is able to engage with the bishops’ conferences and other religious organisations, we may be able to tweak one of the three existing routes or come up with another one. It is probably better to fix the three than to come up with a fourth. I hope we will find a resolution, and I am glad that the Minister is engaging positively. For that reason, I see no reason to press for a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I have to be entirely neutral, of course, but it would be nice if the Government allowed us to have our religious services again, as has happened in the rest of Europe.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 9
Report on the impact to EEA and Swiss nationals
“(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact on EEA and Swiss nationals of having no recourse to public funds under Immigration Rules;
(b) the impact of NHS charging for EEA and Swiss nationals;
(c) the impact of granting citizenship to all EEA and Swiss health and social care workers working in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic;
(d) the impact of amending the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove all fees for applications, processes and services for EEA and Swiss nationals; and
(e) the merits of the devolution of powers over immigration from the EEA area and Switzerland to (i) Senedd Cymru; (ii) the Scottish Parliament; and (iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(4) In this section, ‘health and social care workers’ includes doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, social workers, care workers, and other frontline health and social care staff required to maintain the UK’s health and social care sector.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would ensure that before this Act coming into force, Parliament would have a chance to discuss how EEA and Swiss nationals will be affected by its provisions, including no recourse to public funds conditions, NHS charging, the possibility of granting British citizenship to non-British health and social care workers, removing citizenship application fees and the potential devolution of immigration policy of EEA and Swiss nationals to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Extension of registration for EU Settlement Scheme—
“(1) The EU Settlement Scheme deadline shall be extended by a period of six months unless a motion not to extend the deadline is debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Any motion not to extend, referred to in subsection (1), must be debated and approved no later than three months before the deadline.
(3) In this section, ‘the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline’ means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under the Immigration Rules.”
This new clause would ensure the EU settlement scheme was not closed to new applications until Parliament has approved its closure.
New clause 11—Application after the EU Settlement Scheme deadline—
“(1) An application to the EU Settlement Scheme after the EU settlement scheme deadline must still be decided in accordance with appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, unless reasons of public policy, public security, or public health apply in accordance with Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (as they have effect at the date of application or as they had effect immediately before they were revoked).
(2) In this section—
‘an application to the EU Settlement Scheme’ means an application for pre-settled or settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules;
‘the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline’ means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.”
This new clause would ensure that late applications to the EU settlement scheme will still be considered, unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply.
New clause 25—Report on status of EEA and Swiss nationals after the transition—
“(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must clarify the position of EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK during the period between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to, what rights EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK on 31 December 2020 have to—
(a) work in the UK;
(b) use the NHS for free;
(c) enrol in education or continue studying;
(d) access public funds such as benefits and pensions; and
(e) travel in and out of the UK.”
This new clause would require Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the EU in the grace period between the end of the transition period, and the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
With new clause 9, which stands principally in the names of my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru, we turn to the central matter of the Bill: what will happen to EEA and Swiss nationals who are already here? The new clause simply calls on the Government to report on what the implications for EEA and Swiss nationals will be. That includes reporting on the impact of no recourse to public funds, NHS charging, the granting of citizenship to all EEA and Swiss health and social care workers working in the UK during covid-19, and certain fees. It also includes—we will probably not discuss this in great detail—the merits of the devolution of powers over immigration from the EEA and Switzerland to different parts of the United Kingdom. Those are all perfectly reasonable requests.
I want to focus on new clauses 10 and 11, which bring us back to the settlement scheme. We touched on that on Thursday, when Opposition Members made the case for a declaratory system, meaning that people would have their rights automatically enshrined in law. It would still apply to the settlement scheme so that they could prove their status and navigate employment, social security and other rights. I regret that the Government and the Committee rejected that proposal, but I have taken that on the chin and moved on. However, that puts the Government under a greater obligation to spell out what should happen to eligible individuals who do not apply for the settlement scheme by 30 June 2021. I have tried on a huge number of occasions to get them to reveal what work they have done to estimate how many people might not apply, even in broad-brush terms, and how they would respond.
As we heard in evidence, it is blindingly obvious that, even with all the good work that is going on, the Government will struggle to get above 90% of the target population. Getting above 90% would be a great success, given the international comparison. If the Government fall just 5%, 6% or 7% short of the target, hundreds of thousands of people will suddenly be without status and will lose any right to be in this country on 1 July 2021. By all accounts, this is a huge issue and we need to push the Home Office further to set out how it will address it. So far, all we have been told is that it will take a reasonable approach. That is fine, but it is not enough. We need much more detail, and new clauses 10 and 11 are designed to push the Government on that.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that extending the deadline by six months would encourage those who have been putting it off to put it off for another six months?
Stuart C. McDonald
Not really. People still have every incentive to apply for the scheme. On 1 July next year the deadline will have passed. People might put it off for six months, but I would far rather that than subject tens and probably hundreds of thousands of people to not having any rights at all. It is much the lesser of two evils. As I say, there are different ways in which we can do this. New clause 11 would allow people to apply after the deadline. I will turn to that in a moment. I want to set out exactly what new clauses 10 and 11 are designed to do.
New clause 10 would ensure that the EU settlement scheme was not closed to new applications until Parliament had approved its closure. We want to see what the plans are and scrutinise how the situation will be handled. Until we are satisfied, we will keep extending the scheme in order to protect people from the loss of their rights and from the hostile environment and the threat of removal. Why on earth should MPs give the Home Office a blank cheque to deal with this as it pleases? We will have that debate and the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby can make his point that it will lead to a delay in people making applications, but I am firmly of the view that that is much the lesser of two evils.
On the closure of the settlement scheme, people who have not applied for a status will have no legal basis to remain in the UK after the grace period, no matter how long they have lived in the UK. They will be liable to removal and will face the hostile environment. After the grace period, a huge group of people will still not have applied. No similar scheme has ever reached 100% of its target audience. New clause 11 would bring back control of the situation to Parliament and allow us to be fully informed as to where the settlement scheme has got and what the Government’s plans are for dealing with this huge issue before we sign off on closure of the scheme. It is a modest proposal, but hugely important.
New clause 11 would ensure that late applications to the EU settlement scheme would still be considered unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply. In tabling the new clause, we are asking the Minister who he thinks does not deserve a second chance after 30 June next year. Who does not deserve the reasonable response that he has spoken about in the past? Under the new clause, applications made after the deadline could be ignored for restricted reasons relating to public policy, public security or public health. However, we want to know who, on top of that, the Minister thinks should be deprived of their rights and the ability to remedy the situation in which they find themselves. People will be unable to live in this country and they will be liable to removal. We need to know much more about the grounds on which people will be able to make a late application. What are the reasonable grounds that the Home Office will accept? They have yet to be defined. As far as we can tell, they will comprise only a very narrow list of exemptions, including, for example, for those with a physical or mental incapacity, and for children whose parents have failed to apply on their behalf.
As I have said many times, the deadline will be missed by many people for good reasons beyond those that I have just outlined. People will simply not be aware of the need to apply, and people with pre-settled status might forget to reapply for full settled status. I have set out a million times why people will not understand that the settlement scheme applies to them. Rules on nationality and immigration status in this country are hugely complicated. There will undoubtedly be people from all walks of life who think that they are British citizens and who already have a right of residence in this country. They will not appreciate that, in fact, they need to apply to the scheme. The consequences of making such a mistake can be dreadful. If we simply leave the Bill as it is, people will lose the right to be in this country and will be removed and subject to the hostile environment. Alternatively, we could at least leave open to them the option of being able to apply to the scheme after the deadline has passed. They would still have every incentive to apply, because they would need to evidence the rights that they access through the settled status process.
I ask the Government to look positively on these new clauses, and at the very least to provide much more information and assurance about how they are going to approach this issue. Up to this point, there has been barely a flicker of recognition that this is something that needs to be addressed, but we are talking about tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people being left in an appalling situation.
Holly Lynch
I believe that it is appropriate to speak to new clause 25 as part of this grouping. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has already explained his commitment to and passion for new clauses 10 and 11. Our new clause 25 is not dissimilar to new clause 9. New clause 25 is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who is the shadow Home Secretary, and myself and my hon. Friends.
New clause 25 focuses on the need to put to bed some of the anxieties of those who will not have had their status confirmed by the time the transition period ends at the end of this year. When free movement ends, eligible EEA and Swiss nationals will still have until the end of the grace period to apply for status through the EU settlement scheme, which does not close until the end June 2021. With this in mind, all the conversations we have had with those European citizens who have either applied or are planning on applying to the settlement scheme have centred on what their status will be between the end of free movement and their status being granted, which could happen up until the end of June 2021 and, in some cases, beyond that.
The new clause asks the Government to put together a report on the status and rights of people during that window and to lay it before both Houses for consideration. We are calling on the Government to recognise the genuine sense of vulnerability felt by people who may fall into that category and to provide some assurance, in a report to Parliament, guaranteeing that those people, who are eligible, will have a lawful status and not be disadvantaged during those six months.
I asked Luke Piper, immigration lawyer and head of policy at the3million, about this issue in last week’s evidence session. It is a top priority for him and his group. He told the Committee:
“The Bill brings freedom of movement to an end at the end of this year, but it is not clear what legal status people will have between the end of the transition period, which is at the end of the year, and the end of June—the end of the grace period. There has been no clarity about, or understanding of, what legal rights people will have. We have simply been told that certain checks, such as on the right to work, will not be undertaken, but it is not clear to us or our members how people will be distinguished, both in practice and in law.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 61, Q125.]
EU citizens in the UK have already endured a lot of uncertainty about their futures and are now also facing insecurity on their lawful status. The suggestion that employers or landlords should not be checking to confirm their personal status during this grace period seems to be an approach fraught with potential problems. I am keen to hear what engagement Ministers have with employers and landlords on this issue, and how any suspension of the hostile environment will be managed. Last December, the3million commissioned a survey on EU citizens’ experience of the settlement scheme. It was the largest survey of its kind and indicated that they are already facing barriers, with 10.9% of respondents saying they have already been asked for proof of settled status, even though it is not yet a requirement.
Although this new clause focuses on the rights of those who apply after the transition ends and who get their status before the EUSS deadline, there will presumably then be a group of particularly vulnerable people who apply before the deadline ends but who do not get their status until after the end of June 2021. What happens, for example, if they apply on 20 June 2021, which is before the deadline, but do not get confirmation of their status until 20 July, which is after the end the transition period and the closure of the EUSS? What are the rights and status of that cohort of people?
Although the numbers coming through are good, we know that lots of people are still yet to apply. As we have heard, we will never know exactly how many people are in that category. We will never know whether there is going to be a surge towards the end of the scheme, which will make this a bigger problem than many of us would like. When asked about the numbers and types of people who will struggle to apply on time, Luke Piper said:
“Much as with the number of people due to apply for the scheme, we do not know. We have no idea of the exact number of EU citizens who need to apply under the EU settlement scheme, so we will not have an understanding of the number of people who miss the deadline.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 62, Q126.]
Coronavirus has resulted in dedicated Home Office phone lines being closed, an inability to receive hard copies of documentation and specialist support services being stopped, impacting on the progress being made. The BMA has said that some doctors working tirelessly on the frontline may be in that cohort of people who have to leave things until next year, simply because they will be working flat out for the foreseeable future. After the transition period comes to an end, thousands of people might not have confirmation of their status.
Recent research by the3million on young Europeans living in London made some concerning findings. The focus group was the first time that some participants had heard about the EU settlement scheme, and a majority had not applied to it, despite being viewed as an easy to reach group because of their education and digital literacy. The new clause’s proposed report on that group’s rights between the end of the transition period and the EU exit deadline would be of great assistance in clarifying the status and rights of those harder-to-reach groups. It would also assist in getting them to submit their applications towards the end of the scheme.
It is important to note that, after the deadline, the EU settlement scheme will not close in practice, because people with pre-settled status will need to apply for settled status, and it will also be used by people will be joining family members in the UK after the deadline. Moreover, we will still be processing those applications that arrive on time but that will have to wait until the other side of the deadline for a decision to be issued.
Inevitably, the problem is the hostile environment and the long, dark shadow of the Windrush scandal. The fear brought about by the absence of a clear framework of rights and migration status for EEA and Swiss nationals between September 2020 and June 2021 is all too real. We therefore ask the Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the UK during the grace period. EU citizens who have contributed and given so much to our society and country deserve to have security and confidence in their status.
Mr Goodwill
I very much sympathise with what the hon. Member for Halifax has just said. There is real concern that EEA nationals who have been working here, contributing not least to our health service, may find themselves missing the deadline. However, I do not agree that the way to address that is through new clause 10, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Some like myself would always wait until the deadline before submitting an essay or article. By extending the period by six months, we might well just encourage people to put off the chore—as they see it—of applying.
I ask the Minister to reassure us that, as we approach the deadline, the Government will engage in a communications exercise and advertising campaign, particularly in some of the main EU languages, so that people are aware of the deadline and can submit their applications in good time for them to be processed.
Kate Green
That is an important point, in particular in relation to those communities, such as the Roma community, that have been hard to reach with information about the scheme. The Government have made some funding available for community organisations to reach such communities, but it would be extremely welcome to follow the suggestion that a particular push be made to communicate with those more remote communities as the deadline approaches
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Indeed, while many EU migrants have made a real effort to integrate and to speak English in their homes, encouraging their children to speak English, others have not assimilated as well and are still speaking their native language, as is their right. It is important that we communicate in those languages.
Perhaps we should also look at how we communicate through schools, because the children of some families who have come from the EU speak very good English, although their parents struggle with it. The children’s secondary schools may be another good way to get through to such families. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point and reassure us that the Government will be making the effort to communicate with the general population, to ensure that we can help our work mates and so on.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 16th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2020 - (16 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Just before we begin, I should say that if members of the Committee wish to take their jackets off, they have my permission to do so. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson have spoken. If no Back Benchers indicate that they wish to speak, I will call the Minister. I remind the Committee that with this we are also discussing the following:
New clause 10—Extension of registration for EU Settlement Scheme—
‘(1) The EU Settlement Scheme deadline shall be extended by a period of six months unless a motion not to extend the deadline is debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Any motion not to extend, referred to in subsection (1), must be debated and approved no later than three months before the deadline.
(3) In this section, “the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline” means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under the Immigration Rules.’
This new clause would ensure the EU settlement scheme was not closed to new applications until Parliament has approved its closure.
New clause 11—Application after the EU Settlement Scheme deadline—
‘(1) An application to the EU Settlement Scheme after the EU settlement scheme deadline must still be decided in accordance with appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, unless reasons of public policy, public security, or public health apply in accordance with Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (as they have effect at the date of application or as they had effect immediately before they were revoked).
(2) In this section—
“an application to the EU Settlement Scheme” means an application for pre-settled or settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules;
“the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline” means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.’
This new clause would ensure that late applications to the EU settlement scheme will still be considered, unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply.
New clause 25—Report on status of EEA and Swiss nationals after the transition—
‘(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must clarify the position of EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK during the period between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to, what rights EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK on 31 December 2020 have to—
(a) work in the UK;
(b) use the NHS for free;
(c) enrol in education or continue studying;
(d) access public funds such as benefits and pensions; and
(e) travel in and out of the UK.’
This new clause would require Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the EU in the grace period between the end of the transition period, and the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. These new clauses give us an important opportunity to consider the position of EEA citizens—those who are already here and are covered by the EU settlement scheme, and those who will come to the UK under our future points-based immigration system.
Before the break, I was asked a couple of questions. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we are looking at a range of communications materials, and have already done so, in a number of common European languages. We have engaged with diaspora media, and are looking particularly at how we can work with them over the coming year, as we approach the deadline next year, to ensure that as many people as possible hear the message—not just those who need to apply, but their friends and families, so that people feel familiar with the system and realise that it is actually a relatively simple process. The vast majority of people do it via an app on their phone.
I was grateful for the question from the hon. Member for Halifax. She asked what the position would be if someone applied on 20 June 2021 and their application was still outstanding on 1 July 2021. That is a perfectly reasonable issue to raise. As set out in the withdrawal agreement, the rights of someone who has made a valid in-time application to the EU settlement scheme will be protected while that application is pending. The regulations under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 will save relevant rights in relation to residency and access to benefits and services for those who make an application before 30 June 2021 until it is finally determined.
The Home Office will clearly not take immigration enforcement action against an individual whose application is pending. That reflects some of the other principles in the migration system. Committee members may be familiar with 3C leave—the concept that if someone has extant leave and applies, their leave is extended until their application is determined.
I assure Members that the statutory instrument making the regulations will be subject to debate and approval by Parliament, and will need to come into force at the end of the transition period. The Government are currently developing those regulations, which will be debated and made in good time prior to their entry into force at the end of the transition period.
On the linked question of what happens in relation to status checks and other things, let me be clear that an individual undergoing an eligibility check while their EUSS application is pending will have the same entitlement to accommodation, work, benefits or services that they had before the grace period ended. The Home Office will confirm whether an application is pending when an eligibility check is carried out—for example, if someone has to prove their status to their employer. Given that it is a digital-only system, it will be very similar to the process that people would use if they had been given pre-settled or settled status. I hope that is of use. Given the nature of the issue, I will set that out in writing for members of the Committee. They may wish to refer to it later.
New clause 9, moved on behalf of our friends in Plaid Cymru by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, seeks to delay the ending of free movement and the introduction of the new points-based immigration system for as long as possible. That is no surprise, given the views of the hon. Gentleman and Plaid Cymru.
My response on behalf of the Government is simple: we must accept the wishes of the people of our United Kingdom. Free movement is ending now that we have left the European Union. It is just six months since the general election, during which my party said that we would introduce a points-based immigration system that will enable us to bring in the best talent from around the world—based on the skills that a person has, not where their passport is from. The Government will therefore reject any attempt to perpetuate free movement or delay the implementation of the new points-based immigration system. The Government have a mandate, and we will fulfil our pledges to the people. We will introduce our new firmer and fairer points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021, when the transition period ends.
Having said that, I appreciate the importance of proper data and information. It is precisely for that reason that the Government have published a detailed impact assessment to accompany the Bill. It was published on 18 May and can be found on gov.uk and the Parliament website. Copies were also placed in the Library, and I know it has been referred to at times during the debates we have had so far.
The impact assessment is slightly unusual because it is not confined simply to the scope of the Bill, which, as Sir Edward and you, Mr Stringer, have reminded us on a number of occasions, is relatively narrow. Instead, it seeks to map out the consequences that will flow from the introduction of the points-based immigration system that was set out in the policy statement, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 19 February.
The impact assessment sets out the likely implications for both EEA and non-EEA citizens of the changes that we will make, and it deals with many of the issues raised by the new clause. In particular, it makes it clear that we will develop plans to evaluate policies under the future skills-based immigration system. I remind the Committee that we have expanded the role of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. Not only will the MAC respond to specific commissions from the Government; it will also be able to consider any aspect of immigration policy that it chooses.
We have also asked the MAC to produce an annual report, which will give it the opportunity to comment on what it believes is working well and anything it thinks is working less well in our system. Although it is for the MAC—as I have said, it is independent of Government—to decide how to exercise its new responsibilities, I would be surprised if it did not want to comment on the operation of the new points-based system once it is fully up and running, so that there is further assurance for the public and for the movers of the new clause. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clause.
I will now speak to new clauses 10, 11 and 25, which concern the EU settlement scheme and the grace period that will run from the end of the transition period to 30 June 2021. New clause 10 is designed to extend the deadline for applications to the EUSS by six months, which would happen unless and until Parliament debated and approved a motion not to extend the deadline.
I share the aim of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to ensure that eligible EEA citizens are able to obtain the UK immigration status they need to continue to live and work here. As we constantly say, they are our neighbours and friends—we want them to stay. However, I do not think that is best achieved by the new clause, which has the effect of shifting the deadline for applications to the scheme potentially indefinitely. That would cause confusion. Instead, a clear deadline of 30 June 2021 will encourage applications to the scheme and ensure the greatest number of resident EEA citizens secure their status in a timely manner.
Furthermore, new clause 10 is ambiguous. It is not clear whether it is intended to be a one-off extension of six months or a rolling extension of a six-month period until such a time as Parliament votes to close the scheme with just three months’ notice. Having a clear and well-publicised deadline by which eligible citizens need to apply ensures that the maximum number do so rather than putting it off due to the impact of new clause 10, which could mean that a deadline is set with three months’ notice. The new clause could also mean that applicants face difficulties and delays in demonstrating their rights and entitlements in the future, as they would not be able to distinguish themselves from EEA citizens who arrived after the end of the transition period.
The Government have made it clear that we will continue to support eligible citizens in applying to the EU settlement scheme. In addition, as we have shown with all aspects of the scheme, we will take a flexible and pragmatic approach and allow people with reasonable grounds for missing the deadline a further opportunity to apply. We will set out further guidance on this issue in due course, but with over a year to go until the deadline, our focus is on getting as many applications before it as possible.
On new clause 25, we will bring forward a statutory instrument under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to set the deadline and save the residency rights of people who are eligible to apply to the scheme and who do so before the deadline. I am not sure whether this is the intention of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, but the effect of new clause 10 would be to breach our obligations under the withdrawal agreements. The deadline of 30 June 2023 applies only to EEA citizens and their family members who reside in the UK by the end of the transition period. Their close family members outside the UK at the end of the transition period—where the relationship existed before then and continues to exist when they seek to come here—and their future children have a lifelong right of family reunion with the resident EEA citizen. A universal deadline makes no provision for this group, whether it is 31 December 2021 or any other date, and it would be inconsistent with the provision to enable them to apply within three months of their arrival, as set out in article 18(1)(b) of the withdrawal agreement.
New clause 11 is intended to require the consideration of all applications to the EU settlement scheme made after the application deadline, unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the withdrawal agreement requires late applications to be considered
“if there are reasonable grounds for the failure to respect the deadline.”
As I said earlier, the Government will adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach to the consideration of late applications. Where an eligible EEA citizen or their family member has reasonable grounds for missing the application deadline of 30 June 2021, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. This approach gives people a clear deadline and incentive to apply while also protecting those who are unable to do so through no fault of their own.
Our collective focus must be on encouraging applications to the EU settlement scheme before the deadline.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
In terms of intention, I think everybody in this room is at one. The Minister provides assurance in relation to people who miss the deadline through no fault of their own. Would that include people who, because of their complicated immigration nationality situations, had not appreciated that they needed to apply for the scheme?
Kevin Foster
I think it is safe to say that the list will not be an exhaustive one. There will need to be an element of discretion as we cannot list every single possible situation that might reasonably cause someone to be late in their application, but if, for example, they have had a difficult court case or something that meant they had not been able to apply, and a status had then been granted, it is likely that that would be seen as a reasonable excuse. It will be set out in guidance.
Our intention is to set out a list of situations that are not exhaustive but indicative. We can all think of circumstances that would be perfectly reasonable. For example, in the case of a child in the care of a local authority, we would expect the local authority to have made efforts to get them registered. We could make a very long list and still not get to an exhaustive level. The list will demonstrate grounds, but it will not be an exhaustive list of the only situations that we would accept as reasonable grounds for failing to apply on time.
As I say, we will take a flexible and pragmatic approach with those who miss the deadline. We have more than a year to go before the deadline. If people feel that they might need to make an application, the best thing to do is to find the information and make the application. That is our absolute focus at the moment. We are working closely with support groups to ensure that we can reach out to vulnerable communities who might need assistance. We have kept a range of support services running throughout the recent period and have now reinstated all routes for application, including paper applications that are made available to those with the most complex needs.
We want to encourage applications before the deadline. That will ensure that EEA citizens can continue to live their lives here, as they do now, without interruption. To make a commitment now that we would also consider all late applications would undermine that effort.
Where there are reasonable grounds for submitting a late application, we will consider the application in exactly the same way as we do now, in line with the immigration rules for the EU settlement scheme. That includes the consideration of conduct committed before the end of the transition period on the grounds of public policy, public security and public health, and of conduct committed thereafter under the UK conduct and criminality thresholds. As I have mentioned, we will publish guidance for caseworkers on what constitutes reasonable grounds, to ensure consistency of approach. Again, however, with more than a year until the deadline, it is premature to do so now, for the reasons I have given.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to all hon. Members for taking part in this debate and to the Minister for his response. There have been some useful comments, including on the transition period, in response to points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax. We will take that back to discuss with concerned groups and may revisit the matter.
For those who fail to apply in time, we understand that there will be guidance in due course. Again, we are grateful for that little bit of further information on how that will function through a non-exhaustive list of types of case where caseworkers will look sympathetically on a late application. I am grateful for that. The Minister will understand that we will revisit that repeatedly between now and next June, due to our concern about what will happen to those people who have the right to be here but risk losing it.
As I said in my intervention, we have a similar purpose across the House; we just have different views on how to go about doing it. Having adopted this course of action, we will continue to press and push the Government at every possible opportunity, so that we get the maximum reach possible and as few people as possible lose their rights and end up being cast adrift in a hostile environment or lose their right to be in this country altogether.
The two new clauses were possible solutions to that. I will go away and think again about their detailed drafting. The Minister provided some interesting comments in that regard. At this juncture, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Immigration health charge
‘No immigration health charge introduced under section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 may be imposed on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would prevent EEA or Swiss nationals paying the immigration health charge.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 42—Immigration Health Charge: Exemption for EEA and Swiss citizens who are healthcare and social workers—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38 (Immigration health charge) insert—
“38A Health care workers and social workers from the EEA or Switzerland
(1) Any person who but for the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 would have the right of free movement is exempt from the Immigration health charge if that person is—
(a) a healthcare worker; or
(b) a social care worker.
(2) The exemption will also apply to a person who is a family member or dependant of an EEA or Swiss national who meets the conditions in section (1)(a) and (b).
(3) For this section—
“healthcare worker” means a worker who works in a healthcare setting within and outside the NHS who may come into contact with patients, including clinical administration staff, and care home staff;
“social care worker” means a worker as defined by section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000.’
Stuart C. McDonald
This brings us to the hot topic of the immigration health surcharge. It is worth remembering that the health surcharge is a fairly new concept, as it was introduced in 2014. It is set at £400 per year for most applicants, with a discounted rate for students and tier 5 youth mobility workers. The Government have decided to increase the fee to £624 per person per year in October.
Those are hugely significant sums of money, as the charge has to be paid per person per year for the full duration of the visa being applied for, before that visa application has even been considered. Somebody who comes in under a typical five-year tier 2 visa will have to pay more than £3,000 up front in health charges. If they have a husband or wife and a couple of kids, that is three extra NHS surcharges, so more than £12,000 up front without even thinking about the visa fee. On a discounted rate, a student coming for three years will need to pay more than £1,400 up front. Again, that is completely separate from the visa fee. Of course, the Bill extends the scope of the immigration health surcharge to many more applicants.
A particular injustice is done to people applying for leave to remain based on long residence. They are individuals and families who are forced on to a dreadful treadmill of applications and expense. Repeatedly, they have to apply for 30 months’ leave to remain. A single parent with two kids applying under those rules would need to pay almost £4,700 in health charges, and more than £3,000 in immigration fees, for just 30 months. They have to make that same application over and over again until they get to 10 years. When they get to 10 years and are met with a settlement fee of £2,400 per person, they will already have paid £10,300 per person. For a family, £10,000 per person is impossible. Shamefully, those people are often prohibited from having access to public funds.
Those people are applying because of long residence in the UK so, realistically, in many cases, there is no other country that they can go to. The children have spent most, if not all, of their lives here. It can put families in intolerable situations where they have to choose which family member they can afford to pay the fee for. A child may end up missing out because the most immediate and pressing priority is to pay the fee for a breadwinner.
In a way, the charge represents the worst of Home Office policy making, although the Treasury is as much to blame for stripping the Home Office right down to the core and instructing it to use migrants as cash cows to fund its activities. It also illustrates the Home Office at its worst, because the policy is more about grabbing the headlines than anything else. It is illogical, unjust and counterproductive.
The excuse given is that the policy ensures that migrants contribute towards the cost of the NHS system that they may use—but in that case, why is there an NHS charge but not an education charge, especially for families with kids? Why is there not a public transport or roads charge, or a local services charge? It is essentially a fig leaf for the fact that it is simply a general tax.
It is also unjust in that it is a form of double taxation and it is a poll tax. Migrants, of course, contribute to public services through general taxation like everybody else, through income tax, council tax and indirect taxes. The NHS surcharge is totally regressive. It falls unfairly on different migrants, as a wealthy bank worker with no dependants will pay about a quarter of the sum that an NHS careworker will pay if he or she comes in with kids. Most importantly, it falls unfairly on migrants as opposed to those who are citizens or settled. Migrants pay a general tax that the rest of us do not, while at the same time paying all the other taxes that we do.
Finally, from a different perspective, this is a policy that makes the UK an eye-wateringly expensive place for people to come to work. That will now expand to EU and Swiss nationals, and to the small and medium-sized businesses that employ them. Just as businesses are struggling to keep their noses above water, the Government intend to whack them with a plethora of fees, vis-à-vis skills charges and the NHS surcharge.
As we heard last week, it is the big multinationals that are well practised in this system over time, and that have the know-how and resources. Small and medium-sized businesses will end up not only having to navigate the complex tier 2 system, but often meeting the cost of the immigration health surcharge. If a job pays around £26,000 or £27,000, nobody in their right mind is going to come if they have to pay almost half a year’s salary up front. The small hotel and the fish-processing factory will have to pay it on their behalf and, quite simply, they may well not be able to afford to do that. It will not just be one job that remains unfilled. The danger becomes that that hotel or factory simply cannot continue to function and it moves elsewhere. Workers will go where they are not being totally ripped off.
Can the Minister give me examples of other countries that operate such a system in relation to a health surcharge? If so, what is the comparable rate? All the comparisons that I have looked at show that the UK is charging people to come here at a rate that is several times that of most of our competitor countries. In short, this is unjust, it is counter-productive, it is a double poll tax and it should be axed altogether. We support the Labour amendment and new clause as far as they go, but our view is that the solution is total abolition, rather than trimming around the edges.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak to new clause 42. I agree with a great deal of what my friend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said about the immigration health surcharge.
The Labour party is undertaking a significant piece of work with colleagues in the health team about the subject, so we will not make any further comments at this stage about new clause 12. We tabled new clause 42 and we welcome the Government’s commitment to scrap the NHS surcharge for migrant health and care workers, which we feel is long overdue.
The pandemic has shown the enormous contribution of overseas workers to our health and care system. They have put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. It has been an insult and injustice to then ask them to pay extra for the very services they help provide. The Government acknowledged it was wrong, and said they would be scrapping the fee, which was described as “appalling, immoral and monstrous” by Lord Patten, the former Conservative party chairman, on 21 May, but details have yet to be published about exactly how and when it will happen.
I am mindful that the commitment made by the Prime Minister, following the exchanges between our party leaders at the Dispatch Box, was broader than the new clause before us due to the scope of the Bill. The U-turn was made when a No. 10 Downing Street spokesman announced:
“The PM has asked the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social Care to remove NHS and care workers from the NHS surcharge as soon as possible. Work by officials is now underway on how to implement the change and full details will be announced in the coming days.”
We share the opinion of Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, who said it was
“a shame it took this pandemic for the government to see sense”.
We also share the opinion of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and Unison, which have written to the Prime Minister to demand clarity about his commitment. I hope that the Minister can update the Committee and, indeed, the general public on what progress the Government have made. Can he confirm that all health and care workers will be exempt from the charge on a permanent basis, including those employed in the NHS, independent settings and the social care sector; that the spouses and dependants of health and care workers will also be exempt from the charge; and that health and care staff, who have paid the charge in advance, which will be all those currently working in the NHS and social care, bearing the brunt of the pandemic, will be appropriately reimbursed?
New clause 42 intends to hold the Government to the commitments made following PMQs on 20 May. As you can imagine, Mr Stringer, international doctors and nurses, who have just had to endure the most difficult, traumatising period of their careers, were hugely relieved when the Government made the overdue decision to scrap this unfair charge for health and care workers, finally recognising the vital contribution that overseas staff make to the NHS. However, we are nearly a month on since the announcement was made and we are still awaiting the details that we were promised.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for making the point about the contribution that overseas workers make to our health service and the way the Government have responded to that by suspending the immigration health charge. However, I have some concerns about new clause 12 and its discriminatory nature.
For example, it would extend an exemption to Poland, which has a 0.1% black and minority ethnic population, but not to other countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, which have very close links to the UK. If one looks at the European Union as a whole, its record on inclusivity is not good. For example, all 28 commissioners are white. Following the departure of the UK from the European Union, the number of Members of the European Parliament dropped by 20% as our MEPs left Strasbourg and Brussels, and only 24 of the 705 MEPs are from black and minority ethnic groups.
Stuart C. McDonald
The simple problem that I face here—again—is the scope of the Bill. I would love to abolish the immigration health surcharge altogether. If that is the only problem that the right hon. Gentleman has, I urge him to get in behind the new clause and we can work to scrap it for everybody else as well.
The Chair
Before the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby resumes, I refer him to what the new clause says. He is beginning to stray a little.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you, Mr Stringer. The point that I was working up to was that by having an exemption only for EU citizens, we are discriminating against a large number of people who would wish to come and work in the UK from around the world. The ethnic mix of those particular groups would indicate that allowing the new clause would give a land bloc where the majority of people are white an unfair advantage over the rest of the world. I understand the aspiration to abolish the charge completely globally, but if we were to agree the new clause, we would end up in a situation where black and minority ethnic people from around the world would be at a great disadvantage to predominantly white people coming in from the European Union, EEA countries and Switzerland.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling new clause 12 and the hon. Member for Halifax for tabling new clause 42, both of which relate to the immigration health charge, and for the opportunity they provide to debate this issue.
The background, for members of the Committee, is that the immigration health charge ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution to the NHS services available to them during their stay. Income from the charge contributes to the long-term sustainability of our fantastic health service across our Union, although certain groups are exempt from the requirement to pay the charge and others benefit from a discounted rate.
The health charge is designed to help support the NHS services that we rely on throughout our lives. It raised approximately £900 million in much-needed income for the NHS from its introduction in 2015 to the end of the 2018-19 financial year—income that, I will be clear, has been shared between the four devolved health administrations in line with the Barnett formula, helping to fund the NHS across our United Kingdom.
Turning to the future, all migrants will be treated the same under our new points-based immigration system. The expectation is therefore that all nationals applying, including EEA citizens, will pay the charge if staying for temporary periods of longer than six months, unless an exemption applies. Of course, EEA citizens who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 are not subject to the immigration health charge. That was agreed as part of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement with the EU, which also protects the rights of UK nationals in the EU.
To touch on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, now we have left the European Union, it would be rather hard to defend having an exemption for EEA nationals alone, given that we no longer have freedom of movement in place and will no longer members of the EU, and then applying this to the rest of the world. I respect the SNP’s point—they have made it regularly and I am sure they will make it again at regular intervals—and their principled view on this issue overall, but it would not make sense to have an exemption for one group applying under the points-based system rather than another, based on nationality alone. I appreciate the point and it will be interesting to hear what conclusions the hon. Member for Halifax comes to as part of her review.
The Government believe that new clause 42 is unnecessary. As has already been said, hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to exempt NHS and social care staff from the charge. The exemption will apply to the relevant applications regardless of nationality—as I say, we are moving to a global points-based system—once that system is in place.
Officials are currently working through the detail of the exemptions; sadly, I will have to disappoint the hon. Member for Halifax and say that I cannot go into the full details today of where it will be, but hon. Members will appreciate that that is because we want to get this right and are working with our colleagues in the DHSC to do that.
There was a point made about renewals for doctors currently in the NHS. It is worth pointing out that those who are currently working in the NHS as doctors, nurses or in a number of health professions, are subject to automatic extension for a year. If they get an automatic extension for a year, that also waives the immigration health charge. It is not just the visa fee that goes, but the immigration health charge. Someone currently working for the NHS whose visa is due for renewal is getting a free year, and certainly by this time next year we will have the detailed guidance out there for them. I hope that provides some reassurance about the position as we stand here today.
I recognise the concerns about the financial impact of the health charge on people migrating here, including those who contribute to the NHS through tax and national insurance payments. The health charge provides comprehensive access to NHS services regardless of the amount of care needed during a person’s time in the UK, and includes treatment for pre-existing conditions.
The IHS not only represents excellent value when compared with the alternatives, but ensures that individuals do not need to worry about insurance or how they will pay for unexpected treatment while they are here. It compares favourably with the type of health insurance or other health care costs that those migrating to other countries might well face in order to get the same level of services that our NHS provides to all at point of need, free of charge, here.
As I said earlier, the Government is exempting NHS and care workers from the charge in recognition of the enormous contribution they make to the NHS directly. It is, however, only fair to expect people arriving in the UK to work in non-health-related roles to contribute to the range of NHS services available to them, given that they will not have the history of making contributions towards it that most long-term UK residents will have. It is also worth remembering that those who receive indefinite leave to remain—that is, settlement—are exempted from the IHS, in recognition of the long-term commitment to our United Kingdom this represents.
Finally, the Government are in the process of negotiating reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU, and it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of those negotiations through this Bill. I therefore invite the Members from the Scottish National party to withdraw the motion.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We are essentially debating a fundamental point of principle here: we have different views about the appropriateness of this charge.
To respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby’s intervention, I am of course constricted in what I can table as an amendment or new clause. I would scrap the charge for everybody, not just EEA nationals, but the scope of the Bill prohibits me from tabling a broader amendment. I think that if an assessment of the NHS surcharge’s impact on black and minority ethnic people were carried out, it would make for interesting reading, but that is a debate for another day. I stand by my party’s position that this is a double tax that is completely unjustifiable, and will therefore push new clause 12 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 36—Immigration Fees—
“(1) No fees may be charged for processing applications included in subsection (3) for those persons who have lost rights of free movement under section 1 or schedule 1 beyond the cost of that processing, unless the Secretary of State has complied with the procedure in subsection (2).
(2) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must get the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The list of fees to which subsection (1) applies includes, but is not restricted to, the following—
(a) fees for applications to enter or remain in the UK;
(b) fees for sponsorship licenses;
(c) immigration health surcharges; and
(d) immigration skills charges.”
This new clause will ensure that immigration fee changes must be agreed by Parliament.
New clause 37—Citizenship Fees—
“(1) No fee may be charged for processing applications relating to the citizenship status of a person who has lost rights of free movement under section 1 or schedule 1 beyond the cost of that processing, unless the Secretary of State has complied with the procedure in subsection (2).
(2) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must get the approval of both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause will ensure that citizenship fee changes must be agreed by Parliament.
Stuart C. McDonald
These new clauses continue with the broad topic of fees and expense. Although I understand why they have been grouped together, it is important that they are not treated as being about exactly the same thing; we must separate out two distinct issues.
New clauses 36 and 37 were designed to flag up the issue of how far above the cost of processing immigration and citizenship fees have been set, generally speaking, and to challenge the Minister and Committee members about why we have allowed that to happen and what the appropriate approach to setting fees should be. I accept that there will be a whole range of views on what the price of immigration applications or certain nationality applications, particularly naturalisations, should be. My own view, and that of my party, is that the prices have been set too high. This brings us back to the fact that the Home Office’s budget has been cut to smithereens in recent years by the Treasury, and it is left with no other option but to milk every penny from the immigration and citizenship system to subsidise its activities. I urge Members to wake up to the enormous burden that, at this time of crisis, the Government are about to dump on business—especially small and medium-sized enterprises—as well as individuals by expanding all these fees to companies that recruit from the EEA labour market.
It is important to distinguish new clauses 36 and 37 from new clause 13, which raises a wholly separate issue and is about righting a profound injustice. We can debate fees more generally, but there should be no scope for debate about new clause 13. I know that Members of all parties have been troubled by Government policy in this area, because, like Labour, Liberal Democrat, Democratic Ulster Unionist, Green and Plaid Cymru Members, Conservative Members also signed an early-day motion that I tabled on the topic in 2018. When I applied for a Backbench Business debate I had support from Conservative MPs as well, as I did during the debate.
Holly Lynch
We support new clauses 13, 36 and 37, which were tabled by the SNP and address immigration and citizenship fee charges that fall within the scope of the Bill. We believe that visa charges should not exceed the cost price, for all the reasons that have already been set out.
Subsection (1) of new clause 13 would prohibit EEA and Swiss citizens from being charged a fee for registering as a British citizen that is greater than the cost of the registration process. As we have already heard, there is enormous cross-party support for this approach.
The Home Office makes a profit of up to 800% on immigration applications from families. The fees are now £1,012 for children and £1,206 for adults, which are really quite significant sums. We have all had constituents come to us because such fees are causing a huge amount of anxiety and stress after a change in circumstances. We have all had casework in which applications have been turned down on technicalities, which we have been able to challenge through our parliamentary offices. Families are often forced to make further appeals and further applications, and to pay again.
EEA and Swiss nationals will soon join the rest of the world in having to pay visa fees or fees for starting the journey towards British citizenship. The British Nationality Act 1981 contains provisions to ensure that no child with entitlement to register for British citizenship should have to pay a fee. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of new clause 13 are designed to safeguard that Act, in spite of the Bill. I particularly welcome subsection (2), which would provide a further safeguard for children who receive assistance from their local authorities, adding to our proposals in new clause 58. We will come on to clause 58, but those provisions seek to provide automatic settled status for all EEA and Swiss children in care, and for those entitled to care-leaving support.
With that in mind, we welcome the independent chief inspector’s report, “An inspection of the policies and practices of the Home Office’s Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Systems relating to charging and fees”, which was presented to the Home Secretary last September. It set out concerns about the legislative procedure for citizenship and immigration fees, and it recommended that the Home Office undertake to provide considerably more clarity on fee levels, stating that the Government should:
“Either make public any Policy Equality Statements produced for ministers or publish separate statements that show clearly what has been considered when proposing fees levels/increases in terms of equality and diversity, in particular the social and welfare impacts on children, families and vulnerable persons.”
New clauses 37 and 38 would require Parliament’s consent for changes to be made to citizenship fees and immigration fees respectively. As we have discussed, the Government are attempting to grant themselves sweeping Henry VIII powers throughout the Bill; we have rehearsed that debate several times. We believe it is vital that parliamentary oversight is at least afforded to these charges, which will dictate the lives and prosperity of EEA and Swiss migrants in the UK for years to come. Ideally, that should be done through parliamentary legislation rather than through the current framework, which relies on statutory instruments.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Argyll and Bute for tabling new clauses 13, 36 and 37, which provide the Committee with the opportunity to consider fees charged in respect of applications made by those who will lose the right of free movement under the Bill for citizenship, leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the immigration health surcharge, the immigration skills charge and sponsorship licences. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentlemen’s diligence in going through all the points that they wished to highlight.
It may be helpful to provide some background information for the Committee. Application fees for border, immigration and citizenship products and services have been charged for a number of years, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system. To put them into context, the current charging framework across the operation delivered £1.98 billion of income in the financial year 2018-19. That income helped to deliver the funding required to run the borders, immigration and citizenship system, and it substantially reduces the burden on UK taxpayers, as I am sure members of the public would rightly expect us to do.
The immigration health charge ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution towards paying for the NHS services that are available to them during their stay. As was touched on earlier, income from the charge directly contributes to the long-term sustainability of our fantastic health service across our United Kingdom. Certain groups are already exempt from the requirement to pay the charge, and others benefit from a discounted rate.
The immigration skills charge is designed to incentivise employers to invest in training and upskilling the resident workforce to move away from reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity, technology and automation. Income raised from the charge will be used to address skills gaps in the UK workforce, and that will be of benefit to businesses in the long term. Any fees to be charged are already approved by both Houses of Parliament.
New clause 13(1) is designed to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British citizenship to the cost of processing. That would apply to anybody who has enjoyed free movement rights at any point. Imposing such a provision would cut across the existing statutory framework for fees and would risk undermining the funding and coherence of the whole current and future system.
Additionally, making fee provisions that are specific to certain nationalities as part of the Bill would be unfair to all users of the border, immigration and citizenship system, and it could lead the Home Office to discriminating on the basis of a person’s nationality. That clearly goes against our policy, although I accept that part of the rationale for that was to get the new clause into the scope of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes, that is absolutely the case. This does not apply even to every EU national exercising free movement; it applies to EU nationals who have the right to British citizenship through registration. It is a very specific subset, to which hugely different considerations apply; they are not in the same position as folk who have chosen to turn up and apply through naturalisation. They have a right, under an Act of Parliament, to British citizenship.
Kevin Foster
I re-emphasise that having this type of provision in the Bill would cut across and create a new precedent. We would be talking about someone whose right of free movement was removed by the Bill. That would create incoherence, particularly once we have left the European Union, with provisions based on rights from being in the EU—a situation that does not now exist. We have put in protections that are appropriate and proportionate.
New clause 13(2) is designed to prevent the Secretary of State from charging the child of a person who has exercised free moment rights a fee to register as a British citizen, if the child is in receipt of local authority assistance. “Local authority assistance” is too broad a term and could include those who access a range of financial and practical support measures offered by local authorities. For example, a child may receive assistance from a local authority if they attend day-care facilities while they are not yet at school. That is quite different from a child who is looked after and in the care of the local authority by way of a care order made by a court, or a voluntary agreement with the parent to accommodate the child.
It is important to remember that any child, irrespective of nationality, who is looked after by their local authority can apply for limited and indefinite leave to remain without being required to pay application fees, ensuring that no child in local authority care is unable to access leave to remain. Although many will choose to pursue British citizenship, having citizenship, as opposed to an award of indefinite leave to remain, is not essential for any individual to work, live, study or access services in the UK .
Stuart C. McDonald
I urge the Minister not to pursue that line, which was pursued by a previous Prime Minister and Home Secretary. No one would say to anyone in this room, “You don’t really need British citizenship. Why not just settle for indefinite leave to remain?” The Minister is missing the point—I am talking about people who have as much right to British citizenship as anyone in this room. It is not a substitute to say, “Just become a migrant in your own home country and apply for immigration status here.”
Kevin Foster
I was talking about the logic of our fee system and the fact that we have exemptions to do with the status of people who need to access public services. Traditionally, our position on citizenship is that it is not something that people need in order to access services. I re-emphasise the breadth of the provisions in the new clause—I notice that that was not disputed.
New clause 13(3) would remove fees for the children of people who have exercised free movement rights to register as a British citizen where the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford any associated fees. It raises similar points to subsection (1) in respect of fairness, discrimination and suitable legislative structures already being in place. Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to make persons who have exercised free movement rights aware of their rights to obtain British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981.
When explaining the rights that are afforded by settled status obtained via the EU settlement scheme, we make it clear that they may include a right to apply for British citizenship, provided that eligibility requirements are met. Of course, there is no charge for applying to the EU settlement scheme. Information about becoming a British citizen is also available in published guidance on gov.uk, and we are committed to ensuring that information of this nature is fully accessible for all. I hope that reassures the Committee that we are taking steps to make people aware of their rights, and that a statutory obligation to that effect is therefore unnecessary.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation, at least in so far as it related to new clauses 36 and 37. I do not agree with everything he said about the degree of scrutiny that MPs can apply on these matters, but he makes a very detailed case.
On new clause 13, I think that the Minister, probably for the first time, has not got the point that was being made. I challenge him to go back and speak to his officials about what the issue is really about. It is quite a narrow issue, in some respects, but none the less it is profound. It relates to kids, in particular—although it can be adults—who have a right to British citizenship. That is a small subset of EEA and Swiss nationals.
It is slightly bizarre that it is a Scottish National party MP who is having to stand up and champion the cause of British citizenship in this Parliament—I urge some Conservative Members to make this their cause, grab some headlines and win the day. These kids deserve it. They are as entitled to British citizenship as anybody in this room, and it is totally inappropriate for them to be priced out of that. I ask Conservative Members to think again.
I ask the Minister to speak to his officials again. Under his predecessor, I had the privilege of being able to take some kids who had been impacted to discuss the matter, along with some organisations representing them, and I would love to have that opportunity again. I feel very strongly about new clause 13 and wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Bill, in combination with others that have gone before, removes from some people the right to be in this country, and requires them to apply for rights under the EU settlement scheme. As hon. Members know, I object to that approach, but I acknowledge that, for the vast majority of people, it will thankfully be a fairly straightforward matter and there will be no need for legal advice. As we have seen, the scheme has reached a good number of people so far. We have also seen that these issues can be complicated. It can be complicated for someone to know whether they are required to apply or whether they have the right to be here as a UK citizen or through some form of migration status. For some, proving the right to be here in order to get settled status can be tricky, and advice will be needed on the type of evidence required or whether, for example, an old criminal conviction brings a risk in applying.
In Scotland, some will be able to get advice and assistance funding from the Scottish Legal Aid Board in order to seek some support on these issues, subject to a means test, but it is not the same in England and Wales. We have to learn the lessons of history: restrictions on access to legal aid were a contributing factor to the Windrush scandal. In itself, it would not cost much money to allow some basic legal advice to be handed out to those who need it. I very much hope the Government will consider this proposal seriously and put right the absence of legal aid.
Holly Lynch
We very much support the right to access to justice for all, and legal aid is an essential component of that, so we support new clause 14. Cuts to legal aid have been disastrous for access to justice. Time and time again, we have seen that it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Huge swathes of areas of law were deemed out of scope by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Most evidence now suggests that there have been few or no cost savings to the Ministry of Justice from taking those areas of law out of scope, especially in relation to early advice.
When those representing themselves try to navigate complex areas of law without representation, cases are often longer and precarious, and thus more costly to the taxpayer. Indeed, the Williams review found that the withdrawal of legal aid contributed significantly to the problems faced by the Windrush victims. We do not want anyone else to be in a similar position when free movement comes to an end. We therefore support new clause 14.
Kevin Foster
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The legal aid scheme is designed to target legal aid funding at those who need it most. Legal aid is available for the most serious cases to ensure and maintain access to justice while delivering value for money for taxpayers. The Bill itself does not provide a right to enter or remain for EEA citizens, and the new clause would bring issues relating to the end of free movement, such as applications under the EU settlement scheme, into scope for legal aid.
The EU settlement scheme has deliberately been designed to be streamlined and user-friendly. The majority of applicants will be able to apply without the need for advice from a lawyer. However, we recognise that there will be some vulnerable individuals who may need support in using the scheme, and we have put in place safeguards to ensure that the scheme is accessible to all.
The Government have always been clear that publicly funded immigration legal advice is available to some particularly vulnerable individuals. Individuals who are claiming asylum, those identified as potential victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, separated migrant children and victims of domestic violence are eligible for legal aid funding for immigration legal advice, subject to statutory means and merits tests.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. By reassuring us how simple the scheme is, which it is for the vast majority of people, he also makes the case that this will not cost a great deal of money. Only a very small number of people will require legal advice, but there will be some significant issues that they will need to work through. This is fundamentally about the rule of law, which the Westminster Parliament has lost sight of in relation to how important legal aid is. For that reason, I will stick to my guns and press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Illegal work was made a crime in its own right in the Immigration Act 2016. Lots of groups and MPs raised concerns at the time about the negative implications that would have, compared with any benefit it might bring. I think it is important always to revisit changes that this Parliament makes and to push the Government to explain what impact they really had.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the impact of that legislation. How many prosecutions have there been? What were the results of those prosecutions? What sorts of sentences were handed down? When the Government or law enforcement took that approach—the other side of the coin—what action was taken against those employers who were found to be employing people illegally?
As the Minister will be aware, at the time that legislation was introduced, all sorts of concerns were raised about the fact that it would strengthen the hand of exploitative employers, who would be able to have greater control over undocumented workers, essentially by having the knowledge that these individuals were committing a crime by undertaking that work and making it much less likely that they would even consider, never mind actually report to the authorities, the abuse and exploitation that they were suffering.
The offence applies to any migrant found to be working while they do not have valid legal status granting them leave to be in the UK, or when visa conditions ban them from working, such as in the case of asylum seekers, or if they work hours beyond those permitted by their visa, as may be the case for students. The penalty includes a maximum custodial sentence of six months and a fine at the statutory maximum. It also allows any wages paid to an illegal worker to be seized as the proceeds of crime.
The concerns raised in 2016 were that undocumented migrants in the UK forbidden from working illegally are forced to rely on illegal work, on charity and on the support of friends or family members, which can lead to situations of abuse and dependency, as well as instances of survival sex, for example, and destitution, homelessness and starvation. Often, agents who find work for undocumented migrants also run overcrowded, slum-like accommodation for the workers, keeping them isolated and cheaply accommodated.
Undocumented migrants who find work despite the prohibition are forced to look for work among some of the most unscrupulous and exploitative of employers. They are often underpaid or unpaid, forced to work extremely long hours, denied all workplace health and safety protections and threatened with being reported if they complain. As much of the work can be carried out cash in hand, the state sees none of the tax benefit either.
There are huge concerns here about modern slavery. I am grateful to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference on migration for its briefing, which states:
“Those perpetrating the horrors of modern slavery will seek every chance to take advantage of new migration policies. The government has a responsibility to ensure that proper safeguards are in place… the fear of prosecution currently deters people from escaping abusive employment practices or presenting themselves to the police. One particularly important step towards protecting people from exploitation would therefore be to repeal the offence of illegal working, so that no victim is at risk of being punished.”
Will the Government explain how this measure has helped in any way with what they want to achieve, and what steps they have taken to assess all the negative implications that we have been warning about and to militate against them?
Holly Lynch
We have one or two unanswered questions on how the new clause would work in practice. We want to ensure that we have done all our due diligence before lending it our support. We may well come back to this on Report.
The new clause gives us the opportunity to say to the Minister that we are incredibly concerned that there are people who, when free movement ends—innocent, ordinary, decent, hard-working people—for the whole raft of reasons that we have already been through in the Committee, may find that they have missed the deadline. They have then not only got a precarious migration status, but could, if they continue to wait, find themselves in the criminal justice system and criminalised. We need to address the issue now.
One example that we have mentioned is that which the BMA raised with me. Its doctors, on the frontline of fighting coronavirus, will potentially leave applying to the EU settlement scheme to the last minute for that reason. If they continue to work as a doctor, would they be criminalised if they had not done their due diligence in making sure they have their applications in, but were continuing to work in our NHS? Will the Minister reassure us that nobody will be criminalised and in our criminal justice system who absolutely does not belong there when free movement comes to an end at the end of this year?
Kevin Foster
To respond to my shadow, the hon. Member for Halifax, as we touched on at some length earlier, there would be grounds for reasonable excuse as to why someone had filed a late application. We will set out the criteria; it will not be an exhaustive list, because it would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of things that would be reasonable in many individual circumstances.
It is worth noting that the scheme has now been open for more than a year. The first group who started to apply to it were NHS workers, and there has been some very welcome work by NHS trusts and employers to make sure their employees are aware of it. For those very skilled people working in our NHS, it is worth remembering that what we are talking about is using an app on their phone with chip checker technology—it is a relatively simple and appropriate process. Certainly, any enforcement will be proportionate throughout the system, as people would expect.
New clause 15 intends to exclude all EEA citizens from the criminal offence of working illegally created by the Immigration Act 2016, as stated by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to debate this important topic. Again, as he would expect me to say, the amendment is at odds with our commitment to introduce a single global migration system. I accept that he wants to pick the issue up in the scope of the Bill, but that is a core reason why the Government believe it is right for us to have a single system.
Under the new system, everyone will be required to obtain the correct immigration status, and we will clearly distinguish between those who are here lawfully and those who are not, regardless of where their passport is from. Working illegally is a key driver of illegal migration and we are determined to tackle it. Illegal working results in businesses that do not play by the rules undercutting legitimate businesses that do. It encourages people to break our immigration laws, leaving people vulnerable to exploitation, and means that they are paid under the legal minimum wage.
The offence of illegal working applies if an individual works in the UK when they are or have reasonable cause to believe that they are disqualified from working because of their immigration status. The new rules will be clear and will set out what is expected of people as well as their entitlement. Any person who wants to work in the UK will need to have the correct status before starting a job.
EEA citizens with EU settlement scheme status will continue to enjoy the right to work and access the same services as they do now. As I have already said, we will continue to encourage applications to the EU settlement scheme before the deadline, and will implement the new points-based system that treats EEA and non-EEA citizens equally.
The new clause would discriminate in favour of EEA citizens, which is not justifiable after we have left the European Union. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s principled position in the provisions. I have touched on the provisions that are implemented proportionately, where they are applied. There is enforcement, particularly against employers who seek to exploit people. I hope that, in the light of those points, he will withdraw the clause, because it is not one that the Government can support.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to hon. Members for discussing the subject, but I do not think we really got into the meat of it. I do not think that only EEA nationals should be exempt from the criminal offence of illegal working; there are good grounds for getting rid of it altogether. I wanted to find out whether the Government have done any analysis about how it has helped in any way and, in contrast, about the unintended consequences, such as making exploitation more serious and more significant. We will perhaps return to some of those issues when we debate other aspects of the hostile environment later. I might write to the Minister to try to press again for answers to some of the questions that I raised at the outset. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Immigration Rules Advisory Committee for Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals
‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish an Immigration Rules Advisory Committee to consider relevant Immigration Rules.
(2) In this section “relevant Immigration Rules” mean Immigration Rules that apply to persons whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) The function of the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee shall be to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under this Act and in particular in relation to the making of relevant Immigration Rules.
(4) The constitution of the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee shall be set out in regulations.
(5) The Secretary of State shall furnish the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require for the proper discharge of its functions.
(6) No relevant Immigration Rules may be made by the Secretary of State, until the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee is established.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would require an advisory committee to be established in order to provide advice on immigration rules for EEA and Swiss nationals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Procedures for amending Immigration Rules—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection 2.
(2) After section 3(2) insert—
“(2A) Any statement of the rules, or of any changes to the rules, which affect the rights and obligations of persons who will lose their right of freedom of movement under the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act may not be made or have effect unless the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (2B) to (2F) below.
(2B) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (2A) above, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal; and
(b) sets it out in the form of a draft order.
(2C) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (2B) (the “60-day period”), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modification).
(2D) In preparing a draft order under section (2A) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations; and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
(2E) When laying before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document under subsection (2B).
(2F) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is not adjourned for more than 4 days.”’
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that any changes to the UK’s Immigration Rules which affect EEA or Swiss nationals must be made under the super affirmative procedure.
New clause 31—Powers to make immigration rules on specific topics—
‘(1) Powers to make Immigration Rules in relation to certain persons who have lost free movement rights under section 1 and schedule 1 must be exercised only by the relevant Secretary of State as set out in subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of (1), the “relevant Secretary of State” is as follows—
(a) if the rules relate to students, or to family members, the Secretary of State for Education,
(b) if the rules relate to investors, workers, or the self-employed, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.’
Stuart C. McDonald
New clause 16 is about how we make immigration rules. I would like to know how many hon. Members present have ever looked at the immigration rules, at least directly for any considerable period of time, because they would drive anyone round the bend, frankly. I am not looking for raised hands but I make the point because they are vital, but we never really have an opportunity to debate their context in any holistic way or to suggest amendments to them.
Instead, hundreds of amendments to the rules are tabled each year and we barely get a look in. They contain fundamental questions about family, workers, education, business and how we run our economy, yet the Home Office keeps all of those—essentially legislation-making powers—to itself. If we look at immigration rules and immigration statutes, we find that they can be incredibly technical. Hence, we have recently seen the Law Society tasked with the job of trying to simplify them—work that will be incredibly challenging but is nevertheless essential. It is for these reasons that I have proposed new clauses 16 and 30, to change the way the rule making is done in this country, to help MPs to understand immigration law and the changes that have been made and to give them a say in what those rules are.
Last week we heard Jill Rutter from British Future refer to the work done by the Social Security Advisory Committee in providing analysis that aids MPs’ understanding of changes that have been made to social security law and flagging up things that perhaps require greater scrutiny and debate. She supported the idea of something similar operating in the field of immigration. That is why I have tabled new clause 16, as I think I did last year as well. In a similar way, a committee would analyse what the Government are doing and their proposals for changing immigration rules; it would flag up any concerns it might have and allow MPs to decide what further steps were required by way of scrutiny or challenging the Government on the proposals.
Kevin Foster
I am once again grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and to others, for providing a further opportunity to discuss parliamentary scrutiny of the immigration rules and the powers to make them. Parliamentary scrutiny is an important issue, and one that I am aware members of the Committee are rightly very interested in. I will therefore take each new clause in turn.
I will first address new clause 31—I think I can respond pretty swiftly to this one. The UK Government work on the basis of collective responsibility. All policies are collectively agreed and reflect the views of all parts of Government. I may be the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, and I have the good fortune to speak for the Government on matters connected with our new immigration arrangements, but I can assure the Committee that the policies I put forward are the policies of the entire Government, which were endorsed in December’s general election by the British people. No other Minister standing in this spot would advocate any different policies.
The notion of collective agreement and collective responsibility has long been a feature of the way this country is governed, which is why legislation confers powers on “the Secretary of State” generically. Incidentally, this approach also has the benefit of future-proofing our legislation in the event of machinery of Government changes.
I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; both are doing excellent work in their posts and we are lucky to have them. But let me be very clear: were they to make immigration rules, they would be no different from those that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making, because this is a single united Government with a clear policy on these matters.
Our policies were put before and endorsed by the electorate, more detail was set out in a policy statement endorsed by the entire Government, and they represent the settled view of the Government as a whole. New clause 31 would therefore add nothing to the Bill. Having heard the explanation of how the Government system works, I hope the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will withdraw it.
New clause 16 would require the Home Secretary to establish an immigration rules advisory committee to provide advice and assistance on any immigration rules relating to EEA citizens once free movement to the UK has ended as a result of this Bill. I have said previously that our new points-based system will be set out in the immigration rules. Those rules will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. The new clause seeks to add an additional layer of scrutiny, and will prevent the Home Secretary from making any immigration rules before an advisory committee is established by regulation. There is no justification for establishing a statutory advisory body to advise specifically on the rights of EEA citizens, who will be treated as other EEA citizens under the future immigration system.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Migration Advisory Committee carries out much of the work already? New clause 32 is specifically covered by the MAC.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to new clause 32, which is about an annual report on the labour market, in a moment. We are freeing up the MAC to consider matters of interest to it and to provide recommendations on policies, although I expect it will be more nuanced when we come to reports on the labour market overall. That is more to do with the Department for Work and Pensions. We want a coherent strategy where migration is a part of that. We did not want to set it out purely in relation to EEA nationals.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The difference between the MAC, which, as the Minister rightly says, is interested in labour market trends and developments, and the Social Security Advisory Committee, which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East set up as an analogy for the Minister to consider, is that the SSAC looks specifically at the implementation of secondary legislation and advises on new regulations that the Government might introduce. Given the extent of immigration policy introduced in immigration rules, I would suggest that the MAC is not actually set up, and is not even likely to be set up in future, to provide advice to the House on those matters.
Kevin Foster
The hon. Lady makes a not unreasonable point. The MAC gives advice on general policies on immigration. For example, it came up with what occupations should be on the shortage occupation list. It does not necessarily draft the legislation. However, the core of what we are driving at is there. I will continue with my speech because there have been significant changes in relation to simplification since an identical Bill was considered in the previous Parliament. Fundamentally, creating a statutory advisory body would simply delay the Government from introducing new consolidated and simplified rules by 1 January 2021, which could cause considerable confusion and ambiguity about which rules apply to EEA citizens once free movement ends.
In any event, the new clause is unnecessary. The Law Commission, in its consultation paper on simplification of the immigration rules, published in January 2019, asked whether an informal consultation or review of the drafting of immigration rules would help to reduce complexity. In its final report, published in January 2020, the Law Commission recommended that the Home Office should convene at regular intervals a committee to review the drafting of the rules in line with the principles recommended by the Law Commission. That is the more nuanced point that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston referred to. On 25 March the Government published our response to the Law Commission report and recommendations, and we accepted that recommendation. We included in our response the terms of reference for and membership of the simplification of the rules review committee. To be clear, this covers the whole ambit of the rules, not just those as they relate to EEA nationals.
The committee is, as recommended by the Law Commission, made up of Home Office civil servants, immigration practitioners and organisations representative of non-expert users of the rules, including those representing vulnerable applicants such as children. The review committee meets monthly to advise on the Home Office’s proposals to draft simpler rules and accompanying guidance and how they can be made more accessible online.
I hope that, as we have already established a review committee and its terms of reference and membership are transparent, that will give the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East the confidence to withdraw new clause 16.
New clause 30 seeks to introduce the super-affirmative procedure for immigration rules. Typically, that procedure is used only for deregulatory orders that amend or repeal primary legislation, such as legislative reform orders or public bodies orders, or remedial orders under the Human Rights Act. In those circumstances, it is right that the highest level of scrutiny should be applied, but it is not appropriate to apply the same procedure in respect of changes to immigration rules, which obviously are not, and cannot amend, primary legislation.
Under the current, well-established procedure, the Government are able to update the immigration rules in a responsive way, to ensure that we have an immigration system that meets the UK’s needs, commands the confidence of the public and reflects the wider economic, social and political context in the UK at any time. Requiring a minimum 60-day standstill period—that would be a minimum, because if, for example, changes were laid in late June, the period would not expire until late October—would severely hamper our ability to make timely and effective changes to the rules to respond to emerging situations.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
In evidence at the start of Committee proceedings, we heard from Mr McTague from the Federation of Small Businesses, who picked up this point. He said:
“I think the fact that the Home Secretary is in a position to vary it and respond to changes in market conditions is better than if…we had to go through some sort of legislative process”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 14, Q28.]
That is exactly the point that we are trying to get at. Changes are much better if they are in the hands of the Home Secretary, who can then address Parliament on them, rather than having to go through statutory changes like this.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the evidence that was given. The core of the matter is that our immigration rules need to remain flexible to respond to emerging situations. For example, if the conditions around visas were in primary legislation, we would have to be putting through Acts of Parliament to alter and extend visas in relation to the current covid-19 situation, which none of us would feel was a sensible way of handling that type of thing. In addition, this process has been established for a very long time. Parliament, rightly, can oversee the immigration rules, but they can be flexible and adapt. To be clear, putting forward, effectively, an immigration rules change could not, for example, alter the provisions that we have on Irish citizens in this Bill and in the primary legislation.
Kate Green
I just want to make sure that I have understood correctly—I may not have—what the Minister is saying and the provisions of the Bill. I understood him to say that the super-affirmative procedure is appropriate only in circumstances that include amending primary legislation, but is it not the case that the provisions of this Bill give the Government, in some circumstances, the opportunity to do that?
Kevin Foster
They do, subject to the affirmative procedure, but that is—as we discussed under previous clauses and particularly in the clause 4 debate—for specified purposes. The measure does not just give us an unending power.
We could not, for example, change our international obligations and some other areas via this method, the use of which relates to the narrower areas of the Bill. It is not a carte blanche to change all primary law that affects immigration law, but applies where it is consequential to the purposes of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. New clause 31 was simply an opportunity to flag up the idea that we perhaps need to ensure that we look at immigration policy with a slightly broader perspective than simple numbers. The Minister protests perhaps slightly too much about collective responsibility and the idea that other Departments would have come to the same decisions as the Home Office in relation to certain policies, but I will leave that there.
I anticipated in my remarks about new clause 30 that the Minister would speak about the need for flexibility and the ability to act quickly. I am not calling for immigration rules in Acts of Parliament or anything like that; I am just saying that anyone who follows this area of policy closely over time knows that, in essence, Parliament has no realistic role in it whatsoever, and that has to change. It will not be changed by the Bill, but it is something that we should think about in the longer term.
On new clause 16, I absolutely agree with the Minister and totally welcome the ongoing work to simplify the immigration rules; the proof will be in the pudding. That is not an easy task, and I do not envy the folk who are undertaking it, but I wish them the very best of luck. However, new clause 16 is not just about simplifying what is already there, but about understanding the changes that the Government propose as we go along and providing detailed advice to help us in our scrutiny role. As some witnesses said last week, it is every bit as appropriate to do that in this sphere of policy as it is with social security, between which pretty good parallels can be drawn. I insist on pressing new clause 16 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and those of the shadow Home Secretary and my Committee colleagues. The new clause offers a sensible method to help to safeguard the rights of all EEA and Swiss nationals who are registered through the European Union settlement scheme by providing them with physical proof of that registration. We have already discussed some of these issues under new clause 25.
In the largest survey of EU citizens’ experiences of the EUSS, which was carried out by the3million, 89% expressed unhappiness about the lack of physical proof of their status. Simple physical proof would provide citizens with the type of reassurance that is offered only by something that can be held in the hand. Although in principle we largely support the aspiration to move toward a much more digital immigration system, we have already pointed out to the Committee time and again that, as the hostile environment persists, in the shameful shadow of the Windrush scandal, confidence in the system is at an all-time low.
The Home Office works through banks and landlords, and across Departments, actively to query a citizen’s immigration status. To have physical paperwork to hand, in order to put to bed any doubts about a person’s status quickly and confidently, would be a welcome addition to an e-visa.
There are also inherent IT risks when relying on purely digital proof for immigration status. The truth is that the Government cannot completely rule out the possibility of an irretrievable data loss or, even worse, the hacking of a data system. It is less than two years since the so-called WannaCry cyber-attack caused havoc for the IT systems of the NHS, locking users out of personal computers and resulting in 19,000 cancelled appointments. It transpired that the systems that the NHS used included Windows XP, which at the time was already a 17 year-old operating system and so was vulnerable to such interference. It does not bear thinking about, but in a nightmare scenario where such hacking or corruption affected the Home Office, a potential loss of data, or even the inability to access the data for a period of time, could have devastating consequences for those at the mercy of the hostile environment.
As stated by Luke Piper on behalf of the3million in last week’s evidence session, to trial a new digital-only scheme on over 3 million people is quite a gamble, and currently no other group in the UK is managed in this way. We share the concerns of the House of Lords European Union Committee, which were mentioned by Luke Piper in his evidence to this Committee. He said:
“The House of Lords European Union Committee made the point that there are real worries that those without physical proof will face similar problems to those faced by the Windrush generation; there is a risk that they will face discrimination because they do not have physical proof of their status.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 61.]
There are day-to-day practical complications that will be inflicted upon those in the EUSS who do not have physical proof of their status. For example, the Residential Landlords Association has repeatedly called for some form of physical proof to assist its members in both adhering to the law and avoiding discriminatory practices.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants carried out research on the right-to-rent scheme in 2017. Out of 150 emails from migrants requesting that landlords check their identity online, 85% received no response. Only 12% of inquiries received a response that might invite a follow-up, such as a phone call or a viewing. Only three responses explicitly stated that the landlord was willing to conduct an online check. A migrant with documentation received a response rate of roughly 50%. Although there are still indications that renting migrants face unacceptable barriers, that is at least a marked improvement on the previous situation.
The fear is that the lack of physical proof will also act as an impediment for EU citizens applying for jobs. Millions of people work in the gig economy, which is characterised by short-term contracts and freelance work. We have already referred to the work of the Institute for Public Policy Research, which recently used data from the labour force survey in a report that found migrants are more likely to be working in industries or sectors, such as accommodation and food services, that have around 9% of EU workers. Facing competition from British citizens, who can prove their right to work by showing a passport, should that be required, and from non-EEA citizens, who can prove their right to work by showing their physical residence card, EU citizens have to go through the complicated hassle of a nine-step online process and then ask their potential employer to go through a 10-step process. It is inevitable that many employers will not have the desire or the time to complete such an arduous process, and as a result the employment prospects of those registered in the EUSS could potentially suffer.
Those are just a few examples of how a lack of physical proof could affect those who have pre-settled or settled status through the EUSS but exclusively digital confirmation of that status. The inconveniences and delay that could result threaten to permeate through daily life for millions of people, yet that could so easily be remedied by the Government with a degree of physical proof.
I want to take the Minister back to something he said during last week’s evidence session, when he put a question to the Children’s Society on the issue of granting automatic status to children in care and care leavers, which we will come to later. He said to Lucy Leon, the immigration policy and practice adviser for the Children’s Society:
“You talked about automatic status—granting something under a piece of legislation to someone. Under your suggested system, how, in decades to come, would an adult evidence the status that they were granted as a child?”
As it took several attempts for the question to be heard, due to the terrible sound quality, the Minister, in his second attempt, repeated:
“If they had to evidence their status many years later, how would they do it? How would they be able to define their status…?”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; cs. 64-65.]
The Minister put a very good question. In the scenario that he described, he said that if status was granted by the Home Office, how would it then be evidence? We must acknowledge that the granting of a status only solves half the problem. The ability to prove that status is the other half of the problem.
On this issue, I am inclined to agree entirely with the Minister. I politely remind him that he proposes a problem, but he is the architect of the solution to this issue. He can overcome our own reservations by granting the physical proof to his own satisfaction, however he sees fit to do so. The Government should ensure that their systems automatically issue physical proof on granting status to someone, and they should allow the millions of people on the EUSS the certainty and convenience of physical proof of status.
Kevin Foster
It is a pleasure to talk about the new clause and to hear that my shadow agrees with me on some issues, but we slightly disagree on how best to evidence things. I accept that the new clause is well intentioned, but it may help if I explain first that we email everyone granted status under the scheme a PDF document, which they can print and retain for their own records as confirmation of their status and for future reference, as they may wish.
Like many other countries, we are moving away from issuing physical documents to be used as evidence of a person’s immigration status and their entitlement to work and access benefits and services, and towards a system that enables direct checks through online sharing of status by the individual or via system-to-system checks. Our border and immigration system will become digital by default for all migrants, and we intend over time to replace physical and paper-based products with secure online access to immigration status information, which the migrant can share with prospective employers, landlords and service providers.
New clause 19 is unnecessary, as we are already legally required to issue everyone granted status under the EU settlement scheme with a formal written notification of their immigration status in the United Kingdom. The notification also includes information about how they can access and share their immigration status information online, and about where they can find help to do so if needed. However, it is important that we do not return to relying on insecure paper documents, which can be lost, damaged or stolen, to evidence immigration status and entitlements.
The use of digital technology is now a well-established mechanism that people use when banking and shopping. Employers, landlords and service providers are likely to be concerned by any decision to issue what is specified as an insecure physical document, such as a paper certificate. They would also see it as an undesirable retrograde step that places additional administrative burdens on them to ensure that their staff are aware of the characteristics of a certificate, which might be some years old, and what it means. It would also be very susceptible to forgery and being tampered with, which could actually make it more difficult for EEA citizens, employers and others to determine genuine entitlement. We cannot allow that to happen.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that some of the identity documents issued in places such as Greece and Italy are very insecure because they do not contain biometric data? That is an example of why a paper document would not be secure.
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and that is particularly true in an era of modern computing, scanning and high-quality printers available at home. We used to rely on paper documents as standard across society—for example, driving licences. To be fair, the previous Labour Administration moved away from having a paper driving licence that nowadays could probably be easily printed on most printers at home, and towards a plastic version. As we now move on, most people do checks digitally—for example, how many of us have a physical MOT certificate? It is done via an online system, which allows people to check easily. It is even possible to check online whether a car has an MOT before buying it, rather than having to look for a paper certificate.
We all know about the issues there used to be with paper MOT certificates, with blank books being quite valuable. That is why we have started to move towards digital status, which is more secure. It is, of course, retained by the Home Office for many years and allows that access. Again, we touch on some of the lessons learned from the Windrush review. Part of this is about having up-to-date and easier ways to access information, rather than relying on people to recognise documents that could have been issued some decades before. It is better that we have secure digital status that can be easily shared as technology advances and people move forward. That is right, but we are still already obliged to send a PDF confirmation so that if someone wants to print something out and keep it for their records, they can.
Holly Lynch
I just stress the point that we are not talking about an either/or approach to digital confirmation and physical proof. I am open to the taking of physical proof, and whatever format the Minister is most comfortable with. However, we are not talking about a system where someone relies exclusively on physical proof. Something will be issued in addition to digital status. Does the Minister accept that that would address the anxieties felt by the 3 million and more?
Kevin Foster
Again, I appreciate the points that are being made, but a secure, easy-to-share digital status does what it says on the tin. More and more countries are heading towards that, and we have seen it in other areas of life. To be clear, the new clause specifies a paper certificate as the preferred means. I do not think that something like that adds to something that is easily shareable—and easy to update, in relation to changing passport, or in other areas. That is why we have taken this approach and why we are clear that it is what we want migration status to move towards more generally. I do not think that printing out paper certificates, and having that as an either/or, is the best place to be headed, in trying to prove status. It is better that there should be a clear process and that landlords and employers should know the process that they need to engage with when employing EEA citizens beyond the end of the transition period.
As a transition measure, employers, landlords and public service providers will continue to be able to accept the passports and national identity cards of EEA citizens until 30 June 2021—the same day as the deadline for applying to the EU settlement scheme. After that date, EEA citizens with status under the EU settlement scheme will need to share their immigration status online to prove their rights and entitlements in the UK. Alongside that, in future, when an individual accesses public services such as benefits or healthcare, the Home Office will be able to confirm their status to the service provider automatically through system-to-system checks, at the point at which the person seeks to access the service. Their non-EEA family members will also continue to be able to use their biometric residence card until we have completed the roll-out of digital services online.
Eventually, all migrants to the UK—not just from the EEA but from the rest of the world—will have an immigration status that can be accessed and shared online. Having to rely on a document to prove immigration status will be seen as old-fashioned and vulnerable to abuse. By contrast, new clause 19 would impede our ability to encourage migrants to access and share their immigration status securely online, creating confidence that it is the appropriate process, and giving confidence to those who engage with it. I hope that, with the assurances that I have given, the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of why he rejects the new clause. I stress again the vulnerability that people feel in the shadow of Windrush, when they do not have something they can physically hold in their hand, to give an assurance of their immigration status. There is great support for the physical proof approach in the House of Lords and I suspect that we have not necessarily seen the end of the issue, but I do not want to divide the Committee at this time and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Annual review: Impact on health care and social care sector
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the health care and social care sector in the UK.
(2) In undertaking the evaluation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(b) the relevant Welsh Ministers; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it has been completed.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 49—Impact assessment on the social care workforce—
‘(1) No Minister of the Crown may appoint a day for the commencement of any provision of this Act until the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) This condition is that a Minister of the Crown has published and laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on recruitment of EU citizens, EEA nationals, and Swiss citizens working to the social care sector.’
This new clause makes the coming into force of the Act conditional on the production of an impact assessment of the changes on the social care workforce.
New clause 61—Duty to commission an independent evaluation: health and social care sectors—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (5) and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to undertake the evaluation (“the independent evaluator”).
(3) In this section, “independent person” means a person who is independent of Her Majesty’s Government.
(4) No person may be appointed under subsection (2) unless their appointment has been consented to by—
(a) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(b) the relevant Welsh Ministers; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers.
(5) The evaluation under subsection (1) shall consider an assessment of the effects of this Act on—
(a) the health and social care workforce;
(b) the efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social care sectors;
(c) the adequacy of public funding for the health and social care sectors; and
(d) such other relevant matters as the independent evaluator sees fit.
(6) In undertaking the evaluation, the independent evaluator must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(c) the relevant Welsh Ministers;
(d) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers;
(e) providers of health and social care services;
(f) persons requiring health and social care services;
(g) representatives of persons requiring health and social care services; and
(h) such other relevant persons as the independent evaluator sees fit.
(7) The independent evaluator must prepare a report on the evaluation for the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay that report before Parliament no later than one year after this Act is passed.
(9) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion relating to the report to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons; and
(b) a motion relating to the report to be debated and voted upon by the House of Lords.’
This new clause would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the Act upon the health and social care sectors across the UK to be produced and laid before Parliament. It would require that the devolved nations are consulted as well as other interested parties.
Holly Lynch
The new clause would require the Government to commission the Migration Advisory Committee to produce a report on the impact on the health and social care sector of ending free movement.
I very much welcome some of the new developments that the Minister outlined earlier, to do with the changes in the way that the Migration Advisory Committee will operate. The group includes a number of new clauses, and we very much recognise the merits of all of them. In essence, they all plead with the Government fully to think through the implications of putting this hard stop on free movement in place without the systemic reforms to health and social care that would be required to address the workforce issues in those co-dependent sectors.
At the evidence session last week, we heard some pretty damning evidence from witnesses, even though, interestingly, none of them were there explicitly to represent the health or care sectors. Martin McTague of the Federation of Small Businesses told the Committee that the FSB felt that the £25,600 minimum income threshold
“should be lower, because there are quite a few jobs, especially in the care sector, that pay less than £25,600.”
He went on:
“That is why we have called for a care sector visa, because we think the requirements of that sector will always be uniquely different from most of the rest of the economy.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 6, Q5.]
In response to a follow-up question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, Martin McTague said:
“It is clear from the experience that we have had over the last few months that this sector is under massive pressure. Any major changes would be disastrous.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 11, Q16.]
We can all agree that this Bill represents a major change in immigration.
Brian Bell of the Migration Advisory Committee made a number of scathing points, which we should all reflect on. He said that
“immigration has historically been used as an excuse to not deal with the problems of the social care sector.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 21, Q44.]
He is right. The problem is, when we suddenly turn off freedom of movement at the end of December and the Government are not able to deliver the radical reforms required in that timeframe, what happens to social care?
I will answer that. Unless we have a significant breakthrough with a vaccine, care homes and the care sector will still be battling the coronavirus. If we do not do our due diligence on this, by adopting the new clause, the Bill will be set recklessly to undermine social care at a time when it can least afford it.
A MAC report is necessary, and would give the Government an opportunity to develop a coherent strategy by conducting the exercise annually for the health and care workforce. That could inform both the domestic skills agenda and our immigration policy, allowing us to create fast tracks within immigration based on our needs at the time. Without that, the NHS will struggle to function. According to the British Medical Association, 29% of doctors in the NHS are from overseas. Freedom of movement has greatly facilitated that, as for years EEA staff have benefited from the flexibility it grants, allowing them to work in the UK and EEA simultaneously.
We have discussed in earlier stages of the Committee the potential introduction of visas and the costs attached to the changes brought about by the Bill. That might act as a major disincentive against attracting the best talent to the NHS. As always, there should be a clear national commitment to training future healthcare workers. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that the domestic workforce alone will be able to deliver. For a long time, the workforce has been supplemented with EEA workers.
The NHS reported nearly 90,000 job vacancies between October and December 2019. That has already led to rota gaps across the medical profession, and to well-founded concerns about the ability to staff services adequately. It can take up to 10 years to train a doctor. It is unrealistic to believe that a domestic push will address that vacancy shortage or likely subsequent shortages due to the UK’s decision to leave the EU and free movement.
Domestic recruitment drives also have barriers to overcome. The Royal College of Nursing has reported that the Government’s much publicised increase of 50,000 nurses consists of 12,000 more international nurses, 15,000 student nurses and another 15,000 retained nurses who had previously left the profession. In reality, therefore, only about 27,000 nursing vacancies have been filled, and that fails to address adequately the 40,000 nursing vacancies reported in the NHS in November 2019.
In the evidence session, Brian Bell, interim chair of the MAC, stated that occupational shortages were
“a failure of the British education system”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 24, Q49.]
If the Government seek to prioritise domestic healthcare recruitment over immigration, some pretty urgent steps must be taken to address that.
The threat of ending free movement for the NHS is incredibly concerning. The threat of ending free movement for our social care sector is existential. The proposal to extend the tier 2 visa system to EEA nationals would sever recruitment and compound gaping occupational shortages.
The Institute for Public Policy Research modelled the impact on EEA nationals currently living in the UK and working in social care, and found that 79% of EEA employees—about four in five—working full-time in social care would have been ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary thresholds proposed by the MAC. Unison reports that there are currently 110,000 vacancies in social care, and while I suspect the Minister will tell me that his aspiration is to fill those solely through domestic recruitment, I wonder what assurances he can give us that that is possible in the timeframes required.
It was encouraging to hear the MAC report that senior care workers would be eligible to be included in future shortage occupation lists, yet we fear that deterring the recruitment of care assistants and more junior care workers from overseas may lead to a further increase in job vacancies in the care sector. We have all heard the warnings from Brian Bell that migrant workers cannot continue to act as a sticking plaster, working their socks off on low pay to mask the systemic problems in social care, but it is clear that we will be exacerbating the workforce issues impacting on the quality and availability of care unless the Government undertake a full and regular review. I urge the Government to adopt new clause 21 in order to fully understand the ways in which the new immigration system will affect patient care across all health and social care settings.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will speak to new clause 61, which seeks an independent evaluation of the specific impact of the Bill on the health and social care sectors across the United Kingdom. This independent evaluation would follow from consultation between the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the relevant Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers, service providers, those requiring health and social care services, and others. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of that report before both Houses of Parliament
“no later than one year after this Act is passed”,
and would require a Minister to make arrangements
“no later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament”
for it to be debated and voted on in Parliament.
The new clause has gathered support from service users, third-sector organisations, trade unions and charities from every part of the UK, among them the Scottish and Northern Irish councils for voluntary organisations, Disability Wales, Unison, Camphill, Scottish Care, and the Welsh and Northern Irish branches of the British Association of Social Workers. I think the reason why they and many others have supported this independent assessment is that, as people who work on the frontline of health and social care every day, they are extremely worried that the Bill, which will end freedom of movement and introduce a points-based immigration system, will adversely affect hundreds of thousands of their clients: disabled people, children and young people, older people, unpaid carers and those with long-term health conditions—those who rely most on the health and social care services to look after them every day.
There is no doubt that the current coronavirus pandemic has given us all the opportunity to see just how precious our national health service and social care sector are. The NHS has risen to the challenge magnificently, as has everyone who works in it, and we are all hugely indebted to them. It has also reinforced just how lucky we are to have our national health service—should that have needed reinforcing—and we must do everything we can to protect it, so that future generations can have what we currently enjoy. We cannot afford to take chances with the future of our NHS or our social care services, and I believe that anyone who took chances with them would never be forgiven.
That is why so many in the health and social care sector are deeply concerned about what is contained in the Bill: they recognise that there is already a crisis in social care across the United Kingdom. On top of the seemingly relentless pressure on funding, we have an ageing population with increasingly complex care needs. The health and social care sector is battling every day to find and keep the workforce it requires, yet this Government have cut off a source of labour, with no clear plan as to what will replace it.
At the end of September 2019, NHS England reported having more than 120,000 unfilled posts—an increase of 22,000 on the previous year. Both the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Social Services Council have found that 40% of social care organisations have unfilled vacancies going back over a year.
Kevin Foster
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, but I think people outside the House listening to the debate will wonder whether he has looked at today’s worrying figures on the employment market and the economic impact of covid-19. He asks where people might be found, but a significant number of people will be looking for new employment.
I welcome the opportunity to put on the record again the fact that the Government recognise the vital nature of the health and social care sector to the United Kingdom. I recognise that, in their view, hon. Members tabled the new clauses to protect a key sector. I assure members of the Committee that health and social care will be at the heart of the UK’s new points-based immigration system. The new skilled worker route will be open to a broader range of roles than the current tier 2 general route, following expansion of the skills threshold.
Under the current immigration system, only those coming to do graduate-level jobs are able to come to the UK under tier 2. In the future, our points-based skilled worker route will encompass jobs requiring school leaver qualifications. That means that all migrants—not just those from within the EU or EEA—will be able to apply for jobs meeting the skills threshold, including, as has been mentioned, senior care workers, giving a global reach to recruitment in the sector.
The general salary threshold will be set at £25,600, or the appropriate rate for the job that the person is coming to the UK to undertake. For a number of roles in health and social care, the rate will reflect the current national pay scales. We are also removing the cap and resident labour market test to make it quicker and easier to recruit workers from overseas where necessary. That will benefit all migrant workers and their employers, including those in the health and social care sector.
As with all immigration routes, we will continue to keep the points-based system under review. These changes are the first phase, and we will continue to develop and refine the points-based system based on experience.
Brendan O'Hara
On a point of clarity, did the Minister say that there will be sufficient capacity in the labour market to move the people losing their jobs as a result of coronavirus into the health and social care sector? Was that his argument? Does he recognise that there are currently 122,000 vacancies in England alone, and that there are projected to be another 320,000 over the next 10 years due to retirement? Does he really think that that will be made up by people losing their jobs?
Kevin Foster
Many people will be surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that one of the issues that the UK is facing at the moment is a shortage of labour. Sadly, we are seeing the impact of covid, and we know that health and social care will play a key part in providing job opportunities for those who need new employment. I am seeing that in my constituency. Many people would be surprised if there were Members in this building who did not think we should prioritise getting people who have faced the impact of the economic change into new skills and employment. That should not be a controversial point. I suspect that many of his constituents would be rather surprised if that is the point that he wished to make.
Brendan O'Hara
I am trying to stick to the Bill, but is the Minister saying to the country and people who are losing their jobs that, contrary to what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been saying, those jobs are not coming back, and they had better go find something else? The message has been that this is a temporary blip, we will recover from it, and the jobs will be coming back.
Kevin Foster
Thankfully, we will see many jobs come back. The Chancellor himself said that it will be difficult to save every role, and we can see that some of the changes in our economy, particularly in the retail sector, have been sped up. I am sorry that the SNP is looking to put its political philosophy ahead of the practical situation. I do not think it is controversial to say that, in Scotland, where there are vacancies, we should be trying to make sure Scottish-based workers are going back to work. I think the SNP will find it very interesting when it meets the electorate next May and explains why that was not its priority.
Holly Lynch
Does the Minister not accept the example that we have just been through? The Government, having recognised the labour shortage in agriculture, made a co-ordinated attempt to redeploy people who are currently out of work into the agriculture sector, but it proved incredibly difficult and the numbers have not transpired in reality. If he is saying that we can do something similar for social care, we would be keen to see the plan. What is his plan if we cannot redirect those people into social care in the timeframe that we are talking about?
Kevin Foster
There is a slight difference between talking about temporary roles in seasonal agriculture and carers, which is not a seasonal job. I represent a constituency with plenty of seasonal roles. It would be odd to start describing care as a seasonal one; it is not, for obvious reasons. People’s care needs do not vary by the season in the way the agricultural sector’s needs do in terms of picking fruit and veg.
Certainly, there is a need to make sure that we have the appropriate structure. Again, I think that people outside this room would be stunned that Opposition Members do not think that, at the moment, we should prioritise getting UK workers back to work. That might explain why, in December, people did not feel that those were the parties they wished to trust with being in government.
Moving on, our new firmer, fairer and swifter immigration system will have benefits for all sectors of the economy, but we recognise the special role that the NHS and those connected with it have in our society, which the events of the last few months have demonstrated clearly. That is why, in line with our election manifesto, the Government are introducing a healthcare visa, which will provide eligible health and social care workers with fast-track entry, the support of a dedicated team in UK Visas and Immigration and reduced visa fees.
As I said earlier, we are looking to exempt all those working in health and social care from paying the immigration health surcharge. We are also investing in social care. For example, in response to the coronavirus crisis, we have announced £2.9 billion to help local authorities respond to pressures in key services, such as adult social care, and to enhance the NHS discharge service, which allows patients to return home safely. No one should doubt our support for that critical sector of our society.
The hon. Member for Halifax talked about damning evidence, so it is worth remembering the evidence that the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, Professor Brian Bell, gave to the Committee on 9 June. He said:
“If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, ‘Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage,’ first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with, and secondly it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers. You are saying that you are going to keep on allowing their wages to be held down by allowing employers to bring in workers at the minimum wage”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 22, Q44.]
On new clause 21, the MAC is an independent non-departmental public body that advises the Government on immigration matters. It has a UK-wide remit and works across Government to provide transparent, independent, evidence-based advice. It currently undertakes work based on commissions from the Government; the Government determine the matters that they believe require consideration and ask it to consider and advise. As we have touched on, the Government are committed to expanding that role. This will be the first year that the MAC has produced an annual report, which is an important development to increase transparency and provide more regular evidence on issues relating to immigration.
In future, in addition to specific commissions from the Government, the MAC will be able to undertake other work that it considers necessary, including regular reporting on migration matters. I therefore cannot support a clause that requires it to look annually at a specific sector. As hon. Members will be aware, its reviews are thorough, and it takes time to seek views and analyse a broad range of evidence from across the UK. That means that the reports often take many months to complete, and we must be mindful of its finite resource and time. Requiring it to undertake an annual review on health and social care may prevent it from undertaking reviews on other issues where there may be a more pressing need, or may duplicate work that it plans to do.
I am also unable to support new clause 49, which would require the Government to consider the impact of the Bill on EEA citizens, but which ignores the new points-based system that we will implement at the beginning of January 2021. The Government have already published an impact assessment of the points-based immigration system, which sets out the impacts on all those who will use the system, not just those from the EU or the EEA.
We understand fully that ending free movement and the proposals for the future immigration system will have an impact. However, with the dramatic changes that we have seen in the UK labour market over recent weeks, it is right that we focus on getting UK-based workers back into employment and ensuring that employers are investing in and retaining the existing workforce. Migration policies need to be considered alongside that work, not in isolation from it. The Migration Advisory Committee will have the opportunity to decide what it wishes to consider alongside its annual report.
Holly Lynch
I heard the Minister’s comments. I would stress, once again, that new clauses 21, 49 and 61 are genuine attempts to ask the Government to recognise our concern about health and social care when free movement comes to an end. We are not attempting to play politics; our concern is genuine. We would be very happy for the Government to go away and look at any one of those options. Without pushing this to a vote, we ask the Minister to consider these issues in all further deliberations on the future immigration system. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Tier 2 Immigration skills charge
“No Tier 2 Immigration skills charge will be payable on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national and is coming to the UK to work for the NHS.”—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause would exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 35—Immigration skills charge—
“No Immigration skills charge introduced under section 70A of the Immigration Act 2014, or by regulations thereunder, may be charged in respect of an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national coming to work in the UK.”
This new clause ensures no skills charge can be levied in respect of EEA or Swiss nationals coming to work in the UK.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 22, tabled in the name of the shadow Home Secretary, myself and my Committee colleagues. The new clause would exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge.
As I have already stressed in my attempts to win support for other new clauses, the NHS workforce has historically relied on the support of professionals from across the world coming to the UK. In recent decades, that has included a supply of EU nationals. Nearly 10% of doctors, 8% of social care staff and 6% of nurses working in the UK are from EEA countries.
As things stand, NHS trusts pay the skills charge for those coming to work in the NHS from countries outside the EU and will be expected to pay those costs for those coming from EU countries after free movement ends. The immigration skills charge is effectively a skills tax paid by employers who have recruited from overseas instead of from the domestic workforce, to act as a disincentive and to promote recruitment from a local talent pool. That is fair enough, but in the context of the NHS, levelling the tax on NHS trusts is nothing short of an outrage.
If trusts cannot find clinical specialists here in the UK, they have no choice but to find them from overseas. The UK has a number of clinical skills shortages in many specialist areas and, in the absence of any Government strategy to respond to that domestically, the NHS has to hire from overseas.
We have already heard a lot about Brian Bell’s contribution to the evidence session last week. He gave the example of the nurse shortage. He said:
“often the shortage occupation list identifies a failure of the British education system to provide the people who are needed. A classic example of that is nurses. Nurses have been on the shortage occupation list since I can remember ever hearing of it. Every time they are put on the list, we hear statements along the lines of, ‘Yes, we know that they are in shortage, and we have a plan to increase the number of nurses who go through training so that we deal with the shortage in the long run.’ They are still on the shortage occupation list. We should be using the shortage occupation list to signal both to Government and to employers that there are training needs that need to be fulfilled.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 24, Q49.]
An NHS trust cannot unilaterally decide to train more nurses from the domestic labour force if it is struggling to recruit; it needs Government intervention to deliver the uplift.
In the MAC’s 2019 full review of the shortage occupation list, where all doctors were added to the list, under section 4B on health occupations, the review was keen to stress that
“the rise in vacancies and concern over lack of staff has occurred under freedom of movement and during a period when many health occupations have been on the SOL. Ultimately it will take more effective workforce planning and efforts to increase the flows into health professions (and decrease flows out) to meet growing demands.”
That is a worrying thought.
We have clinical workforce shortages almost across the board in the NHS, and that has been while we have had free movement. Adopting new clause 22 would be just one small step towards protecting the NHS from the inevitable impact of free movement coming to an end with the Bill.
As constituency MPs, we all have casework relating to patients with rare medical conditions who have been on waiting lists for years to see a specialist, because there may be only one or two doctors specialising in that condition in the country. There may be only a handful in the world, so trusts are regularly looking to recruit from overseas because they seem to have no choice. The immigration skills charge punishes trusts for doing so, with the Government taking back much-needed cash from budgets in order to pay the fees. It seems grossly unfair and counterproductive, and it takes money out of frontline hospital services.
The Labour party has submitted freedom of information requests to 224 NHS hospital trusts in England, asking how much of the charges they are paying back to the Government. So far, only 45 have responded—around 21% of the trusts. To give an indication of what some hospitals are paying out, I should say that Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust had to pay the Government £961,000 in immigration skills charges over the past three financial years. Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust tells us that it paid out more than that in the 2019-20 financial year alone, with a bill for £972,000 in just 12 months; it has paid over £2 million in immigration skills charges since 2017. The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust has paid over £1 million in the same timeframe, and the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust has paid £1,224,509 since 2017.
From the 21% of trusts that have responded to our FOI request, we know that nearly £13 million has been taken out of the NHS and handed back to the Government since 2017—nearly £13 million from just 21% of hospital trusts in England. That some hospitals can pay out nearly £1 million in immigration skills charges in a single year surely has to be a sign that the system is not working as intended. To repeat the point made by the MAC, this is all while people have been able to come 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 22 to mitigate any further detrimental impact on the NHS workforce and to ensure that NHS funding stays in the NHS.
Stuart C. McDonald
In a sense, this debate echoes the one we had on the immigration health surcharge. I support everything that the shadow Minister has said, but I would push the Labour party to go a bit further and scrap the whole scheme.
I have nothing against the principle that employers should pay a contribution towards the cost of training and developing the skills on which businesses rely, but why should it apply only to those who recruit from abroad? That is not in any way a proxy for determining which businesses, companies and employers are not doing enough training in their own right. In fact, very often the opposite is the case: many of the businesses, companies and employers who recruit from overseas are also the ones who invest considerable sums of money in training and upskilling their workers.
However, skill shortages often arise at very short notice. For all the workforce planning that they do, and for all the training that they invest in, employers regularly have a need to recruit from abroad. As I say, it is a very poor proxy for trying to target companies that are not properly investing in training. The whole thing needs rethinking.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Members for Halifax and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling the new clauses. The objective of the immigration skills charge is to incentive UK-based employers to take a long-term view of investment and training, and it is designed to address the UK’s historical underinvestment in training and upskilling. The income raised is allocated to the Department for Education and the devolved nations to address skills and training gaps in the resident workforce.
We can all agree that immigration must be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s resident workforce, and it is only right that we provide those workers with opportunities to develop skills in order to further their careers and to contribute to the future economy. That is with particular reference to the situation we see at the moment in our country, where many people might need to find new employment opportunities due to the economic impact of covid-19.
The Committee may also wish to note that the introduction of the charge was supported by the independent Migration Advisory Committee as part of its December 2015 review of the tier 2 route.
The Migration Advisory Committee also recommended that the charge be extended and retained to cover employers of EEA citizens in the future immigration framework. In its September 2018 final report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the MAC said:
“We believe that extending the ISC to cover EEA citizens under any post-Brexit work-permit scheme would, on balance, be appropriate.”
It would also make no sense, now that we have left the European Union, to apply exemptions based purely on being an EEA national, as this suggests.
On new clause 22, the Government recognise the vital nature of the health and social care sector to the United Kingdom. Health and social care will be at the very heart of the UK’s new points-based immigration system, and we are doing all we can to ensure that the new system is fair, attractive and welcoming to the best and brightest overseas migrants. The new skilled worker route will be open to a broader range of roles in the sector—following the expansion of the current skills threshold—than the tier 2 general route.
As I mentioned earlier, the income for the immigration skills charge is used to address skills and training gaps in the resident workforce, including the healthcare sector. It is right, therefore, that we focus on providing UK resident workers with the opportunity to develop skills that will enable them to become the healthcare heroes of tomorrow—the revenue from the immigration skills charge does that. For those reasons, the Government are not prepared to accept the two new clauses.
Holly Lynch
We absolutely cannot wrap our heads around that, given how much money is being taken out of the NHS frontline, which seems to be an indication that the whole approach is not functioning as intended. However, with that in mind, I will not seek to divide the Committee. But the Labour party may return to this point at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 18th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 June 2020 - (18 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Today we continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. I remind Members that the Hansard reporters would be grateful if a copy of any speaking notes could be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. We are all beautifully socially distanced.
New Clause 24
Annual review: Impact on the agricultural sector
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the number of seasonal agricultural workers in the UK.
(2) In undertaking the evaluation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(b) the relevant Welsh Ministers; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it has been completed.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again. New clause 24 is in very much the same spirit as new clause 21, which would require the Government to commission a report on the Bill’s impact on the health and social care sectors. New clause 24 would require them to take the same approach to the agriculture sector and food security.
Significant numbers of EEA nationals are employed on a permanent and seasonal basis, making them an instrumental consideration for the agriculture sector. As things stand, it would not function without them. The coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on certain sectors that we have often taken for granted but are absolutely essential. Food security has been a focus for people as never before. It is another area that brings recognition that food production is essential to life. Its workers have been classed as key workers for the purposes of the pandemic, yet so many of those who have worked incredibly hard to keep fruit and veg, in particular, on our tables throughout the pandemic are paid less than £25,600.
The Government’s February policy statement on their future points-based immigration system simply states:
“We will end free movement and not implement a route for lower-skilled workers.”
Members who served on the Committee that considered the Bill presented during the 2017-19 Parliament may remember that James Porter of the National Farmers Union of Scotland gave evidence. I spoke to Mr Porter about the Bill and about the issue of “low-skilled” workers. He was keen to stress that, although some of his workers may not have qualifications or letters after their names, being an agricultural worker and picker of soft fruits and vegetables is their profession. It requires skill and they take great pride in it.
Mr Porter said that most of his seasonal workers have been coming back to his farm for 10 or 15 years. He went on to explain that the exceptional circumstances of this year meant that attempts to redirect people traditionally from different lines of work and professions into agriculture from the local labour pool had brought out the likes of lawyers, electricians and teachers to pick fruit on his farm. That was welcome, but he made the point that although they were educated and highly skilled in their own field, they were not skilled fruit pickers. They took longer and their yield was not comparable with that of people who specialise in that line of work.
The Government’s February policy paper goes on to say:
“UK businesses will need to adapt and adjust to the end of free movement, and we will not seek to recreate the outcomes from free movement within the points-based system. As such, it is important that employers move away from a reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity, and wider investment in technology and automation.”
I sought to make a point about this matter on Tuesday, during the discussion on the social care new clause. I completely accept the Minister’s point that social care and agriculture are very different sectors. He will look to the unemployment figures and say that we will fill labour shortages from the domestic workforce, but I gave the example of how attempts to channel those who are out of work into other sectors over the course of the pandemic had not exactly been an easy or straightforward process.
I cited the Pick for Britain scheme as an example. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures but, after overcoming some initial teething problems with the website, one of the organisations managing the scheme, Concordia, reported that it had 35,000 applications after the initial appeal for domestic workers. However, only 30% of applicants had farming experience—as was probably predictable—and only 16% of people opted to interview after their initial application, with even fewer actually making it on to a farm.
Some of the pressures have been alleviated thanks to specially chartered flights from EU countries such as Romania, which have provided us with the skilled workers we need, but they have been a warning of what is to come. When we have problems in the sector, we will say with absolute certainty that the writing was on the wall.
The seasonal agriculture workers pilot scheme needs to be much improved if it is to sustain the levels of migrant work needed after the end of the transition period. The pilot allows for 10,000 visas, when actually 70,000 would be much closer to the agreed number of people required. The cost of permits is too high and farms simply do not have the administrative capacity needed to process the bureaucracy that accompanies each individual application.
FLEX, the Focus on Labour Exploitation group, has also repeatedly raised concerns about the potential for worker exploitation in the scheme, citing the issue of tied visas, where the worker is tied to one specific employer and prohibited from changing employer while in the UK under that visa. Debt bondage, where the worker’s wages go towards paying off costs of entering the scheme, such as visa charges and flight costs, alongside recruitment fees paid to labour brokers, is another worrying trend that will need to be addressed in any future scheme.
Right across the sector there are problems. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took evidence on this in May, with Ian Wright, the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, telling the Committee that the crisis had shown how vital the food industry was. He said:
“If you can’t feed a country, you don’t have a country. That has been borne out in this crisis in massive order.”
He went on to explicitly say:
“We don’t think the current Immigration Bill addresses the sort of country we want to be. I think it is surprising that, given the lessons of the last eight or nine weeks, the Immigration Bill is back in parliament unchanged, given what we have learned about the people working in food and drink, in distribution centres and the care sectors.”
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right to identify some of the exploitation that can occur. Does she agree that the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 addressed many of those problems and that the situation is much better than it was because of legislation passed by the Conservative-led Government?
Holly Lynch
I am grateful for that intervention and I welcome the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby—
Holly Lynch
Further to my hon. Friend’s correction, James Porter was keen to stress that that has been a helpful intervention to improve standards for workers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is still much more to do to ensure that we are looking after these workers.
Mr Goodwill
May I correct the record? It was because of legislation passed by the last Labour Government, which I do not recall that we opposed.
Holly Lynch
That is one of the best interventions I have taken during the course of this Committee, and it was a welcome addition.
The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has estimated that in the UK, 56% of dairy farmers have employed workers from the EU; 60%––around 22,800 EU migrants––make up the workforce in poultry farming. According to the NFU, the UK’s horticulture sector is completely reliant upon seasonal migrant workers to collect crop yields: 99% of all harvesters in the UK come from Europe. All these working relationships have been forged over time due largely to the flexibility granted by freedom of movement.
The British Poultry Council has warned that the new immigration plans are likely to have a crippling impact on UK food businesses. A report of the kind outlined in new clause 24 is therefore necessary to safeguard the UK’s agriculture industry, during a time of much upheaval. As both the National Farmers Union and National Farmers Union of Scotland have stressed, fruit and vegetable picking requires a high level of manual skills, and farms can only operate efficiently when they recruit workers with this skillset.
This is the one sector where we can say that we have just been through a trial for the ending of free movement, brought about by lockdown. Migrant labour dried up due to lockdown and the Government tried to recruit from the domestic labour force. Nowhere near the required numbers joined up, fruit and veg started to rot in the fields and we were forced to very quickly get migrant labour from Europe back in on chartered flights. It is vital that the Government learn from our experiences during the crisis and develop a proactive and pragmatic agricultural policy for implementation after the transition period. New clause 24 would give us the information required to do this.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. I can be relatively brief because the shadow Minister has spoken to the National Farmers Union of Scotland and represented its interests pretty well. There is real concern about shortages in the labour market for agriculture, particularly in relation to seasonal workers. Research on seasonal migrant labour from 2018 showed that in Scotland alone the number of seasonal agricultural workers required in any year is not far short of 10,000.
More recently, the NFUS and the UK farming unions have given evidence to the UK Government, demonstrating that for the whole UK around 70,000 seasonal staff are required in the horticultural sector and 13,000 seasonal staff are required in the poultry sector every year. That is obviously many times more than the number of places in the current pilot.
Challenges in recruiting seasonal workers have already been seen in recent years. In 2018, the NFUS conducted a survey of its horticultural membership in which every single respondent reported being “concerned” or “very concerned” about the impact worker shortages would have on their businesses in 2018 and beyond. Almost 60% of respondents said they were “likely” or “very likely” to downsize their business and the remaining 42% said they would have to cease current activity.
The NFUS was opposed to the end of free movement but, even while free movement was retained, farmers increasingly needed to look beyond the EU to fill such posts, with countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova already supplying a significant proportion of the workers required. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme pilot has been described as a step in the right direction, but it does not provide nearly enough permits if shortages such as those experienced in recent years are going to continue.
The NFUS is calling for a seasonal scheme that is open to both EU and non-EU workers, with capacity to provide farmers with access to returnee employers. It also calls for the scheme to be open to a wide number of labour providers and direct recruiters. Some concerns have been expressed about the expense and the somewhat laborious processes that are involved in taking advantage of the scheme.
The NFUS has also expressed concerns that the future immigration system proposed by the Government is not based on realistic expectations of the ability of the UK to fill the jobs currently carried out by migrant workers. It says that
“to maintain the productivity of the agricultural sector, immigration policy must allow recruitment on a seasonal basis for workers from both the EU and non-EU, at a non-restricted level.”
I echo what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, said about the SAWS scheme and how we always have to be cautious about the need to carefully protect workers against exploitation. She was right to highlight concerns raised by Focus on Labour Exploitation during the passage of the Bill last year.
To come to the rescue of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the gangmasters legislation was very welcome, but so too was the introduction of the director of labour market enforcement in 2016, under the Conservative Government, which may have been what he was thinking about. Those are both welcome moves, but we have a long way to go to build on the creation of those posts in ensuring that migrant workers—and workers generally—are properly protected.
One criticism of the new clause is that it is not just on seasonal workers that we need to have a report; we need a broader report on the impact on access to labour in the agricultural industry. The concerns of organisations such as the NFUS go further than seasonal work, and include the cost of sponsorship under tier 2, which it has described as
“prohibitively expensive in terms of both financial and administrative burden.”
It is fair to say that the NFUS has welcomed some of the recent developments, for example the decrease to the salary threshold that has been introduced by the Government, but it asks how non-salaried roles will fit into the points-based system; how the revised shortage occupation list will generally take account of the range of occupations that exist in agriculture; whether the Government will consider targeted routes for remote and rural areas—unfortunately, from what the Minister said the other day, it sounds as if it will be disappointed in that regard—and how the expense and bureaucracy of the system can be improved. It simply calls for close engagement as we move towards the implementation of the new system.
The new clause is sensible and will contribute to our understanding of what is going on in a future debate about labour in the agricultural sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the general tone of the debate that we have had so far.
As the Migration Advisory Committee—or MAC—has already made clear in its report of September 2018, agriculture is an exceptional case, as we believe the labour market is totally distinct from the labour market for resident workers. For this reason, although the MAC recommended against a dedicated route for recruiting workers based on paying at or near the legal minimum—advice that this Government accept—it did consider that the position was different in respect of the UK’s world-leading agricultural sector.
Accordingly, on 6 March last year the Government announced the implementation of a nationwide pilot to enable non-EU migrant workers to undertake seasonal work on UK farms. The seasonal worker pilot admits temporary workers from outside the European Union to work in edible horticulture for up to six months. The pilot scheme ran last year on the basis of 2,500 places, and on 19 February, in line with the commitment made in our election manifesto, we increased the annual quota for the second year of the pilot from 2,500 places to 10,000 places.
Stuart C. McDonald
Can the Minister give us a rough outline of when a review of the pilot scheme will take place and when any sort of decision can be expected on how it will look in the future?
Kevin Foster
We expect to undertake that evaluation later this year and then announce the results as part of confirming the final details of the future migration scheme. If the hon. Gentleman’s next question is about whether we will take into account the unique circumstances this year, the obvious answer is yes, given the restrictions on travel. We have found that the net is going wider in trying to recruit. Just creating migration opportunity does not automatically bring workers to the United Kingdom, as we have seen with free movement—for example, it used to be common for people from parts of western Europe to come here to do this work, but now it is not. Again, migration cannot be seen as an alternative to providing attractive terms and conditions that will encourage people to wish to do the work. Our intention is to make that announcement later this year and then confirm our intentions, in good time for next year’s season.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already conducts quarterly seasonal labour in horticulture surveys, explicitly looking at the questions of supply and demand of seasonal labour in horticulture. I am therefore not persuaded that a further annual MAC report would significantly add to our knowledge on this matter, especially when the MAC will in future have more ability to work on matters of its own choosing, including an annual report on the migration system, in which it can choose to cover the areas suggested in the new clause. If we are giving the MAC the ability to choose what it sees as the priorities in its annual report, with debate in the House on that report, it seems strange to give it that freedom and then compel it to do a number of reports by primary legislation. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax will feel able to withdraw her new clause.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. We welcome the increased flexibility that the MAC will have. I wonder whether there will be an opportunity for Opposition parties and MPs to cast a particular spotlight on an area, so that MPs can feed into that process with the MAC.
It is in everyone’s interest that we continue to see the wide availability of fresh fruit and veg for families. I accept the point made by my friend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that we would like to see any assessment of this sector be broader than seasonal agricultural workers and take into account the requirements of the workforce right across the food sector.
Having said that, I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Report on status of EEA and Swiss nationals after the transition
“(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must clarify the position of EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK during the period between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to, what rights EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK on 31 December 2020 have to—
(a) work in the UK;
(b) use the NHS for free;
(c) enrol in education or continue studying;
(d) access public funds such as benefits and pensions; and
(e) travel in and out of the UK.”—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause would require Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the EU in the grace period between the end of the transition period, and the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have been through a great deal of this subject matter earlier in the debate on clause 2. I was grateful to the Minister for some of the clarity he was able to provide at that stage. New clause 27, however, goes that little bit further and asks the Government to produce a report on the associated rights given to citizens in the common travel area.
The aim of this proposed change is to ensure that Ministers set out in detail the scope of what has been officially referred to as the reciprocal rights of the common travel area, and to compare and contrast them with the rights that can be retained under part two of the withdrawal agreement, as provided for domestically under the EU settlement scheme. The Minister’s predecessor stated that Irish citizens do not need to apply to the EU settlement scheme because of the CTA, but since then the Government have instead suggested that individuals whose immigration status is covered by the CTA may wish to register under the EU settlement scheme. Inevitably, this has caused a degree of confusion about possible gaps between where free movement rights finish and CTA rights start.
As highlighted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the EU SS is enshrined in law through the withdrawal agreement. Comparatively, however, the CTA is upheld essentially by a gentlemen’s agreement, the non-legally binding memorandum of understanding between the UK and Ireland on the CTA of May 2019. A report on the associated rights of the CTA would therefore be incredibly helpful to ensure that Irish citizens can receive equal rights to EEA and Swiss nationals.
We also believe that the report on the associated rights granted through the CTA would provide scope to begin to answer the pertinent questions about clause 2 raised during the evidence given by our expert witnesses. As previously discussed, while we welcome the provisions set out in clause 2 for Irish citizens, there is still outstanding ambiguity regarding the status and legality of the associated rights that are prescribed by the common travel area.
We believe that it would be incredibly welcome if the Government were to take this opportunity to clarify any ambiguity before the Bill takes effect. A report would provide unequivocal guidance on the status of Northern Irish citizens who identify solely as Irish. It would hopefully guarantee the same provisions for deportation and exclusion as those for Northern Irish citizens who identify as British. It would also clarify issues raised by the Committee on the Administration of Justice on questions relating to cross-border provisions and the right to vote in referendums. More must also be done to tackle the current problematic loophole whereby someone with an Irish passport is not granted protections on arriving in the UK, because they have travelled from a country outside the common travel area. Professor Ryan illustrated the opacity surrounding the status of acquisition of British nationality for British-born children, children born to Irish parents and Irish citizens wanting to naturalise. He stressed that this is currently an unanswered question in British citizenship law.
Finally, the report could also lead to a more sustained debate on Alison Harvey’s proposal on the right to abode, which was raised during evidence. The right to abode would grant citizens a plethora of citizenship rights, while simultaneously safeguarding people’s right to identify solely as Irish. We hope the new clause will catalyse discussions on this issue that will lead to a definitive conclusion.
Stuart C. McDonald
I can be very brief. I echo and support what the shadow Minister has said. I am not going to repeat what I said on clause 2; that is a welcome clause, although we have one or two concerns about the detail. What this whole debate has shown us is that, even though we are told that the common travel area pre-existed the European Union and everything is fine, in actual fact it is hard to discern what precisely is involved in the CTA and precisely what rights it confers on individuals.
My understanding from the debate we had last week is essentially that the Government propose to progress this in a rather piecemeal way, changing bits and bobs of the legislation on different subjects to ensure that Irish citizens will continue to enjoy equivalent rights in this country. Okay, that will get us to where we want to be, but it does prohibit us from having a comprehensive overview of what progress has been made and what exactly we are trying to achieve by restoring the common travel area and making sure that there is not a loss of rights because of the loss of free movement.
The new clause would be genuinely be helpful for MPs to understand what the CTA is all about, what exactly the Government are trying to achieve and what progress they are making towards that. It is a genuinely helpful suggestion.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for tabling new clause 27 because it gives me a chance briefly to outline the Government’s commitments to maintaining the common travel area arrangements, including the associated rights of British and Irish citizens in each other’s states, and the status of Irish citizens under the EU settlement scheme arrangements.
For brief background, the common travel area is an arrangement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as well as the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. It allows British and Irish citizens to travel freely between the UK and Ireland, and to reside in either jurisdiction. It also facilitates the enjoyment of several associated rights and privileges—in effect, by forming one area for immigration entry purposes.
As mentioned when we debated clause 2, both the UK Government and the Irish Government have committed to maintaining the CTA. The CTA is underpinned by deep-rooted historical ties, and maintaining it has been and continues to be a shared objective of both nations. Crucially, it predates the UK’s and Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It has been agreed with the EU that the UK and Ireland can continue to make arrangements between ourselves when it comes to the CTA.
Irish citizens in the UK and British citizens in Ireland will continue to have access to their CTA associated rights. Both Governments confirmed that position on 8 May 2019, when we signed a common travel area memorandum of understanding, which I have mentioned previously to the Committee. It is worth noting that that also builds on our commitments in the Belfast agreement that are part of international law.
The Government continue to work closely with the Irish Government to ensure that our citizens can access their rights as set out in the memorandum of understanding. This has been and will continue to be taken forward through bilateral instruments, and we have committed to updating domestic legislation. This is why we are proposing clause 2 of this Bill, which will ensure that Irish citizens can enter and remain in the UK without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from, except in a very limited number of circumstances, which we debated under clause 2.
New clause 27 would also require the Government to publish details of the rights and benefits provided by the EU settlement scheme. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 protects the residence rights of European economic area citizens who are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period and eligible family members seeking to join a relevant EEA citizen in the UK after that time. EEA citizens and their family members can apply under the EU settlement scheme for UK immigration status, so that they can continue to work, study, and, where eligible, access benefits and services such as free NHS treatment. We continue to make every effort to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of applying to the EU settlement scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
Given what the Minister says, people will have to decide whether they want to apply for the EU settlement scheme, or whether they want to continue to rely on their CTA rights. They could make that decision much more easily if they knew precisely what their CTA rights would be. Can he say anything about when the Government will take forward a programme of work to ensure that Irish citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they have now? When can people can see this on the statute book, rather than just hear it being spoken about? People are describing these as rights written in the sand.
Kevin Foster
Clause 2 explicitly puts Irish citizens’ rights on the statute book and removes the anomaly by which an Irish citizen is treated differently depending on how they enter the country—whether they arrive on a flight from Dublin or a flight from Brussels, whether under EEA free movement or CTA rights. That difference is removed completely by clause 2; it makes it clear that the same position applies, however an Irish citizen arrives in the United Kingdom.
I am very much a supporter of the provisions of the Belfast agreement, under which a person can identify as British, Irish or both. Effectively, in the United Kingdom, the person will be treated as if they were a British citizen, in terms of their rights, including their right to live here, and the services they can access. There is a very tiny number of exceptions. On this Committee, we have all struggled, as have the witnesses, to find in recent times and under modern legislation an example of an Irish citizen being deported from the United Kingdom. The position outlined in a written statement in 2007—and yes, I know who was in government in 2007—still stands, and we have not had any representations from the Irish Government on changing that. I suspect that if we looked to behave in an unreasonable way towards an Irish citizen, the Irish Government would be very clear in their response.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is obviously doing his bit by putting clause 2 into the Bill, but what I am really asking—I suspect that he does not have the answer today—is what other work is under way across Government to make sure that Irish citizens have rights on housing, health and everything else on exactly the same basis as before, and to make sure that the loss of free movement rights does not mean that they will be in a worse position. Some sort of timetable on what is going on, and how the change is being processed, would be useful for lots of citizens.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for quite a constructive intervention. He obviously will appreciate that those arriving after the transition period would not have free movement rights, but those arriving before are covered by the withdrawal agreement. I am more than happy to get a letter to him setting out how we will make sure of the position that he mentions. I suspect that his concern is that when an Irish citizen is in the United Kingdom, talking to a person at a Department for Work and Pensions office, or a landlord, and presents them with an Irish passport, it should be understood inherently that it has exactly the same status in terms of renting, or accessing a service or employment, as a British passport, particularly given the different commentary. I am more than happy to set out in writing to the Committee the work that will be done on that point.
In summary, the Government have already made clear the rights available to individuals under the common travel area and the EU settlement scheme following the end of free movement, and we will continue to do so. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Halifax not to press the new clause for the reasons I have outlined.
Holly Lynch
I welcome the fairly constructive way in which the Minister has engaged on this point. The points made in intervention by my friend from the SNP, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, do still stand. I reinforce that there will continue to be a desire and unanswered questions in this area. There are certainly merits to committing more of what we have discussed to primary legislation, but I will not press the new clause at this point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Annual review: Higher education
(1) The Secretary of State must commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the number of overseas students in the UK from the EEA and Switzerland.
(2) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it has been completed.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.—(Kate Green.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again this morning, Sir Edward. The new clause would require the Government to commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on the higher education sector.
As the Committee will know, the UK higher education sector has a world-leading reputation, which helps it to attract international students. The proportion of international students is a measure in most global university rankings, meaning that by choosing to study here, international students contribute directly to the sector’s world standing. Today, 18 of the UK’s universities rank in the world’s top 100, and 76% of UK research is ranked as excellent or world-leading. International staff and students are crucial to the UK’s economic success, and it is important that the UK continues to attract both EU and non-EU students and staff in the future.
International students deliver more than £26 billion to the UK economy. They bring more than £6.9 billion in income to universities in tuition fees. They generated £13 billion of export revenue in 2016, an increase of 41% since 2010. Universities UK estimates that universities supported more than 200,000 jobs and were worth £3.3 billion in tax revenues.
Aside from the direct economic benefits, international students and staff are crucial to the provision of skills, the conducting of research and the culture of the UK’s universities. In 2017-18, UK higher education institutions reported a £4.3 billion deficit between research income received and the costs of delivering research activity. Much of that gap was covered by international tuition fees, so international students are key to the UK’s research capacity.
In 2018-19, there were 485,645 international students enrolled at UK universities, an increase from 436,600 international students in 2014-15. Some 342,620 of those international students—that is 70%—were from outside the European Union. The remaining 143,025 students were from EU countries, but the UK’s market share has dropped in 17 of the world’s top 21 sending countries. The Office for Budget Responsibility has identified higher education as the sector likely to take the hardest hit from the covid crisis.
Given the pressures, it will be vital to understand the impact of immigration policy on future student numbers. The impact assessment attached to the Bill is optimistic, suggesting that a potential reduction in the number of EEA students attending UK universities of 25,000 after the first five years of the new points-based system will be offset by a corresponding increase in non-EEA students.
However, some of the assumptions in the impact assessment are highly speculative—as, indeed, the Government themselves acknowledge. Paragraph 160 of the impact assessment states that
“measures such as proof of funds and employment rights might have an additional deterrent impact—but there is little evidence on which to base an estimate. The impact of any administration cost or visa fee or change to student funding will also impact student choices. Therefore, the estimates presented here will only reflect the potential impacts from changes in immigration policy and not the overall impacts on EU student numbers.”
Paragraphs 163 and 164 state:
“The restrictions on the rights to bring dependants, which will apply to EU students from 2021, may also have an impact on inflows under the future system, as only those who are studying a full-time course which is a least nine months long at a postgraduate level of study are allowed to bring family members to the UK…Applying these potential deterrents, the reduction in EU student inflows are estimated to be around 15,000 per annum in the first five years of the policy.”
In paragraph 165, expected-length-of-study data is applied to the change in inflows, pointing to:
“an estimate of up to 25,000 fewer EU higher education students in the UK by academic year 2024/25 relative to the baseline.”
The paragraph also argues that
“any places not taken by EU students may be occupied by non-EU students, so the overall impact on foreign student numbers is not clear.”
In paragraph 166, the Government estimate that
“non-EU enrolments might increase by up to 10 per cent, depending on the level of study”,
but the paragraph also notes:
“This assumption is very uncertain, not least because other drivers could have affected non-EU inflows over the period of the last post-study work visa.”
None the less, paragraph 167 states:
“The assumption of around 10 per cent increase in enrolments is estimated to lead to an average annual increase in non-EU enrolments by around 25,000 over the first five years of the policy.”
That is a strikingly convenient conclusion in the light of the assessment of 25,000 fewer EU students at the end of the same period.
Paragraph 172 notes:
“Changes in the numbers of students enrolling will affect tuition fee income for universities. Overall, projected tuition fee income is estimated to increase under the future immigration system. This is primarily driven by the”—
assumed—
“increase in tuition fee income from additional non-EEA students which is expected to more than offset the decline in EEA student tuition fee income. The increase is estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion over the first five years of the policy.”
However, paragraph 172 goes on to state:
“Estimates do not take any account of behavioural impacts, nor any changes in universities expenditure.”
Paragraph 173 expands on that, stating:
“EU students are currently classified as ‘home’ students, and therefore benefit from accessing student loans and paying domestic tuition fees which are currently capped at £9,250 for undergraduates. Estimates above assume home fee status and access to student loans will remain the same as the current system. However, any changes to this will have an impact on both EU student enrolments and the projected tuition fee income of universities.”
Paragraph 175 concludes:
“As a result of changes to net student enrolments modelled above, a cumulative net fiscal benefit is estimated of under £1 billion over the first five years of the forecast period.”
That is a bold statement that will be true only if the assumptions in the impact assessment are correct and the reductions in EU students are indeed replaced by non-EU students.
We can already identify a number of policy choices that could affect those assumptions. The current situation for EEA students coming to the UK is that for academic year 2020-21, they retain the same status as domestic students. However, delays in start dates and term times as a result of the covid crisis may mean that there will be students who enrol on to academic year 2020-21, but do not enter the UK until 2021. Which immigration system will apply in such circumstances is uncertain.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, I fully support and echo much of what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has said. If anything, I would argue that the review requested in the new clause should be slightly broader and encompass not only student recruitment but staff recruitment, because that is an important issue for our universities. I also suggest that the report needs an urgent timeframe, because the clock is ticking down to a new academic year and a new recruitment period, but she made all sorts of valuable points.
Some changes made to the Government’s original White Paper have improved matters, such as the reduction in the salary and skills thresholds, but there remain lots of challenges, and of course just now universities are under immense pressure in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and its fallout. I have spoken with Universities Scotland about the review suggested in the new clause, and what follow are some of the issues it raised. What steps are the Minister and the Government taking to get the visa system working again—lots of visa processing centres remain closed—and how can alternative measures be put in place to ensure we can recruit students at the moment?
What steps will the Government take to ensure that students can start courses online with confidence—for example, by extending the window from three months to six months so that people can have extra time to arrive in the UK from when their visa becomes valid? What steps are being taken to ensure that online study does not disqualify students from the graduate route, and will the Minister consider increasing the graduate route length to three or four years and promoting it intensively, because as we he heard awareness rates are still very low?
Finally, the report should also look at whether consideration has been given to waiving tier-4 visa fees for one year only? In the longer run, what steps are being taken to ensure that our visa fees are competitive and allow us to compete with countries such as Canada and Australia, which have such strong offers in terms of fees and post-study work. These are all things the Government should think about as part of the report, and we think the new clause would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
Kevin Foster
The new clause provides the Committee with a useful opportunity to consider the important issue of international students in the UK, and I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling it.
I want to start by picking up on the point made about Erasmus by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. My constituency sees a large number of Erasmus students, and we very much welcome it. At the moment, the scope and content of EU programmes post 2020, including Erasmus, is being negotiated within the EU institutions and has not been finalised. The Government have made it clear that the UK is ready to consider participation in certain EU programmes, in particular Erasmus+, once the EU has agreed the baseline in its 2021-27 multiannual financial framework. Given that that has not yet been agreed, we are preparing for every eventuality and considering a wide range of options with regard to the future of international exchange and collaboration in education and training if it is not possible to secure a deal on Erasmus+. I want to give reassurance that the will is there. Once the EU has agreed its baseline, we will look to continue to be part of that valuable programme.
The Government strongly welcome international students, as I know Members across the Committee do. We see the academic and creative energy they bring to communities across our Union, including Belfast, Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham and Exeter. The Committee will be pleased to hear that the UK is one of the world’s leading destinations for international education, and hundreds of thousands of talented students choose to come to the UK’s world-leading institutions.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency has found that the total number of international students in higher education in the UK increased by 10% between 2014-15 and 2018-19, with the latest data suggesting that around 140,000 EU domiciled and 340,000 non-EU domiciled students enrolled in higher education institutions in the UK. The most recent set of immigration statistics show some very welcome growth in the number of people studying at our institutions from China and India in particular.
I want to reiterate that the Government place no limit on the number of international students who can come to study in the UK and have no intention ever to introduce any such limit in future under the new migration system. Indeed, as set out in the “International Education Strategy”, published last year, it is the Government’s ambition to increase the number of international higher education students studying in the UK to 600,000 by 2030. However, I recognise that we must not stand still if we are to continue to be a leading destination for international students. The Minister of State for Universities recently announced a new international education champion, Sir Steve Smith, to spearhead the UK’s efforts in the international student market. The Minister and I liaise regularly about the role that the migration system can play in facilitating that.
In summer 2021, we will launch a new graduate route, which will enable international students who have successfully completed their degree to remain in the UK for two years post study to work or look for work at any level, in order to kick-start their career. That will ensure that the UK continues to attract the brightest and the best and that our offer to prospective international students remains competitive internationally. I know that this policy change has significant cross-party support. It was even one of the first requests made by an SNP MP in a recent Opposition day debate on migration, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and I took part, and I am pleased that it has been welcomed by the education sector.
I want to respond to the points made about eligibility for this route. We have published guidance, which confirms that those having to study overseas by distance learning due to the current circumstances will still be eligible for the graduate route. I do not blame Opposition Members for not having seen it, because it came out this morning, so I do not make that point to have a go at them. That followed discussions that the Minister of State for Universities and I had.
We will not penalise people for circumstances that are beyond their control, and we are working to finalise some of the details. Particularly for those on a one-year course—who will predominantly be postgraduate students, where we probably have a record of compliance and they have a very high skill level—we will be working to find that they have spent some time in the United Kingdom. For those starting three-year courses, we will not hold against them an absence from the United Kingdom caused by having to do distance learning, as a general principle.
We are looking at a range of other measures we can take to facilitate applications for tier 4, particularly from those who are applying to a new course having already been in the United Kingdom, many of whom are postgraduates or have done foundation courses. We have had strong representations on the extension to six months. It is clear that that will not be a huge advantage to someone looking to start a course in late September or October, given that it is now mid-June, but we are looking at where we can make some appropriate changes to the migration rules to reflect the unique situation. We will of course continue to work with Universities UK to ensure that those changes are appropriate. As I say, we have today published some guidance, which I am sure Committee members will find interesting. I will make sure that a link to it, or perhaps a copy of it, is sent round, to make one or two of these points clear.
Kate Green
I welcome much of what the Minister has said. I welcome his and the Government’s ambition to be and to continue to be a leading player in the international student market. I very much welcome what he said about the commitment either to continue our association with Erasmus+, if that is possible, or to find other ways to continue to offer international exchange opportunities to students. He gave useful assurances in relation to the guidance published this morning—which I apologise for not having read—on greater flexibilities in respect of the covid-19 crisis. I am sure that the MAC will have heard what the Minister said about encouraging its continued active review of the international student market. Given the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Report on arrangements for temporary entry and stay for business purposes for EEA and Swiss nationals
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effects of this Act on the arrangements for temporary entry and stay for business purposes for EEA and Swiss nationals.
(2) That report must include—
(a) the qualification requirements for a short-term business visitor
(b) the activities that can be undertaken by a short-term business visitor;
(c) consider the reciprocal arrangements for UK nationals travelling to the EEA and Switzerland.”—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause would require the Government to consider the requirements of short-term business visitors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is not unlike some of the other proposals we have made in this sitting to ask the Government to go away and develop an evidence base, shining a spotlight on certain sectors, which we hope would then inform more concrete proposals. This proposal has a particular focus on the creative industries, temporary migration and visa requirements for working arrangements.
We understand that the Government are currently negotiating a reciprocal agreement with the EU that would allow UK citizens to undertake some paid business activities in the EU without a work permit on a short-term basis. However, the precise details, including the range of activities, the documentation needed and the time limit, are all still to be negotiated; certainly the details are still to be put into the public domain.
One sector directly affected is culture, music and the performing arts. The creative sector contributes over £100 billion a year to the UK economy and employs over 3 million people, according to the Confederation of British Industry. There are growing concerns in this sector about the lack of progress on a reciprocal agreement being reached before the end of the transition period, and whether it would guarantee short-term work and visits for EU nationals, all of which is critical for the survival of the music profession.
Britain’s music industry has long attracted world-class artists, entertainers and musicians to perform in the UK, but this is all very precarious if visa issues are not resolved by the end of the year. This is also one of the sectors hardest hit by the coronavirus, as events and performances will no doubt be one of the last elements across society to return to normal.
Working in the European Union, whether that involves performing, recording, teaching or collaborating, is an essential part of the music professional’s ability to earn. The music industry is very transient and often there is not enough work available in the UK for musicians to sustain livelihoods, but going abroad has often provided a solution. We are not talking about performers earning megabucks, although of course we want the UK to be an attractive stage for them and for our international talent in the rest of Europe—for example, UK performers who may go to work in a holiday resort for two months of the year, or may tour venues in a number of European countries.
If the UK leaves without a comprehensive arrangement in place, musicians could very quickly find themselves trying to navigate the entry requirements for each of the 27 EU member states, which risks causing major disruption to the UK’s music industry. Without effective reciprocal arrangements, the UK may see a decline in skilled culture sector workers entering the country from the EU. If the music industry is to survive and we are to continue attracting the best talent from across the world, musicians and performers must be able to continue travelling abroad to work with ease after the transition period. It is the same for many other businesses and industries.
The Home Office previously pledged that it would allow EU bands to enter the country freely for gigs post Brexit, and that it would continue to include special arrangements for creative workers. A potential solution might be a multi-entry touring visa valid for about two years and EU-wide, covering all 27 member states, which I know is the preference of the Incorporated Society of Musicians.
I hope the Minister agrees that the UK must continue to attract musicians and performers from all over the world with an immigration system that is fit for purpose. Providing the best possible situation to do that would be achieved by commissioning the report set out in new clause 29.
Kevin Foster
It might help if I briefly outline how the current system for those visiting the UK for business purposes operates. I note the shadow Minister has focused on creative purposes, but the wording in the new clause is “business visitor”.
The Government welcome genuine visitors to the UK, and this is not going to change once free movement has ended. We want to ensure legitimate travellers who support our economy and enrich our culture can continue to come to the UK smoothly in future. The UK’s current immigration rules for visitors are already fairly generous. Visitors can, in most cases, come to the UK for up to six months, and take part in a wide range of activities beyond simply tourism, or visiting family and friends.
Visitors can attend conferences, carry out independent research, undertake work-related training and maintain and install equipment where there is a contract with a UK company. We also allow audit activity and knowledge transfer where these take place in an intra-company setting. Visitors can undertake creative and sporting activities, and there are also some exceptional instances in the visitor rules whereby we allow payment by a UK source for certain activities, including performing at a permit-free festival, such as the Edinburgh festival. There are also provisions for paid performance engagement—or PPE, as we call it—whereby an individual who has been invited by a creative organisation can be paid for a short period for performing in the UK.
Those are already available to non-visa nationals, such as Canadian, Australian, Japanese and New Zealand citizens, and we have made it clear that EEA and Swiss citizens will not need a visa to undertake these activities, and will be able to travel and enter the UK on that basis. The EU has already legislated so that UK nationals will not need a visa when travelling to the Schengen area for short stays of up to 90 days in any 180-day period, as opposed to our slightly more generous provisions for visitors.
The Government recognise that it is desirable for UK nationals to have greater certainty about what they can do when travelling to the EU on a temporary or short-term basis, hence future arrangements on entry and temporary stay in the EU are subject to ongoing negotiations. Further, we look forward to reaching agreement on the future entry and temporary stay of natural persons with Switzerland and the EEA-European Free Trade Association states. For obvious reasons, we cannot legislate that the 27 member states of the EU offer a deal to the UK, but we hope we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement.
The UK’s visitor rules are kept under regular review. In our points-based system policy statement from February, we committed to
“continue our generous visitor provisions, but with simplified rules and guidance”.
We have engaged with stakeholders to understand how the rules can be simplified and improved and will continue to do so once free movement ends. For these reasons, there is no requirement for an additional report, and the new clause would be an odd addition to the Bill, for reasons I have set out in response to previous new clauses. I would therefore ask the hon. Member for Halifax to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. At this stage, we will continue to follow the negotiations on the additional reciprocal arrangements, and on that note I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 29.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Procedures for amending Immigration Rules
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection 2.
(2) After section 3(2) insert—
“(2A) Any statement of the rules, or of any changes to the rules, which affect the rights and obligations of persons who will lose their right of freedom of movement under the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act may not be made or have effect unless the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (2B) to (2F) below.
(2B) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (2A) above, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal; and
(b) sets it out in the form of a draft order.
(2C) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (2B) (the “60-day period”), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modification).
(2D) In preparing a draft order under section (2A) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations; and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
(2E) When laying before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document under subsection (2B).
(2F) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is not adjourned for more than 4 days.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that any changes to the UK’s Immigration Rules which affect EEA or Swiss nationals must be made under the super affirmative procedure.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Question negatived.
New Clause 32
Annual report on labour market
“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out how any changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected the extent to which UK employers have adequate access to labour.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would mean the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how changes to Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals are affecting access to labour.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I can be relatively brief, since we covered much of this territory in earlier discussions, but it is a useful opportunity to push the Minister on a few issues. What progress can he report on raising awareness of the new tier-2 procedures in which so many small and medium-sized enterprises will have to participate, and what support is being rolled out for those businesses to help them to navigate the new system? What change has he noticed in the number of applications for tier-2 sponsorship licences, and what work is under way to streamline the system, which we have spoken about at length previously?
I suspect the Minister’s answer to the new clause will be that there is to be an annual MAC report. If so, can we ask that it is laid before Parliament and then have a debate on it? The Home Affairs Committee spoke about an annual debate on migration in a repot two or three years ago in trying to build a consensus on migration. It looked at how other countries developed immigration policy, and one issue that featured heavily in other jurisdictions was, at the very least, an annual debate on immigration policy generally.
We are talking about seismic changes to the way in which many businesses will go about recruiting and accessing the labour market, and the number of industry bodies that have come to me to express concerns is unbelievable—industry bodies I did not even know existed until they got in touch—across food and drink, agriculture, tourism and hospitality, fishing, manufacturing, engineering, logistics, financial services, social care, education, and many more. There is significant apprehension, and it is not because any of these industries want to exploit low wages; it is their realistic assessment that they are struggling already to access the labour they need in the UK at a price they can afford and which keeps them competitive. Now they are going to struggle to access labour from abroad, because of immigration rules.
Holly Lynch
I lend our support to the new clause. I anticipate that the Minister will reflect on the developments with the MAC, in that plans are afoot for an annual assessment of labour requirements across the UK, which will influence our immigration approach. However, I echo what my friend from the SNP, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, has said. We would very much welcome that report being placed before both Houses, so that there can be further debate across this place.
We have called for reports on the sectors we are most concerned about, which we have debated and discussed this morning, but there will be so many others. As with any change like this, there will be unintended consequences. We want the opportunity to mitigate the impact of the end of free movement, and to debate that in Parliament. That would, we hope, lead to much more dynamic decision making on changes to mitigate the impact of the ending of free movement on further sectors. We welcome the new clause.
Kevin Foster
I thank the shadow spokespeople for their comments and the constructive way in which they have put forward the new clause, which hits on an important point. Certainly neither I nor anyone else in government wants businesses to fail due to an unavailability of labour, although, sadly, as many outside this room would note, the impact of covid-19 on our economy means that not many people would see that as a likely issue over the coming period, for all too obvious reasons.
It is precisely for that reason that the Government are bringing forward the new points-based immigration system. It will be a single global system that will treat everyone alike and will allow people to come to the UK on the basis of their skills and the contribution they can make, not their nationality or where their passport is from. It will be a fair system, and we are introducing a number of important elements, such as reducing the skills and salary threshold below those in the tier 2 system, and abolishing the cap and resident labour market test, which will remove a lot of bureaucracy for employers engaging with the system.
The system will also be flexible. We are making it points-based, precisely so that we can facilitate the entry of those with the greatest skills or those who are coming to fill jobs where there is the greatest need. The system will be kept under careful review.
I do not think anyone would disagree that it is profoundly important to look at the effect that immigration is having on the labour market. That means looking at the situation for employers and the impact on UK workers seeking employment. The new clause, focusing as it does solely on employers, would give only one side of the story, leaving workers’ interests at a disadvantage. I also do not believe that the Government are best placed to look at this issue; this type of request is why the independent Migration Advisory Committee exists and is commissioned to produce expert, independent reports on the interplay between immigration and the labour market. I do not believe that what it produces could be further improved by another report from the Government. As part of its work, the MAC already looks at which occupations in the UK are currently experiencing a shortage of workers and, crucially, where it thinks it would be beneficial to fill vacancies through immigration. We maintain shortage occupation lists to recognise that.
The work of the MAC and the reports it produces go beyond the narrow scope of the work proposed by the new clause. The MAC looks at the whole immigration system, rather than just changes to the immigration rules. The MAC also looks at the impact of all migration, rather than limiting itself to EEA and Swiss migration, as the new clause seeks to do, although I accept that the wording is probably because of the scope of the Bill. The future immigration system will be a global one, where an EEA citizen has the same basic rights to migrate to the UK as someone, for example, from the Commonwealth.
The new clause would simply result in duplication of work already being undertaken by the pre-eminent labour market economists and migration specialists of the MAC. Parliament regularly debates the MAC’s reports. I hope that the MAC’s annual reports will help to inform regular, structured debates on migration—something to which Opposition Members alluded—allowing us to take a more considered view, rather than simply reacting to particular proposals or events. I have outlined the role that the MAC will play. I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: Entitlement to remain
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act, and who are in the care of a local authority, or entitled to care leaving support, shall, by virtue of this provision, be deemed to have and be granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must, for purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.
(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;
(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister
(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose and no further immigration control purpose.
(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted status after the deadline of EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”) will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with the status from the time of the Scheme deadline.
(6) This section comes into force upon the commencement of this Act and remains in effect for 5 years after the deadline of the EU Settlement Scheme.
(7) For purposes of this section, “children in the care of the local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following—
(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of accommodation for children: general);
(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (Care and Supervision);
(c) section 75 Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);
(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Provision of accommodation for children);
(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Interpretation); and
(f) Article 50 Children of the (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Care orders and supervision orders).
(8) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance.).’—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 58—Settled status: children in care—
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act has the right of settled status in the United Kingdom if that child is in care, is subject to the public law outline process via a declaratory system, undertaken on the child’s behalf by the Local Authority whose care they are under, or is entitled to care leaving support.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “a child in care” means a child who is under 18 and is—
(a) living with foster parents;
(b) living in a residential children’s home; or
(c) living in a residential setting like a school or secure unit.”
(3) For the purposes of this section, “public law outline process” is as set out under Family Court practice direction 12A of 2004.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance).’
This new clause would seek to provide automatic settled status for all looked after children in the care of local authorities and for children entitled to care leaving support, removing the requirement on the local authority to make an application to the EU Settlement Scheme on that child’s behalf.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. New clause 41 is a cross-party amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is respected particularly for his knowledge and expertise on children in care, having formerly been the Minister for Children. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee has also added her name to the new clause, so I am sure the Minister will want to give it his usual careful consideration. I also support new clause 58, tabled by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
This Bill focuses on bringing an end to freedom of movement, but the system for dealing with those who arrive before 31 December 2020 is far from problem-free. New clause 41 deals with looked-after children and care leavers. The Minister is well aware of the concerns about that group. I want to stress at the outset that every Member of this House, as an elected representative, has a role as corporate parent to those children, and it is our duty to ensure that every single one is able to secure permanent immigration status.
The Home Office has estimated that there are 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers in the United Kingdom who would need to apply to regularise their immigration status before the end of the transition period. That figure is likely to have increased, as more children entered care this year, and it is just an estimate, because local authorities do not ordinarily collect the nationality data of children in their care. A recent analysis by the Children’s Society found that, as of January 2020, 153 out of 211 local authorities across the United Kingdom had identified just 3,612 EU, EEA or Swiss looked-after children and care leavers. Only 404—11%—of those young people have settled their status. It is unlikely that many more applications have been made in the past few months; owing to coronavirus, it is not a priority for busy local authorities. We also know that helplines to assist with applications have been closed or are operating a reduced service.
I know the Government are concerned about that issue and have conducted their own survey to get a better understanding of the number of looked-after children who need to apply to the scheme, but that information has never been published. It would be interesting if the Minister agreed to publish the Home Office’s data. We have yet to receive reassurance from the Minister that sufficient work is under way to regularise the immigration status of those children before the EU settlement scheme deadline. Why is the application rate so much lower for those vulnerable children? Like any children, looked-after children and care leavers need the help of their parents, and it is the local authority that is responsible for their care and for making the application to the EU settlement scheme.
Local authorities first need to identify which children in their care have an EU nationality. That can be problematic, as many children who have entered care at a young age do not know their or their parents’ nationalities. They may have no passport or birth certificate, and the local authority’s engagement can be difficult or non-existent. The children see themselves as British, as they have often not known any other home. The responsibility of identification and application has fallen on social workers, many of whom have stretched caseloads and do not have the expertise or legal knowledge to deal with these issues, particularly if they begin to encounter problems in the process.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that, outside this scheme, it is prohibited for social workers to give immigration advice. During the pilot phase of the EUSS, every application that the Coram Children’s Legal Centre made on behalf of a child in care or care leaver included detailed nationality advice, which requires expert legal knowledge and understanding. Social workers had to be supported at every stage of the process.
I am aware that the Government produced non-statutory guidance to local authorities on the EUSS, regarding their roles and responsibilities. As recently as April, they reminded local authorities of that responsibility. However, many local authorities still seem to be unaware of the existence of that guidance or their responsibilities under it. Even before we come to the issue of rates of application and status received, there is an issue of oversight. How many children are we talking about, and who is making the applications for them?
I have already briefly referred to the problems with applying. There is difficulty acquiring nationality documents and evidencing the length of residence in the UK. Social workers have to spend their time chasing various European embassies to acquire the appropriate paperwork. Right now, when so many embassies and services are shut, that is proving difficult. The previous Immigration Minister stated that the group could apply with alternative documentation, but operating a system of discretion can be very dangerous, and often has the opposite effect. It requires children to receive a significant amount of additional extra support.
Of course, local authorities are very stretched. They have limited resources and do not have the legal immigration expertise to handle complex cases that arise for children in their care and care leavers. The risk is compounded by the covid-19 pandemic. The Home Office has stated that children who do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. That includes children in care and care leavers. However, there has not been a formal policy statement to that effect. In any case, I am sure the Government would rather act to prevent a child in their care becoming undocumented than rectify mistakes after they were made.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
The Chair
I thank the Whip for that. Mr Stringer is chairing the Committee this afternoon, and I understand that the Committee intends to report then, so I will not see Committee members again. I thank you all for your courtesy. Even the Government Whip has been well behaved.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 18th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 June 2020 - (18 Jun 2020)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering new clause 58—Settled status: children in care—
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act has the right of settled status in the United Kingdom if that child is in care, is subject to the public law outline process via a declaratory system, undertaken on the child’s behalf by the Local Authority whose care they are under, or is entitled to care leaving support.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “a child in care” means a child who is under 18 and is—
(a) living with foster parents;
(b) living in a residential children’s home; or
(c) living in a residential setting like a school or secure unit.”
(3) For the purposes of this section, “public law outline process” is as set out under Family Court practice direction 12A of 2004.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance).’
This new clause would seek to provide automatic settled status for all looked after children in the care of local authorities and for children entitled to care leaving support, removing the requirement on the local authority to make an application to the EU Settlement Scheme on that child’s behalf.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you very much and welcome back, Mr Stringer; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who made a powerful and persuasive contribution earlier to reinforce the merits of new clause 41.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 58, about which we feel strongly and which is not dissimilar to new clause 41. As things stand, it is currently the responsibility of local authorities to make an application to the European Union settlement scheme for children under 18 who will be eligible to apply but who are currently in the care of the local authority. The Committee heard evidence on that from the Children’s Society, and I noted the Minister’s scepticism about aspects of that approach. I will seek, with genuine sincerity, to persuade him of the merits of taking an alternative approach.
Children are taken into care only if they have had the worst possible start in life. The cohort of children who would be affected by the new clause have the fateful combination of absent parents and precarious migration status. If we do any good with the Bill, it should be by giving those kids some stability on just one those fronts, in the hope that they can go on to a much brighter future.
In answer to a written parliamentary question, the Home Office said that it estimates—as we have already heard—that around 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers in the UK would need to apply to the EU settlement scheme, but the exact numbers are unknown. Any further investigations undertaken by the Home Office to better understand those numbers have not been published, so, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to update the Committee on those estimates.
My hon. Friend referred to the incredibly informative survey work of the Children’s Society on this matter, in the absence of any further official data. It conducted its own research, sending freedom of information requests to every local authority or children’s services provider in the UK. That totalled 211 providers, 153 of which responded to the FOI requests by January this year. Those local authorities identified just 3,612 European economic area or Swiss looked-after children and care leavers, which is only 40% of Home Office estimates. Of those 3,612 children and young people, only 730 had so far applied to the EU settlement scheme. Of those, only 404 were in receipt of status—282 had settled status and 122 had pre-settled status—meaning that, of those identified by local authorities, only 20% have applied and only 11% have been granted status. Although the data represents 73% of local authorities or service providers, and as such is not fully representative, it offers a strong indication that there are serious and urgent concerns about identifying and settling the migration status of vulnerable children whose status and future will be significantly affected by the Bill.
The Minister might argue that as those figures relate to data gathered in January of this year, progress may since have been made. However, considering that we started to enter lockdown in mid-March, I suspect that not a great deal of progress has been made in the intervening weeks. The Minister might argue that because only 153 local authorities responded and 58 councils did not contribute data, the stats might actually be better than that sample suggests, but a number of those councils said they did not have that information and could not provide it to the Children’s Society. In fact, 32 local authorities said that they were unable to provide the data or that they did not hold the information in a reportable format.
Whether through the Government’s proposed approach, which means going through the full application, or through the streamlined alternative proposed in the new clause 58, for those children the local authority has responsibility for securing their status either way. If those very councils are saying that they do not know how many children in their care are eligible, we all ought to be incredibly concerned.
The Government have produced non-statutory guidance to local authorities on the EUSS regarding their roles and responsibilities in making or supporting applications for looked-after children and care leavers. However, in its oral evidence last week, the Children’s Society said that it had engaged with several councils that were still unaware of the existence of the guidance or their responsibilities as set out within it. Although the Children’s Society has attempted to address that by providing councillors with resources aimed at helping them in their accountability, overview and scrutiny roles, we clearly still have a number of barriers to overcome.
Even where local authorities are aware of their responsibilities, the young people in their care often have extremely complex cases that require considerable support and legal advice. Many require nationality advice, others have complex family arrangements, and most simply do not have the required documentation. Social workers are consequently spending months navigating advice and acquiring the necessary documents from European embassies. Social workers are by no means specialists in that area of work, and do we really want them to be acting as immigration caseworkers when we know the incredible case loads that they face?
All those factors were in play before they were compounded by the coronavirus. Local authorities are in the fight of their lives to keep communities going. The resources are, and will continue to be, spread incredibly thinly, diverting efforts to the frontline of fighting the virus for the foreseeable future. We have vulnerable children at home without day-to-day interaction with services. Although those children can still attend school we know that, disappointingly and worryingly, numbers are still low.
The challenges presented for children’s services are enormous. Identifying and assisting children in care to apply for an immigration status that is seemingly non-urgent has inevitably been de-prioritised. The most recent EUSS statistics show that applications fell by 46% in April this year, and anecdotal evidence from practitioners indicates that the number of applications and referrals of EU children in care or care leavers has been low, as we would expect during this time.
Even when applications have been made, the Children’s Society research found that in its sample only 404 EU national children in care or care leavers were in receipt of status through the EUSS, out of an estimated 9,000. In just over a nine-month period, only 11% of the vulnerable children identified through the survey, which is just 4% of the Home Office estimate of 9,000, were able to settle their status, compared with 79% of the overall official estimate of 3.4 million EEA citizens over the same nine-month period.
If those trends continue, thousands of European children either currently in the care system or who have recently left care will fall through the gaps, becoming undocumented and left without immigration status—rubbing salt into the wounds of what has already been a troubled start in life. The Home Office previously stated in answer to a written question that children who
“do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. This includes children in care and care leavers.”
That is welcome, but both local and national Government must work to ensure that no child in the care of the state becomes undocumented, and we can do that with the new clause.
Having discussed some of the practicalities on the matter at length with my local director of children’s services, Julie Jenkins, for whose assistance I put my gratitude on the record, we propose that local authorities, on a declaratory basis, provide a list of names to the Home Office of the children and young people who would be eligible. In responding to reservations raised by the Minister at last week’s evidence session, the Home Office would then grant those young people settled status, as they would for a person who had made an application.
The Minister asked the Children’s Society how these young people prove their status. To answer his question: in the same way any other person with settled status would. We have been unable, sadly, to convince the Minister of the merits of physical proof, so they would have confirmation through an e-visa. On the issue of pre-settled and settled status, of the 404 children in the sample that we are talking about who are in receipt of status, 282 were granted settled status and 122 were granted pre-settled status.
Given everything that those kids have been through, why are we giving them pre-settled status? Let us just give them settled status. Let us not simply sign them up for yet more years of paperwork and burdens of proof; let us just take all that uncertainty off the table for them in this instance by giving them both settled status and proof of it.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
On burden of proof, is it not the case that the Government have made it clear that alternative types of documentation might be available for children who cannot get access to birth certificates or other documents because they are estranged from their parents?
Holly Lynch
I would welcome that in the event that there is no alternative and that some of the more regular items of documentation are not available. In taking that route, however, we are still asking children to go away and gather a potentially enormous amount of information and documentation. When we know that such children are eligible, why can we not just deal with this issue in a streamlined way through local authorities and the Home Office?
I hope I have satisfied the Minister’s reservations about this approach. We are talking about a cohort of children and young people who are our responsibility; we the state are acting as their legal guardians. Let us do the best we can for them and at least give them confidence in their immigration status, in the hope that they can go on to overcome all their challenges and build happy lives here in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will speak to the two new clauses that have been moved. I appreciate the intentions behind them, and the concerns and genuine points that have been raised. That is why, from the outset, there have been arrangements in place to ensure that the EU settlement scheme is accessible to all, including looked-after children and care leavers. Prior to the full launch of the scheme in March 2019, agreements were reached and plans put in place with local authorities to ensure that relevant children and care leavers receive the support they need in securing their UK immigration status under the scheme.
Local authorities in Great Britain, and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, are responsible for making an application under the EU settlement scheme on behalf of an eligible looked-after child for whom they have parental responsibility by way of a court order. Their responsibilities to signpost the scheme and support applications in other cases have also been agreed. They concern children for whom there is no court order but where the local authority has a clear interest in supporting the best interests of the child—for example, children accommodated by the local authority, children in need and care leavers.
The Home Office has implemented a range of support services to ensure that local authorities and health and social care trusts can access help and advice when they need to. We have engaged extensively with relevant stakeholders, such as the Department for Education, the Local Government Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and equivalents in the devolved Administrations, to understand and address the needs of looked-after children and care leavers, and to ensure they are all supported. Guidance has also been issued to all local authorities on their role and responsibilities for making or supporting applications under the EU settlement scheme for looked-after children and care leavers. The Home Office is holding regular teleconferences specifically for local authority staff who are responsible for making relevant applications, in order to support them and provide a direct point of contact for them within the Home Office.
A new burdens assessment has been conducted, and funding has been issued to local authorities that have responsibilities for carrying out specific duties in relation to looked-after children and care leavers, to ensure they are adequately funded to do such work. Along with the Minister for Children and Families in the Department for Education, I have written to lead council members to underline the importance of the work that their local authorities are undertaking to ensure that eligible looked-after children and care leavers make applications to the EU settlement scheme, and to highlight the support available. Home Office caseworkers are directly working with local authority staff who are responsible for making applications, as well as with organisations that specialise in working with children, such as the Children’s Society and Coram.
Additionally, the Home Office has provided £9 million of grant funding to 57 voluntary organisations across the UK in order to support vulnerable citizens in applying to the EU settlement scheme. They include several organisations specialising in support for vulnerable children and young people. We have now committed a further £8 million for such work, allowing charities and local authorities to bid for grant funding to provide support to vulnerable people and help ensure that no one is left behind. To reassure the Committee, we are continuing the existing arrangements until new arrangements and a new bidding process are completed.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to all the steps that the Home Office is taking, but is the Minister now in a position to publish the information about the number of children affected by needing to apply for the EU settlement scheme? I understand that his Department has already undertaken that work.
Kevin Foster
It is probably worth saying that, as of today, we cannot publish a final list of all who will be eligible under the EU settlement scheme because the transition period extends to 31 December this year. Therefore, people may yet arrive in the country who would be eligible to apply under the scheme. As part of the quarterly statistics publication—not the monthly one—we publish the number of applications from children. A large amount of work is going on, but it would be impossible today to have a definitive number of all who will finally be eligible, because eligibility, along with freedom-of-movement rights, runs up to 31 December.
Mr Goodwill
Is it not also the case that there may be children claiming to be EEA citizens who may turn out to be, for example, from Albania, so publishing a figure based on what people claim would not be the true figure?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, there is always that possibility. For example, one of the reasons why we will not look to accept EEA identity cards in the long term at the border and internally for certain right-to-work checks is that some EEA identity cards are very prone to abuse, unlike secure passports. There are always going to be such claims, but certainly there is strong work going on. However, as we touched on, the core reason is that we cannot produce today a final list of who will be eligible, but we are working closely with local councils. Of course, each day children come into care, sadly, so again, snapshots do not reflect the work that needs to be done.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I do think that a running total—albeit one that would be changing from quarter to quarter—would give us a sense of the scale of the challenge, especially as we are now within six months of the end of the transition period and a year from the end of the extended period in which applications can be made. This point was raised, I think, a year ago in a debate in Westminster Hall when the Government first gave the undertaking to collect the data, and to do so through local authorities, which ought to give us a bit more confidence about its validity than if children or their families were simply providing it themselves. I say to the Minister that it would reassure Parliament if such information as is available were made public as soon as possible, although we understand that it is a bit of a moving feast.
Kevin Foster
I have outlined the work that we are doing with local authorities to identify who is eligible. As the hon. Lady said, it is a moving feast, and we particularly want to make sure that those responsible for making these applications are aware of how to apply and who qualifies, and that they then proceed to do so.
I understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members about looked-after children and care leavers, and we must ensure that their corporate parents secure the best possible outcomes for them.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the best way that we can support looked-after children is by ensuring that they can take full advantage of the EU settlement scheme through local authorities, rather than having a two-tier system?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. Once someone has their status under the European settlement scheme, they join another—why, we have had over 3 million decisions taken on granting status. That will be part of how our border system will operate in future. One of the lessons learned from the past is this—status was granted under an Act of Parliament, but then in several decades’ time it has to be explained to someone how their status was under a different approach from how status is granted to those who are in the same cohort, in terms of nationality and citizenship. That is not helpful to anyone. That is one of the lessons learned, of course, from the experience of the Windrush generation. That Act of Parliament was in 1971. The status was granted on 1 January 1973 and the issues then started to be encountered 30 years later, and not just since 2010— the first case mentioned on the front of Windrush lessons learned review is from 2009. Again, it is about how those issues are created.
A declaratory scheme as proposed in new clauses 41 and 58, under which those covered automatically acquire UK immigration status, would cause confusion and potential difficulties for these vulnerable young people in future years, with their having no solid evidence of their lawful status here. They will need evidence of their status when they come to seek employment, or access to benefits and services to which they are entitled. A declaratory system would leave them without that evidence, struggling to prove their rights and entitlements over decades to come.
I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, in which she outlined the process local authorities could go through to list the children and send those lists to the Home Office. I thought, “If local authorities are going to go through all this, then the logical thing for them to do is make the applications that are required under the EU settlement scheme, and ensure the children they are listing have the status they need.” It is hard to see what the benefit to councils would be if we introduced a different process that did not produce a better outcome. If that is what we are going to ask people to do—arrange a working identifier—the next stage is to ask them to make quite a simple application to the European settlement scheme to get the status that child deserves.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister must accept that a declaratory system does not leave people without a means of proving their status. They have every incentive to apply to the settlement scheme to get the document they need to access the services the Minister has referred to, and would have the facility to do so.
Kevin Foster
Again—here we go—this would mean that someone who had a status could not be distinguished from someone who did not have a status, and would then have to make an application. We have been clear that we cannot allow people to have a status without going through the process, but that we have some generous provisions in place. Similarly, physical documents that are decades old, that date from when someone is a child, are unlikely to be particularly convincing proof in many instances. That is why we need to move towards a digital system that is a permanent record, and if the children are being identified—as Opposition Members are suggesting—the next stage is to make that application, make it simple, and get their status secured. That means the children are then secure for the rest of their life, which is a better outcome.
Fundamentally, changing a system that is working well overall would have the exact opposite effect to that which the new clauses appear intended to achieve, leading to confusion and uncertainty. We have also made it clear that where a person eligible for status under the scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the deadline—for example, if their council did not apply to the EU settlement scheme on their behalf—they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We will ensure that individuals who have missed the deadline through no fault of their own can still obtain lawful status in the UK, which I suggest is a far better response to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members than the new clauses they are proposing. That is why the Government will not accept them.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 41. It is also disappointing that the Minister is not able to update the Committee with some information, recognising that that information about numbers may be changing over time. This is a matter that will not go away, and rather than test the opinion of the Committee today, I may wish to return to it on Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
Immigration: no recourse to public funds
“Section 3(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot be applied to persons who have lost rights because of section (1) and Schedule 1 of this Act, until such time as may be specified in a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to delay application of No Recourse to Public Funds rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 56—Recourse to public funds—
“(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that P can access social security benefits, where P is habitually resident, including repealing or amending the following provisions insofar as they relate to P—
(a) section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(c) any provision in subordinate legislation, which imposes a “no recourse to public funds” condition on grants of limited leave to enter or remain; and
(d) any other enactment or power exercised under any other enactment, which makes immigration status a condition to access social security benefits.”
This new clause seeks to restrict measures prohibiting recourse to public funds.
New clause 59—Analysis of exemption from no recourse to public funds condition—
“(1) The Secretary State must produce a report on the impact of no recourse to public funds conditions for those who meet the criteria in subsection (2).
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include the impact on EEA and Swiss nationals—
(a) with children;
(b) with pre-settled status; and
(c) who are victims of domestic abuse.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a public fund is defined as any of the following:
(a) attendance allowance;
(b) carer’s allowance;
(c) child benefit;
(d) child tax credit;
(e) council tax benefit;
(f) council tax reduction;
(g) disability living allowance;
(h) discretionary support payments by local authorities or the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund;
(i) housing and homelessness assistance;
(j) housing benefit;
(k) income-based jobseeker’s allowance;
(l) income related employment and support allowance (ESA);
(m) income support;
(n) personal independence payment;
(o) severe disablement allowance;
(p) social fund payment;
(q) state pension credit;
(r) universal credit;
(s) working tax credit; and
(t) Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS).
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
“victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.”
This new clause will require the Government to consider the impact of no recourse to public funds exemption.
New clause 62—Recourse to public funds: EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants—
“(1) EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants under the age of 18 must be exempt from any no recourse to public funds condition that would otherwise be placed on them under Immigration Rules.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a public fund is defined as any of the following—
(a) attendance allowance;
(b) carer’s allowance;
(c) child benefit;
(d) child tax credit;
(e) council tax benefit;
(f) council tax reduction;
(g) disability living allowance;
(h) discretionary support payments by local authorities or the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund;
(i) housing and homelessness assistance;
(j) housing benefit;
(k) income-based jobseeker’s allowance;
(l) income related employment and support allowance (ESA);
(m) income support;
(n) personal independence payment;
(o) severe disablement allowance;
(p) social fund payment;
(q) state pension credit;
(r) universal credit;
(s) working tax credit; or
(t) Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS).”
This new clause would allow EEA nationals and Swiss nationals with children under the age of 18 to access public funds.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In tabling new clauses 45 and 56, my party wants to set out our opposition to how the no recourse to public funds regime is working, both in general and specifically during the current covid crisis. We think it is having some drastic effects, and therefore refuse to extend it to EEA nationals during the current public health crisis, or indeed more generally. Of course, we urge the Government to go further by also disapplying NRPF rules in relation to other migrants.
Because of this Bill, any EEA migrants coming to the UK under the new system will face the same problems as those coming from outside the EEA. They will be prohibited from accessing public funds until they are granted permanent residence, something that will take five years for some migrants and 10 for others, if it is granted at all. No recourse to public funds conditions will be applied to the family members of UK citizens and settled persons, as well as those to whom we have extended an invitation to come on a work visa. That means that individuals, families and children are prevented from accessing most in-work and out-of-work benefits, including child benefit, tax credits, universal credit, income-related employment support allowance, income support, local welfare assistance schemes, housing benefit and social security.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the term “no recourse to public funds” is slightly misleading, because there are a number of benefits that people are entitled to, including the furlough scheme, should they be entitled to that?
Stuart C. McDonald
It is welcome that the furlough scheme is extended to these individuals, but it is nowhere near enough. I will come to specific problems in relation to covid later in my short speech.
In short, if these new clauses are not agreed, many thousands more people who are here because they are family members or because they are wanted for their work will be put at risk of poverty and insecurity.
Those who come here with limited leave visas certainly do not expect to have to rely on public funds, but as we have seen all too well in recent months, unforeseeable events that are completely beyond their control can have a dramatic impact on their capacity to sustain themselves and their family. I am talking about coronavirus, but the ability of individuals to support themselves can be affected for reasons that are many and varied. It could be economics, illness within the family, relationship breakdown, accidents or the death of a loved one.
We have allowed and welcomed people who come to work here or to join their families. There is no reason or justification for denying them the safety net and security that we regard as essential for everybody else.
Included in those impacted by the NRPF rules are parents who are working hard in roles that are absolutely crucial at this time, including care workers, NHS staff, cleaners and people involved in food preparation. Some are working extraordinarily long hours but still cannot access even limited top-up benefits to help them meet the needs of their children.
Thanks to the Children’s Society, we know that many of the families detrimentally impacted by the rules are headed by single mothers, often from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. There are also significant numbers of families that include children with special educational needs who require additional help from supporting agencies.
It is also important to note that many of the children who will be victims of the NRPF rules will have been born and brought up here. I link back to my amendment on fees for registering British citizens; some of these children would be entitled to British citizenship, but cannot access it, either because they are not aware of it or because they are priced out of it. There will even be British citizens among those children, who are being punished because their parents’ immigration status prevents them from accessing support.
The disastrous impacts of all the rules are well established. People who are prohibited from accessing public funds are clearly at risk of destitution, with no access to the social safety net. The impact on children can be particularly devastating, in so far as deprivation is clearly detrimental to their long-term growth and development. As the Children’s Society points out, living in poverty even for short periods of time has significant detrimental effects on children’s outcomes, both in childhood and in later life, affecting their school attainment, cognitive and behavioural development, and physical and mental health.
Recently, the High Court found no recourse to public funds policies to be unlawful, holding that the relevant immigration rules and casework instructions did not adequately account for human rights obligations. That case was brought by an eight-year-old boy whose mother was subject to NRPF conditions and on the 10-year route to settlement. She was a carer for mentally disabled clients, before the imposition of the NRPF conditions led her and her son to experience periods of destitution. They moved house repeatedly, with the boy having been moved five times before the age of eight, and at one point they were street homeless. The court found that the Home Secretary must not impose or should lift NRPF conditions when it is clear that a person is at risk of imminent destitution in the absence of public funds, rather than waiting for that destitution to take place. As legislators, we should be doing better than that; we should avoid families being at risk of destitution at all. We invite families and individuals to come to undertake vital work here, and we should extend the safety net that we enjoy ourselves.
As in other areas, the Home Office sometimes attempts to pass the buck to local authorities and argues that support under legislation relating to children should mean a safety net of sorts is provided, but the number able to access such support is extremely limited, and the support is also incredibly restricted—sometimes as little as £3 per day per child. As I understand it, children are not even allowed to access free school meals.
The Home Office will also point out that, on application, NRPF conditions can be lifted, but those on the frontline say that such applications are incredibly difficult to have success with and have to be repeated multiple times. Those who apply who are currently on five-year routes to settlement will instead be placed on a 10-year route to settlement, with none of their residence to date being counted towards that target. The price of access to that safety net is insecurity.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that benefits that people are entitled to by virtue of their paying national insurance contributions are able to be paid, including important ones such as contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit and, of course, retirement pension?
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not think I have denied that certain benefits are still available to people, but none of that explains or resolves all the challenges that I outlined. For all these reasons, we believe that the no recourse to public funds rule should be got rid of altogether.
That is all the more urgent in relation to the covid-19 crisis, for which the implications of these policies are absolutely counterproductive. People who are prohibited from accessing public funds will feel compelled to continue to work, even when doing so is not safe for them or their families. As I said, their inclusion in the furlough scheme is welcome, but someone who is subject to NRPF and is dismissed from their job will obviously not have access to the furlough scheme, and nor can they claim universal credit. They are at real risk of destitution.
We all watched the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee recently. He was questioned, quite memorably, by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who provided an example to the Prime Minister of parents who had lived in the UK for at least 15 years and who had two children, aged 11 and 13. They found themselves facing destitution for reasons entirely beyond their control. It was telling that the Prime Minister could not explain why the family was not able to access support. Of course, they should be able to access support, and these new clauses would allow that to happen.
Kate Green
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak to new clause 59, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an analysis of the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition on EEA and Swiss nationals, including those with children, those with pre-settled status and those who are victims of domestic abuse.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, no recourse to public funds conditions can prevent access to some welfare benefits, to free school meals and to other support for working families who may have been paying tax. That may include families with children, including British-born children, and other vulnerable people. As we heard, application can be made to lift the condition, but it is necessary to reapply at each visa renewal, and the condition can be reinstated.
The impact of no recourse to public funds conditions on the poorest households has been magnified, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the covid crisis. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit reports that applications to lift the condition are subject to considerable delay; that the process for applying is overcomplicated, and that is exacerbated for those who struggle to make digital applications; that the evidential requirements are high and unnecessarily onerous; and, as a result, that decisions are still awaited weeks after applications have been submitted.
This makes it harder for those subject to the condition to achieve social distancing or to self-isolate if they need to. They are more likely to be living in overcrowded accommodation, with many building up rent arrears. Even though they may, as the Minister rightly says, be eligible for the Government’s furlough scheme, they are under considerable pressure to keep working in many cases. Often, their children are not in school and they cannot access free childcare, forcing them to rely on friends and family to provide that care, meaning that children are moving between households, further increasing the covid risk.
Meanwhile, Safety4Sisters tells me that local authority housing services in Greater Manchester have been turning women subject to no recourse to public funds conditions away from the emergency homeless accommodation set up during the crisis, even though that should not happen. This has resulted in at least one vulnerable woman becoming street homeless in Manchester in recent weeks, until she was found by the police and taken to safety.
Given these shocking circumstances, Labour has called for the no recourse to public funds condition to be suspended during the covid emergency. As we heard, new clause 45, proposed by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, would give effect to such a suspension, while ensuring that, if Parliament wishes to reinstate the regime as soon as the crisis ends, it can do so. Suspension of the condition now would not only provide vital relief to families who have had their livelihoods catastrophically affected by covid, but would give the Government the opportunity to give full consideration to the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition more broadly and to future policy.
As we know, and as we have just heard, the Prime Minister was apparently surprised to hear about the effects of the condition during his recent session with the Liaison Committee, and he was right to say that
“people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support”.
Sadly, just a week later, on 3 June, in his response in Prime Minister’s questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), he appeared to backtrack on his commitment to see what could be done to help them.
It is, of course, welcome that the Government have now issued guidance to give effect to the judgment in the case described by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, but this still leaves many potentially vulnerable people at risk of being subject to the condition. That includes those EU nationals who are here now but are able to secure only pre-settled status. They will not meet the habitual residence test and will be ineligible for non-contributory benefits; that includes disabled people, who will not be able to claim universal credit. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North will speak to her new clause 62 and the damaging effect the condition could have on EEA and Swiss national families with children.
Given the potential impact on vulnerable groups, I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion of an analysis of the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. If the Prime Minister’s commitment to review the application still holds, and if, as is reported, the Government intend to bring forward a further immigration Bill in the near future, they could take that opportunity to legislate to make any changes Parliament then deems necessary. The evidence base that such a review could supply would also be a useful prerequisite for a decision on the broader proposals set out in new clause 56 by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, were the Government minded to consider them. I commend our new clause to the Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr Stringer. I wish to speak to new clause 62, on the no recourse to public funds policy and to support new clause 59, tabled by my hon. Friends.
New clause 62 would exempt EU, EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants under the age of 18 from being subject to any NRPF condition that would otherwise be placed on them under the immigration rules. Many believe that these protections should apply to all families, regardless of their nationality, but for the purposes of the Government’s tightly drawn Bill, the new clause is limited in the way I have described.
Many find it astonishing that this condition is applied to children at all. Having NRPF means that the life chances of thousands of children are dictated by their parents’ inability to access support from the social security system because of their immigration status, even though the children themselves might be British.
I know that the Minister will use his concluding remarks to say that limiting access to public funds for these children and families is in the public interest and that they should be paying in to the system before they benefit from it. He will know that many of the families affected are those of key workers, who are at the frontline at this very moment in the fight against coronavirus. We are talking about NHS hospital cleaners, and about people who work in food preparation or social care, but they are being denied the same access to the safety net that they are working within. These families are paying income tax, council tax, immigration application fees and the health surcharge. It is calculated that if a family started their 10-year settlement journey in 2012, assuming they were not successful in getting fee waivers, and fees did not increase again, a single mum with two children would be expected to pay more than £23,000 for the family to settle in 10 years. A family of five—a couple with three children—would be expected to pay more than £39,000 to settle in the UK.
The NRPF does the opposite of making work pay, because families may end up forced into destitution if parents try to work but cannot access benefits. Working parents, single mums, mothers fleeing domestic violence, parents who have children born in the UK and children with British citizenship currently cannot access benefits to which they should be entitled. For children and families, that includes not being able to access benefits to support children’s upbringing and families’ wellbeing, to ensure that children have the same life chances as their peers.
As we have already heard, in May 2020, the Unity Project and Project 17 supported an eight-year-old British boy in taking the Government to court over the policy. The court ruled that the NRPF policy breached article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment.
Applicants can apply to have their NRPF condition removed if they are likely to become destitute, but the process is time-consuming and requires specialist advice, which is difficult to obtain, especially during the current pandemic. NRPF families may be able to access support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which is often the only safety net available. That is payable, as we all know, through local authorities, but the pressure of austerity and cuts to local council budgets have left councils largely unable to offer much support.
Section 17 is often referred to by the Government as the basic safety net for migrant families with NRPF, but there is little support—sometimes as little as £3 per child per day—which makes it nearly impossible to meet the basic needs of a child, let alone support them to have a healthy, happy childhood. We have to acknowledge that that, again, puts an unnecessary strain on stretched local authority budgets.
Most, if not all, services that support migrant families with NRPF state that having no recourse to public funds increases the risk of families becoming trapped in a cycle of extreme poverty, vulnerability and abuse. Many children in NRPF families go without things that other children get to enjoy and that are important for their development, including, for example, days out as a family or school trips. One example that the Children’s Society gave me was of Hamid, who said that if his son’s classmates were going on a school trip, he would not take his son to school that day, because he did not want him to see his friends going while he stayed behind because they just could not afford it.
Other Government Departments are beginning to recognise the consequences of NRPF. The Department for Education has temporarily allowed children with NRPF to access free school meals, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has instructed local authorities to house homeless people with NRPF. In the longer term, the solution lies with the Home Office, so I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the Committee that safeguards will be put in place to ensure that more families will not be forced into destitution as a result of a condition placed on their leave to remain.
The Government have made it clear that they want to wrap their arms around everyone during this time of crisis. Vulnerable children are at the heart of the Government’s agenda, so the new clause will ensure that that can happen. I commend it to the Committee.
Kevin Foster
After the end of the transition period, EEA citizens coming to the UK will be subject to the same requirements as non-EEA citizens and the same conditions restricting access to public funds under our new global immigration system. The new clauses would maintain a system in which EEA citizens, including those arriving in future, continued to enjoy preferential treatment over non-EEA citizens in relation to their access to benefits. That is not the Government’s intention, nor would it be fair, and it is not something that the British people would support, given the mandate that they have given to the Government.
New clause 45 would delay the introduction of the no recourse to public funds condition to EEA citizens until Parliament had decided on the matter in the light of the current pandemic. However, as has been touched on by some Opposition Members, to their credit, the Government have already made provision to support people through the pandemic, including those subject to no recourse to public funds, and are keeping the situation under review.
It should also be noted that the no recourse to public funds condition does not bar access to all benefits, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. People covered by it may still, for example, access contribution-based benefits and statutory sick pay. Exceptions are also made for vulnerable migrants, such as refugees and those granted humanitarian protection. Those granted leave on the basis of their family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights can apply to have the conditions lifted if they would otherwise be destitute.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend know whether any other EU countries have extended to UK citizens living in the European Union the type of benefits proposed by the new clauses?
Kevin Foster
It is probably worth saying that many European welfare schemes are based on slightly different premises—for example, social insurance schemes. As we reflected on when we talked about healthcare costs, people accessing healthcare services in other European countries may be required to pay for things that the NHS provides free at the point of need to UK nationals. It is hard to give different examples, but there are protections in the withdrawal agreement for UK citizens living in the EU before the end of the transition period. To be fair, many countries have been good in wanting proactively to support UK citizens living in their nation. I cannot give a list of each countries’ individual migration system off the top of my head, but it is probably safe to say that it is relatively common around the world for those who have newly arrived in a country to be unlikely to be able to access and qualify for a range of welfare provisions.
EEA citizens who apply under the EU settlement scheme secure their rights in UK law, so they can access benefits and services on at least the same basis as before they were granted that status. The Government have provided guidance for local authorities to enable them to support vulnerable EEA citizens in making an application under the scheme. The Government have also made available to local authorities and charities a further £8 million, in addition to the £9 million announced last year, to help them to assist vulnerable EEA citizens in making applications.
New clause 56 would risk impacting the Government’s ability to make regulations under the power in clause 4, the importance of which I have set out previously in Committee: to ensure that our laws operate coherently once free movement ends; to align the immigration treatment of newly arriving EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens from 1 January 2021; and to make relevant savings and transitional provisions for resident EEA citizens that cannot be made under powers in the 2020 Act.
New clause 59 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition on certain groups of EEA nationals. This is not necessary; the Government are already required to consider the impact of policies on all those to whom they apply, not just certain groups.
On new clause 62, I share the interest of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in ensuring the wellbeing of children, but I do not believe the new clause is necessary. Immigration law already provides that local authorities may intervene where required, regardless of the immigration status or nationality of the child or parent. The safeguards in place for the vulnerable will be retained, but it is only right that the future immigration system continues to play a part in ensuring that taxpayers’ funds are protected for the residents of the UK, whose money it is, and in assuring them that immigration continues to benefit the country as a whole and is not based on creating new costs and burdens for public resources.
I understand and appreciate the intentions behind new clause 62, but it would provide EEA citizens with greater access to benefits in the UK than they currently have under UK law. Generally speaking, under EU free movement law, EEA citizens may currently access benefits when they exercise a qualifying EU treaty right—for example, through employment or self-employment, or when they have become permanent residents. The new clause would remove that qualification and provide that any EEA citizen in this country with a child, for whatever period and in whatever capacity, may qualify for welfare benefits.
We believe that a general qualifying threshold of five years for access to benefits in immigration procedures is the right one, as it reflects the strength of a person’s connection to the United Kingdom and the principle that people should come to the UK to contribute, rather than to take advantage of, and place pressures on, taxpayer-funded services and welfare payments. Non-EEA migrants who come to live in the UK are currently expected to provide for any children they have without recourse to public funds. There can be no reasonable justification for adopting a different principle for EEA citizens arriving in the UK when the new immigration system is introduced, given that we have now left the European Union.
Finally, new clauses 59 and 62 incorrectly reference the immigration health surcharge. The immigration health surcharge is not a public fund. It is a contribution made by temporary migrants towards the costs of the NHS services they can access from day one. These new clauses would undermine the intention to establish a unified immigration system that builds public confidence in its operation, and therefore the Government cannot accept them.
Stuart C. McDonald
People do not come to this country to take advantage of the social security system; they come here to work or because they are family members of British citizens or settled persons. Having asked them to come to work or join family members here, I regard it as unfair that we do not extend the same social safety net to them. We are not arguing for a discriminatory system.
As the Minister knows, we are limited by the scope of the Bill. I feel that we have not got to the fundamental principle of why we can ask people to contribute on the one hand and yet not provide them with the same safety net. This is particularly urgent in relation to the coronavirus, and we need fast action. The Minister referred to this matter being under review, but we are several months into the crisis and we will have to revisit this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Family reunion and resettlement
“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that an unaccompanied child, spouse or vulnerable or dependant adult who has a family member who is legally present in the United Kingdom has the same rights to be reunited in the United Kingdom with that family member as they would have had under Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) make regulations amending the Immigration Rules in order to preserve the effect in the United Kingdom of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependant adults; and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring the continued opportunity for relocation to the UK of unaccompanied children present in the territory of the EEA, if it is in the child’s best interests.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member”—
(a) has the same meaning as in Article 2(g) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
(b) also has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in Article 2(h) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
(c) also includes the family members referred to in Article 16 (1) and 16 (2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(4) Until such time as Regulations in subsection (2) come into force, the effect of Commission Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependent adults with their family members in the UK shall be preserved.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would have the effect of continuing existing arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, spouses and vulnerable adults to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to address new clause 46, this time with a cross-party hat on, rather than my usual SNP hat. I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others for co-ordinating on this new clause.
As Members will know, the European Union has in place a fairly mature—it is certainly not perfect, but it is long standing—system of deciding which member state should appropriately consider a claim for asylum. For example, if an unaccompanied child is found on one of the Greek islands seeking asylum and it is known that they have family members in another EU country, few of us here would argue against the notion that the child should be reunited with their family and the claim considered in that member state.
In January this year, Parliament passed section 37 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which regrettably abolished the previous requirement on the Government to seek to negotiate an alternative to replace the family reunion provisions in the EU’s Dublin regulation. At the time, the Government were full of assurances that this did not represent a downgrading of their ambitions and said that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children in the Brexit negotiations, but in its current form, the UK’s proposal to the EU rows back on those assurances and would leave hundreds of children stranded.
There are numerous problems with what the Government propose. Most fundamentally, the proposed text removes all mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate family reunions and would make a child’s right to join their relatives entirely discretionary. The text also intentionally avoids providing rights to children. It does not provide for appeals and attempts to put these issues beyond the reach of UK courts. Other categories of vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children and adults, would lose access to family reunion altogether. A series of other key safeguards are removed, including strict deadlines for responses and the responsibility for gathering information being on the state rather than the child.
This issue is hugely important. Between 2009 and 2014, before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK were carried out at an average rate of 11 people annually. Between 2016 and 2018, after the mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK were carried out at an average rate of 547 people annually. The Government were not straight with Parliament when they proposed clause 37 of the withdrawal Bill earlier this year, and I think they have behaved in a rather upsetting manner, if I can put it like that.
We now have a situation where there are unaccompanied child refugees and refugees more generally living in appalling conditions in Greece and France. Of course those countries are under an obligation to do more to support and assist them, but many of those kids have family here, and I cannot see how any reasonable person can argue against the logic, the sense and the simple compassionate idea that that child should be reunited with their family in this country and have their asylum claim decided here.
The Government should stop messing about, stop trying to water down their previous commitments and revert to the obligation that Parliament previously placed upon it, which is to negotiate a full and proper replacement of the Dublin regulations, including an obligation to allow children to be reunited with their families in the United Kingdom.
Holly Lynch
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the SNP spokesperson, who used his experience to make a very convincing contribution.
Labour will support new clause 46, which was tabled by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee with the support of a number of its members, as well as the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
As we have heard, as a member of the EU, the UK has participated in the Dublin III regulation, which has allowed people seeking asylum in Europe to be transferred to the UK on the basis of family unity and to have their asylum claims considered in the UK. The Dublin III mechanism generally affects a small number of children, but it has a transformative effect on their lives. It has become an increasingly important family reunion route, with more than 1,600 people having been reunited through it since the start of 2018.
However, this route will end once the transition period comes to an end on 31 December 2020. While the Government have committed to seeking an arrangement through the UK-EU negotiations that would maintain a family reunion element of the Dublin system for separated children, we would very much like assurances that the Government are firmly committed to this.
We are concerned that, unlike Dublin III, the current proposals would not be mandatory and would take us back to the days when child refugees were reunited with family only at the discretion of the national Government. That would require the transferred person to make an asylum claim and only secure family unity pending a decision on that claim. Labour, along with the Families Together coalition, supports new clause 46. We want to see a system that retains the family reunion route under the Dublin III regulation for all families.
This is Refugee Week, and family reunion has been a long-standing feature of the UK’s immigration system. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that
“there is a direct link between family reunification, mental health and successful integration.”
By diminishing children’s chances of reaching their relatives legally, restrictive rules sadly only drive people to take more and more perilous alternatives, putting lives at risk and empowering people smugglers.
Labour joins Safe Passage, Amnesty International, the British Red Cross, Oxfam, the Refugee Council, the UNHCR and so many others who make up the Families Together coalition to urge the Government to prioritise family reunion, so that children, spouses and vulnerable adults can reunite with their family and close relatives, by maintaining safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK.
At a time when we are all feeling the effects of separation from our families due to the pandemic, the Government must recognise the need to protect all child refugees adequately and provide a legal and safe means for the reunification of families.
Dame Diana Johnson
In speaking to new clause 46, I want to be clear that this is not about placing additional burdens on the Home Office or Government; it is about asking the Government not to water down their obligations to child refugees, but instead to carry on doing what they already do.
As we have heard, new clause 46 is intended to ensure that the safe and legal routes to the UK for refugees with relatives here and for unaccompanied children without family are protected in domestic legislation. I gently say to the Minister that he may well talk about the Dubs scheme—I know that all the places on the Dubs scheme have been filled—but I do not think that that discharges us of our moral duty to help children on the continent.
Indeed, Lord Dubs says that some of the conditions that he has seen in camps in Europe are worse than those in the region, because of the utter lack of hope of those living in those camps. We can give them hope by adopting the new clause and showing that we are not turning our back on child refugees just a few hundred miles away. In all his campaigning on these issues, Lord Dubs has always maintained that he believes that public opinion is behind him when it comes to child refugees. It is heartening to know that recent Ipsos MORI polling suggests Lord Dubs is entirely right in his assessment of British feeling on this. Some 79% of people polled said that children should be able to reunite with parents, and over half said children should be able to reunite with siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. The British public supports refugee family reunion and I hope the Minister will do the same.
Kevin Foster
The Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children. We recognise that families can become separated because of the nature of conflicts and persecution, and the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country.
We will continue to provide safe and legal routes for families to reunite in the UK. We have a proud record of providing protection to those who need it, including children, and of reuniting families under the existing immigration rules. The new clause fails to take into account our negotiations with the EU, which I will come to later.
The UK continues to be one of the world’s leading refugee resettlement states. We resettle more refugees than any other country in Europe and are in the top five countries worldwide. Since September 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable refugees in need of protection through our refugee resettlement schemes, with around half being children. We can be proud as a country of our ambitious commitments and achievements. The Government are delighted that their overall approach was endorsed in the general election in December by the British public.
Furthermore, the UK already has a wide range of provisions in existing immigration rules that allow UK-based family members to sponsor children and other relatives to enter the UK for family reunion purposes. Those rules apply to a sponsor who is a refugee, a settled person or a British citizen. All those rules are unaffected by the UK leaving the EU and they will continue to be available after the transition period ends.
Our refugee family reunion policy is intended to allow those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK to sponsor pre-flight, immediate family members to join them here. Where appropriate, our policy includes scope to allow other family members to reunite with refugees in the UK. This may be on an exceptional basis or simply under a different route.
The new clause fails to distinguish between the very different circumstances of sponsors who are refugees and those who are asylum seekers—those seeking refugee status. It is important that the sponsor already has refugee or humanitarian leave in the UK before they are able to sponsor family members to join them. Allowing individuals to sponsor family members to join them in the UK before a decision on their asylum claim is made creates greater uncertainty for families, who may be unable to remain in the UK.
Very careful consideration is required before we extend family reunion provisions, to guard against significantly increasing the number of people who could qualify for family reunion, but who do not necessarily need protection themselves and who may be making unfounded claims of our protection systems for economic migration purposes. That could reduce our capacity to assist the most vulnerable refugees.
In the year ending March 2020, over 7,400 refugee family reunion visas were issued to partners and children of those previously granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the UK, which—hon. Members may be interested to know—is 37% more than in the previous year. There are further provisions in the immigration rules that allow those with refugee leave or humanitarian protection to sponsor adult dependant relatives living overseas to join them. This is where, as a result of age, illness or disability, a person requires long-term personal care, which can only be provided by their relative in the UK, without recourse to public funds. The same approach is applied to British citizens who wish to sponsor such relatives.
Furthermore, under part 8 of the immigration rules, children with relatives in the UK with refugee status or humanitarian protection are able to apply to join them in the UK, where there are serious and compelling family or other considerations that make exclusion of the child undesirable and where suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care. In addition, appendix FM of the immigration rules already provides routes for British and settled sponsors, and those with protection-based leave, to sponsor family members to join them in the UK. We are aware that financial and other requirements are in place in those rules, which have been upheld as lawful by the Supreme Court. It is appropriate that all those who seek to sponsor a family member under these routes can meet a consistent set of requirements.
The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is based on the Dublin regulation, which is an EU provision. The UK is no longer an EU member state. As a sovereign country, we already have our own routes for adults and families to be reunited in the UK, which are substantial, as I have just set out. As a sovereign state, it is important that we do not seek to recreate EU laws unilaterally, without considering what we want the UK’s migration and humanitarian protection system to look like. Importantly, we have been very clear that, while we are no longer in the EU, the UK and the EU have a long history of working together and we have recognised that it is in our best interests to continue to do so. That is why we are pursuing, through formal negotiations, new reciprocal arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in either the UK or the EU with specified family members in the EU or the UK, where it is in the child’s best interests.
We published our draft legal text as a constructive contribution to the negotiations. A negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity, yet these guarantees cannot be provided for in domestic UK provisions alone because they are inherently reciprocal. In addition, subsection (2)(a) of the new clause would require immigration rules to be made by regulations. That is not how immigration rules are made; they are made under the procedures set out in the Immigration Act 1971.
Finally, the new clause would require the Government to lay before Parliament a strategy on the relocation of unaccompanied children. The scope of this strategy is ambiguous. It is unclear whether it relates only to family reunion or whether it covers asylum-seeking children. The explanatory note accompanying the new clause suggests that it is solely about family reunion, but that is not reflected in the drafting. Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, the Government are not able to accept the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to the principle of family unity. Indeed, the Minister was right to point out some of the good work that has been done in recent years, particularly in terms of resettlement. Currently, some of that tends to be forced upon the Home Office, rather than being designed and promoted within it, but nevertheless it is welcome and that has been a success.
In other senses, I fundamentally disagree with the Minister. He cited some rules that had been deemed lawful by the Supreme Court. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement, but, nevertheless, it is clear that some of the rules he was referring to and the financial requirements are absolutely impossible—so impossible that the rules are almost worthless.
The SNP wants the UK to go further on family unity. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) had the endorsement of Parliament to expand the family reunion rules and, of course, the Government managed to use the system to ignore that vote. Given what we have heard today and in previous weeks, including the publication of that text, I fear that we are in danger of going backwards, and not just in terms of Dublin. We urgently need to hear what the future of resettlement will be, so we will be watching carefully.
In the meantime, Mr Stringer, we will revisit this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Immigration Detention: Removal from Association
“(1) Section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) Rules made under this section must prohibit the involuntary removal from association of any affected person detained in a removal centre save for where that is—
(i) reasonably necessary to protect that person or another person from immediate harm; and
(ii) for no longer than is necessary for this purpose and for no longer than maximum 24 hours.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“affected person” means any person whose rights are affected by repeal of legislation by or under Schedule 1 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Act 2020 or by regulations made under section 4 of that Act.
“removal from association” means any restriction on a person associating with others that is not common to all persons then detained at the same removal centre.’” .—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to prohibit removal from association with others in detention save for removal where that is necessary.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I had originally anticipated that this would be part of a much wider debate on immigration detention, but it looks like we will be having that on Report instead of in Committee. I am grateful to Medical Justice for flagging up the continued use of segregation in immigration removal centres, which we believe risks causing severe and permanent damage to detainees. In the past decade, at least two deaths in IRCs have been directly linked to the use of segregation. Segregation has played a role in four High Court cases in which a detainee’s detention or conditions of detention were found to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights. Countless more detainees have suffered the negative impacts of segregation on their mental and physical health.
What we are really talking about is the practice of keeping a detainee separate from the rest of the IRC population. It is usually done by placing the detainee in a special unit at the centre, either alone or with other detainees being held under similar conditions. Segregated detainees can be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day, with severe restrictions placed on their activities and interactions with others.
In short, segregation is one of the most severe and draconian measures used in any detainment setting. Detainees can be held for an initial period of 24 hours, but that can be extended to seven days and 14 days with the authorisation of the Secretary of State. It can then be subsequently renewed, if required.
The effects of segregation on physical and mental health can be devastating. It has been found to lead to increased rates of anxiety, social withdrawal, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. Even after relatively short periods of time, the damage done to a person’s health can be long-lasting and in some cases permanent. Research has shown that segregation can have a negative effect on the health of anyone who experiences it, and the risk for those with pre-existing mental health conditions or other vulnerabilities is particularly high. People who have been held in similar conditions in the past as part of torture, for example, may find the experience extremely re-traumatising.
The stated justification for the use of segregation in IRCs is the interests of safety and security or for refractory or violent detainees. However, a report from Medical Justice in 2015 showed that segregation is being used as a form of punishment and to house individuals with mental health issues that cannot be adequately managed in detention, including to manage detainees at risk of self-harm.
Inspection reports from independent monitoring boards and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons continue to raise concerns about the use of segregation in IRCs. Examples of such practices include detainees inappropriately segregated for months and years, with one detainee being segregated more or less continuously for 22 months. Another detainee was only transferred to psychiatric hospital following 80 days in segregation, and yet another was segregated more than eight times during her 800 days in detention. The issues are ongoing. Segregation is not helping people, but is, on the contrary, making things much worse.
The key point is the availability of segregation, which perpetuates the inappropriate detention of those who often end up subject to it. It allows for problem individuals or vulnerable individuals who cannot be managed in detention to nevertheless still be detained. Despite their detention being inappropriate, the Home Office knows that there is always a possibility of placing them in segregation, should their condition deteriorate or their behaviour grow increasingly difficult to manage. Once these vulnerable detainees end up being segregated, they are housed in an environment that is totally unsuited to their needs. They are placed in forced isolation, removing them from the support of their peers, as well as limiting their visibility and access to organisations that could provide help.
If the use of segregation was not an option, proper attention would need to be paid to whether it was appropriate for the individual to be in detention at all, whether they can be managed safely in an IRC or whether an alternative approach should be sought with more appropriate support in the community. That is why the safeguards and protections in place under rule 40 and rule 42 can never be adequate. We need to abolish the practice altogether.
The new clause would still allow and make provision for crisis intervention where there is an imminent risk of harm to the individual or other individuals in the IRC, but that should be the purpose of those interventions, and that should be it. Too often, that intervention is being used and abused by the Home Office. People who belong either in police custody if they have breached the criminal law, or in a mental health institution should not be detained in IRCs in inappropriate conditions for days on end. I hope the Minister will address those points and seriously look at the issue I have flagged up, because the situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to debate this topic. As he will be aware, in recent years the numbers in detention overall, excluding the current period, have been declining, but a process obviously still needs to be in place to manage the detentions, the detention centres and the detention estate, as we still have it.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of what should happen, but I suspect that the theory of the rules does not match the practice. The view of Medical Justice is that what the Minister has just described does not reflect what is actually happening in detention centres. I am sure this is something that we will revisit, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 53
Private life
‘(1) This section applies when a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts in respect of a relevant person—
(a) breaches a person’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8; and
(b) as a result would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) In subsection (1) a “relevant person” is any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other amendments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(a) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, or immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1 continued, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be recognised and available in the United Kingdom.
(3) In a case to which this section applies, section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 shall be read subject to the following modifications.
(4) Section 117C(5) shall be read as if the words “and the effect of C’s deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh” were replaced with “and either
(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh; or
(b) it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without C.”
(5) Section 117C(6) shall be read as if—
(a) the word “(“C”)” were inserted after “foreign criminal”; and
(b) the words “there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2” were replaced with “either
(c) C has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without C; or there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause modifies the threshold for deportation of EEA nationals and family members who are parents of “qualifying children” – children who are British or have lived in the UK for 7 years or more.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 54—Family life—
‘(1) This section applies when a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts in respect of a relevant person—
(a) breaches a person’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, and
(b) as a result would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) In subsection (1) a “relevant person” is any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other amendments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, or immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1 continued, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be recognised and available in the United Kingdom.
(3) In a case to which this section applies, section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 shall be read subject to the following modifications.
(4) Subsection (4)(a) shall be read as if the words “C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C’s life” were omitted and replaced with “one of criteria (a) to (c) in subsection (4A) is satisfied”.
(5) Section 117C shall be read as if after subsection (4) there were inserted the following words—
“(4A) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C’s life,
(b) that C was born in the UK, or
(c) that C arrived in the UK aged under 18 and has lived in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of seven years or more.
(4B) If the criterion in subsection (4A)(b) or the criterion in subsection (4A)(c) is satisfied, it shall be presumed that C is socially and culturally integrated in the UK for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).
(4C) A presumption under subsection (4B) is rebuttable.’
This new clause modifies the criteria for the deportation of third country nationals with very significant connections to the UK who are impacted by this Act.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am optimistically—and perhaps naively—attempting to spark a sensible, measured and constructive debate on laws relating to deportation, and the balance and interaction with family and private life. It is my fault, but I think the headings on the new clauses should probably be the other way around. The one relating to family is more closely linked to private life and vice versa.
Of course, there are people who commit serious crimes and have no connection with the UK, and they must be deported without any real hesitation. However, there are also many other cases where the impact of any such decision has such serious consequences—not just for the individual, but for the family member—that deportation is not appropriate in the minds of most reasonable people. Once a person has completed the punishment provided for by our criminal laws, they resume their life in this country.
There is also a second category of case, where to all intents and purposes the Home Office is not deporting foreign national offenders. In reality, it is deporting British people—people who have lived pretty much all their lives here and have no connection with the place to which they are being deported, other than the passports that they have never used or used only once when they were toddlers. From time to time, we need to be brave enough to confront the question of where we draw the line. I make the case that the line has been drawn in the wrong place, and that powers of deportation are now used too often and in inappropriate circumstances. That is a challenge to MPs on both sides of the House, because much of our deportation legislation has been in place under Labour Administrations as well as Conservative Administrations.
I turn first to new clause 53, where other family members are affected. As hon. Members will be aware, those from EEA countries and Swiss nationals and their family members cannot generally be deported, except on grounds of public policy, public security and public health, and where their conduct poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of our society—a forward-looking assessment that allows for consideration of competing family life considerations. By contrast, people from outside the EEA are subject to automatic deportation if sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. No consideration is given to whether a person continues to pose a risk, and those sentenced to less than 12 months can also be deported if the Secretary of State believes it to be conducive to the public good.
Consideration of matters relating to family has been seriously restricted. There are only two very narrow circumstances in which issues of family will trump deportation. A person must show that they have either a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner, or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and they must show that the experience of deportation for the partner or child would be unduly harsh. The test is even higher where there has been a sentence of four years or more, but where very compelling circumstances must be shown.
The new clause concerns children, and we argue that the test set out just now is unduly restrictive and not in the best interests of children. Instead of requiring unduly harsh circumstances, the new clause would stop deportation where it would be unreasonable for a child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without the parent. It is important to appreciate just how demanding the current test is. Home Office policy states that the words “unduly harsh” must be given their ordinary meanings. It notes that the Oxford English Dictionary defines “unduly” as “excessively”, and “harsh” as “severe” or “cruel”. In short, Parliament has put in place a regime that allows for child cruelty; only where that child cruelty becomes excessive do we think again.
It is little wonder that judges have sometimes expressed great sympathy with appellants and surprise at the effect of the legislation that this place has enacted, but their hands are tied. As Lord Justice Baker remarked in the case of KF Nigeria:
“For those lawyers, like my Lord and myself, who have spent many years practising in the family jurisdiction, this is not a comfortable interpretation to apply. But that is what Parliament has decided.”
Two tribunals had found that KF should not be deported because of the significant impact it would have on his son, despite a three-year sentence for burglary and robbery. Being a parent does not exempt someone from facing the criminal justice system if they break the law, but deportation goes further; it can effectively and summarily end a child’s family life for at least the duration of their childhood. There are well-documented long-term negative impacts on a child’s upbringing, education and social behaviour, with repercussions for their communities. There are also, of course, implications for a partner left behind in the United Kingdom, who is now responsible for bringing up the child alone.
I am not submitting that parents can never be deported; I am submitting that we need to be much more careful and sensitive about the circumstances in which it happens. This is not about people escaping justice, because they will still face the criminal justice system; it is about protecting innocent children. Deportations would still be possible, even where a child was involved, but only where a court assesses that it would be reasonable for the child to leave the UK along with the parent, or for the child to remain in the UK without the parent.
I turn to new clause 54, which challenges the Government on the criteria used to decide on the deportation of people who have significant connections with the United Kingdom. The issue was summarised by the former prisons and probation ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, in his 2018 review of treatment of vulnerable adults in immigration detention, which was commissioned by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). He reported that, time and again, those he met who were being held under immigration powers after serving custodial sentences were long-term British residents who had often been brought to the UK as young children and who were, to all intents and purposes, British.
To quote Stephen Shaw’s review:
“I find the policy of removing individuals brought up here from infancy to be deeply troubling. For low-risk offenders, it seems entirely disproportionate to tear them away from their lives, families and friends in the UK, and send them to countries where they may not speak the language or have any ties. For those who have committed serious crimes, there is also a further question of whether it is right to send high-risk offenders to another country when their offending follows an upbringing in the UK.”
It bears remembering that some of those individuals would have been entitled to British citizenship had they been aware, or not been priced out of it by the Home Office, to reference my earlier amendment on that subject.
I agree absolutely with Stephen Shaw, and I have personal experience of representing, very occasionally, clients who faced deportation. I remember in particular one Glaswegian lad—and he was Glaswegian—who was 18 years old and had been in this country since the age of four. He had been essentially abandoned, and passed from pillar to post around the care system. Persistent fairly low-level offending resulted in custody. In those circumstances, it was outrageous to deport him.
Some of the people on the charter flights to Jamaica in February 2020 were in that cohort, including young men whose offending involved belonging to county lines operations, which we all know are closely associated with coercion and modern-day slavery. Some were deported for offences committed a long time ago, with no account taken of rehabilitation.
A terrible example of that type of case is the ongoing saga of Osime Brown, a 21- year-old who is severely autistic. He arrived in the UK at the age of four from a country to which the Home Office now wants to deport him. I urge Members to have a look online at the facts and circumstances of the case and to say, hand on heart, that they have no problem with what the Home Office is up to.
The new clause changes the exceptions so that greater consideration is given to people established here at a young age and the reality that they are usually, to all intents and purposes, British, even if they do not hold that passport. It adds exceptions for people who were born in the UK, or who arrived in the UK under the age of 18 and have lived here for seven years or more. It also establishes a presumption that if a person was born in the UK, or arrived in the UK aged under 18 and has lived in the UK for a continuous period of seven years or more, they are considered socially and culturally integrated into the UK—albeit that that presumption would be rebuttable. The person would still have to show that there are very significant obstacles to reintegration.
The 33rd recommendation of Stephen Shaw’s review was:
“The Home Office should no longer routinely seek to remove those who were born in the UK or have been brought up here from an early age.”
Instead of commissioning reviews, it is time for the Government to start implementing the reviews that they have already heard from. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to look favourably on the new clauses.
Kevin Foster
The new clauses concern the principles that a court or tribunal is required to take into account when assessing what is in the public interest for the purposes of determining whether a foreign national offender’s deportation breaches article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The article 8 ECHR right to respect for private and family life is a qualified right, which can be circumcised—[Interruption.] I will have to ensure I write that one out again next time. It can be circumscribed where lawful, necessary and proportionate, in the interest of a number of factors including national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that, when assessing whether deportation breaches article 8 of the ECHR, the deportation of a foreign national offender is in the public interest unless certain exceptions apply. The new clauses seek to alter those exceptions and therefore undermine Parliament’s clear position on what the public interest requires in such cases.
New clause 53 would amend the exception at section 117C regarding foreign national offenders who have been sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, and who have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or child, meaning that deportation would not be in the public interest if it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK, or to remain in the UK without the foreign national offender. That would be in addition to the existing exception that applies when the effect of the deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We need to look at this issue much more closely, as we have only skimmed over the issues today. The Government must start collating data on the number of kids who end up being separated from a parent because of deportation, including a number of British citizens. We will ask questions and revisit the issue, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I would like to speak to new clause 55, Mr Stringer. I did not speak to it because new clause 47, with which it is grouped, was not moved.
The Chair
Sorry. My script is completely wrong. I call the hon. Member to move new clause 55.
New Clause 55
Hostile environment
“(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that hostile environment measures do not apply to P, specifically—
(a) sections 20-43 and 46-47 of the Immigration Act 2014;
(b) sections 34-45 of the Immigration Act 2016; and
(c) schedule 2, paragraph 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018.” —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to limit the application of the hostile environment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It used to be that the Home Office enforced immigration rules by good old-fashioned intelligence-led investigation and action, but under political pressure and the influence of austerity, increasingly the Home Office has decided to rely on essentially outsourced immigration control, hoping that if they made life tougher for unauthorised migrants, they would leave of their own accord. This is of course the hostile environment, and it has been ramped extensively in the last two Immigration Acts, such that little landladies and landlords, as well as bank staff and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency workers, all have to work as immigration officers now. All sorts of Government Departments are tasked with helping the Home Office with its work by sharing information, which makes people wary of accessing public services.
When these measures were introduced, Opposition MPs warned that there would be all sorts of negative consequences and that errors would be made, meaning that people would be denied housing or would have their bank accounts closed when they should not have been. We warned that there was little to suggest that attempts at enforcing destitution and desperation would persuade people to leave, that its impact would lead to all sorts of injustices, and that it could actually make immigration enforcement harder, not easier, as undocumented migrants are forced into the hands of unscrupulous landlords and employers and made ever more difficult to trace.
Four and six years on from the relevant Immigration Acts, the Bill would see that same hostile environment impacting on many more people. We should not allow that to happen without first assessing whether the Government have achieved what they set out to achieve with the hostile environment measures, or whether the warnings from Opposition MPs have been proven correct. Has the hostile environment achieved anything, or has it caused relentless problems, as was forecast?
It appears that the Home Office cannot tell us what the impact of the hostile environment has been in contributing to its policy goals. As the National Audit Office said only yesterday, it is currently unable to assess whether these measures have had any meaningful impact on the likelihood that an individual will leave the UK voluntarily. In fact, the number of voluntary departures has reduced significantly since 2015—in 2015 there were an average of 1,200 such voluntary departures each month, and by 2019 that was down to 460.
That echoes previous findings by the chief inspector of borders and immigration in relation to the right to rent, which is probably the most dangerous of the hostile measures, in that it leaves private citizens with the job of doing immigration checks. He concluded that the scheme had yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool for encouraging immigration compliance, with the Home Office failing to co-ordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while doing little to address stakeholder concerns.
I want to emphasise those concerns. Time and again, the Home Office has been warned about the discrimination in the housing market caused by the right to rent scheme. These warnings came from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and from the Residential Landlords Association. It is not difficult to understand how this comes about. Let us imagine a close relative who happens to let properties. How easy would it be for them to assess immigration status? How easy would it be for them not to be influenced by the fact that if they made a mistake in that assessment they would face criminal prosecution, a fine and even imprisonment? It is blindingly obvious that there is a huge danger of discrimination. Repeated surveys and assessment by organisations such as JCWI and the Residential Landlords Association have shown that to be the case.
We now have a court case proceeding to the Supreme Court. Both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, the finding of fact was made that this scheme has in fact resulted in discrimination. The Home Office had success at the Court of Appeal stage, on the basis that on paper and in theory the scheme could be operated in a way that did not lead to discrimination, but that is not anything to celebrate. The scheme has been ruled lawful, but it has been found to operate in a discriminatory way.
This is a time when we really must have a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of what has happened to immigration policy and the functioning of the hostile environment. That is exactly what Wendy Williams suggested in her Windrush lessons learned review, yet today we have been asked to extend the scope of that hostile environment without such a review taking place, and without any evidence being provided by the Home Office that the scheme is having an impact or contributing towards any of its policy goals.
Right to rent is the most scandalous of these problems, but it is causing all sorts of problems in other areas as well. For example, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that something like 10% of the bank accounts that have been closed as part of the scheme related to people who had every right to be here. That is a huge number of people who have been caused problems by this way of doing things, and they are not only migrants; of course, several million UK citizens do not have a passport and therefore struggle sometimes to prove their right to access services and housing, and to go about their lawful business.
We need to know from the Minister what work is being done to assess the impact of the hostile environment. Rather than celebrating the finding that, in theory, the right to rent scheme could operate without discrimination, what work has been done to make sure that it operates without discrimination? If no such work has been done, or if it cannot be guaranteed that the scheme will operate without discrimination, when will it be repealed?
Holly Lynch
I support new clause 55 and I would have supported new clause 47 had it been moved. Both new clauses seek to safeguard EEA and Swiss nationals from the reality of the Home Office’s hostile environment policy.
We have cited examples of potential problems relating to the hostile environment throughout the sittings of this Bill Committee, but the Windrush lessons learned review highlighted the structural flaws that permeate the hostile environment approach. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of the Home Office machine, that approach has instead led to the hounding of those unable to prove their status, while simultaneously disregarding the legitimacy of independent cases.
Throughout the sittings of this Committee, we have been at pains to articulate our concerns that unless the European Union settlement scheme is 100% successful, we will never be in a position to know whether it has been or not. People will suddenly find themselves subject to the hostile environment.
Of the Windrush generation, it has been said:
“Paulette Wilson was detained in an immigration removal centre and warned that she faced removal after living in the UK for 50 years. She spent decades contributing to the UK—working for a time in this very House—yet she was treated like a second-class citizen.
Junior Green had been in the UK for more than 60 years, raising children and grandchildren here, but after a holiday to Jamaica he was refused re-entry despite holding a passport confirming his right to be in the UK. The injustice he suffered was compounded when, because of this action, he missed his mother’s funeral.
Lives were ruined and families were torn apart.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 1154.]
Those words, setting out those examples, are an extract from the Home Secretary’s statement to the House on presenting the Williams review in March. Yet we are still waiting for the necessary structural reforms to be made at the Home Office to give us any confidence that those who missed the EUSS deadline, because of reasons that should be looked upon favourably, will not be refused by one of the same decision makers who made misguided judgment calls on Windrush cases in the pursuit of Home Office targets.
In trying to mitigate the impact of the Windrush scandal, the Government launched a number of initiatives to go into communities and undertake almost a tidying-up exercise, to ensure that people had the paperwork they needed to protect them from such encounters with the Home Office in future. The Commonwealth citizens taskforce and the vulnerable persons team have delivered that work in communities, but we know that comparable preventive initiatives seeking to support those most at risk of not applying to the EUSS on time have had to stop work, due to the coronavirus. I hope the Minister might be able to update us on how those activities will be super-charged to make up for lost time, once it is safe for them to continue.
Kevin Foster
I would like to start by reassuring Opposition Members. We are making plans for what will be a major restart of engagement and promotion of the European settlement scheme in a face-to-face way. Work is still being done online. The latest statistics have been published and we always use those as an opportunity to promote the scheme and make it clear to people what their entitlement is. We still have a good flow of applications coming in even during the lockdown, which partly reflects the fact that the vast majority of people are applying by using an app on their phones. So strong work is being done there.
On the list of reasons for late applications being accepted, as I said on Tuesday it will be a non-exhaustive list because, as the hon. Member for Halifax rightly says, we cannot predict every single circumstance that would be a reasonable reason for being late. A common reason would be a child in care where the council did not apply, but the list will be non-exhaustive because no one could write all the reasons that we as individuals might find reasonable. So far, the scheme has operated by being flexible and pragmatic in working with those applying. That is why the grants of status are in the millions and the refusals in the hundreds.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I share their desire to ensure that EEA citizens and their family members who are currently in the UK lawfully are not denied access to work, healthcare or anything to which they are currently entitled.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Does the Minister share my frustration when Opposition Members talk about the hostile environment? It was in fact a former Labour Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who, in May 2007, introduced the new immigration regulations that created a hostile environment in this country.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. Many of the enforcement mechanisms that we use originate from before 2010. There is a little amnesia among some of the people who were here and voted for them. It is right that there are protections in place around public welfare benefits and suchlike. That has not been particularly controversial for parties of all colours over the past 10 to 20 years. We need to consider carefully the lessons learned review. In the Wendy Williams report there is a 2009 case of someone who was unable to return to the United Kingdom, even though they had a status granted under the Immigration Act 1971 as someone who had been settled in the UK before 1 January 1973.
As with many of the amendments that we have debated, the new clause is at odds with our commitment to the British people to introduce a single global migration system. New clause 55 is unnecessary, unworkable, and risks being detrimental to the cohort in question. As we have been clear before, free movement is ending, and from 1 January 2021 EEA and non-EEA citizens will be treated equally. Under the new system, everyone will be required to obtain the correct immigration status, and we will clearly distinguish between those who are here lawfully and those who are not, regardless of their nationality. Allowing EEA citizens to rent accommodation or exempting them from other measures, even if they do not have lawful immigration status, would contradict the Government’s stated position. It would in practice result in different rules applying, depending on a person’s nationality. This would be inherently discriminatory, given that there would be no justifiable reason for them after the end of the transition period.
New clause 55 would also weaken the UK’s new points-based immigration system. The measures in question are designed to encourage individuals to comply with UK laws and rules, and they have all been approved by Parliament. In the future, once free movement has ended, it is right that these measures will apply on the basis of whether or not someone has lawful status, rather than on the basis of their nationality, although I appreciate that the wording would probably be done to bring this within the scope of the Bill.
EEA citizens are already subject to the universal eligibility checks carried out by employers, landlords and the NHS, as these checks apply to everyone regardless of nationality, including British citizens. I had to show my own passport recently, when renting a flat. Disapplying the measures for a certain group would increase the scope for illegal migration and place taxpayer-funded services at risk of abuse.
It is not clear how new clause 55 would actually work. To exempt an EEA citizen from an eligibility check, it would first be necessary to establish that they are part of the exempt cohort. It would not be possible for those carrying out the checks, including employers and landlords, to do this without checking everyone, as they do now, to establish eligibility. Alternatively, they would have to second-guess who was in a particular cohort, which brings the obvious risks of leading to potential discrimination and unfair treatment.
I recognise that the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Halifax wish to ensure that EEA citizens and their family members who are currently resident in the UK are not adversely impacted by such measures. This is why we have set up the EU settlement scheme, making it free and easy to get UK immigration status and to enjoy the same rights as now. That is why I believe it would be unhelpful to accept the new clause, and the Government will not do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I feel he rather skirted around getting to the heart of the issue, and he knows full well that the new clause is as it is because of issues of scope. When he talked about how this would not work because there would have to be checks on whether an EU national was seeking to take advantage of this new clause, he spoke about the dangers of guessing whether an individual may or may not be an EU national. That is exactly the problem with the right to rent scheme at the moment, in that some landlords and landladies are guessing people’s nationality when they are approached with inquiries about accommodation. I am glad that he has recognised that there are dangers in the scheme that causes such judgments to be made. Yes, there are problems with the wording of the new clause because of scope, but I shall drop it for now and think about this again in advance of Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Data protection
“(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has made provision to ensure that P has safe and confidential access to essential public services by ensuring the Secretary of State, or any other individual or body on his behalf, must not process personal data, by any means, for the purposes of immigration control or enforcement, where that personal data has been collected in the course of the data subject accessing or attempting to access the public services identified in subsection (3).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the relevant public services are—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare services;
(b) primary and secondary education; and
(c) the reporting of a crime by P, where P is a witness to, or the victim of, the crime, any investigation or prosecution of it.
(4) The prohibitions contained in subsections (2) and (3) do not apply where the data subject has given his or her explicit and informed consent to the disclosure of the personal data, for the purposes of immigration enforcement.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to limit use of data gathered by key public services for immigration enforcement control or enforcement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to speak to new clause 57, which brings us to another discrete example of the broader hostile environment and the ever-expanding powers of the Home Office to gather information and require information to be shared with it. The new clause requires that the Government take measures to prevent the sharing of data for immigration purposes where that data has been collected or provided in the course of a person accessing healthcare and education or reporting a crime.
The fear of information being shared with the Home Office can have a pernicious effect on people’s willingness to seek help or to access vital public services, and of course it can also lead to injustice, as we saw in the Windrush fiasco. This is about supporting the survivors of serious crimes—such as domestic abuse, human trafficking and other forms of exploitation—to report them to the police, seek healthcare and escape to safety.
Essentially, the new clause challenges us about our priorities. Is our priority to ensure that people can feel safe when reporting crimes, and that they do not have to be anxious when sending their children for education and do not have to be in two minds about seeking healthcare when that is required, or is our priority to provide the Home Office with endless additional powers to snoop and gather information on the off-chance that it might be able to detain and remove another few individuals, even if that comes at an incredibly hefty price, including injustices such as Windrush? I say absolutely clearly that my priority is protecting safe access to vital public services, and that is why I am moving new clause 57.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do understand his concern that those who come to this country should have safe and confidential access to essential public services. However, new clause 57 would restrict the ability of the immigration authorities to use data that has been collected in particular circumstances for immigration enforcement purposes, as far as those who now benefit from freedom of movement are concerned. In so doing, it would maintain the status quo for those cohorts as far as the use of such data collection is concerned. However, the crucial difference is that they would now be subject to the same measures of immigration control as people from the rest of the world subject to the same restrictions.
The new clause would severely restrict the ability of the immigration authorities to take enforcement action against that cohort. It would thereby result in differential treatment in respect of a migrant whose data would be collected in the same way, but which would continue to be used for immigration enforcement purposes when deemed appropriate, as it is now. It would also weaken the effect of the immigration system, as we are concerned to encourage compliance with immigration laws as approved by Parliament. We welcome the contribution made to the United Kingdom by those who are lawfully present, but it must be in accordance with the laws and rules that have been set out and agreed. No cohort should be exempt from measures that are put in place to ensure compliance with those laws and rules.
On the prohibition on sharing data collected by the police in respect of witnesses or victims of crime, we believe that could lead to unintended consequences. It could prevent those with unresolved immigration status, particularly those who are vulnerable, from being brought into the immigration system, regularising their status and receiving necessary support. In some cases, such as where someone has been the victim of domestic abuse, it could prevent the Home Office from providing information to the police on known vulnerabilities or safeguarding concerns, thereby reducing a perpetrator’s ability to control or coerce their victim. Engagement with immigration enforcement could, for example, reveal previously undisclosed evidence of domestic abuse, which the Home Office could then pass on to the police, leading to the provision of support from a specialist domestic abuse team and potential access to a refuge. Data sharing in those circumstances would be proportionate and necessary, and in the best interests of the victim. Data sharing also enables the Home Office to trace missing families and protect children who may be at risk, working collaboratively with social services, the police and local authorities to ensure safeguarding actions are taken. We will always have due regard for the safety and best interests of any children.
The Home Office has robust safeguards and controls in place to ensure data are handled securely, lawfully, ethically and in accordance with relevant data protection regulations. It must have a legal basis for processing data, and comply with the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 when doing so. Individuals’ rights are protected by the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the UK’s independent body which upholds information rights. I remind the Committee of the comments I made at one of the last Home Office oral questions that were held physically in the Chamber before the current arrangements. When asked, for example, about whether the details of those approaching the NHS for treatment for covid-19 would be passed on to immigration enforcement, we were clear that, purely for the purposes of immigration enforcement, that would not be something we would be doing. Our approach is proportionate.
Stuart C. McDonald
The purpose of the new clause, and what it says expressly, is that information cannot be shared with the Home Office for the purposes of immigration control or enforcement. To my mind, that does not mean, for example, stopping the police making inquiries with the Home Office about whether somebody has been the victim of domestic abuse. I therefore think that is a rather unfair interpretation of what we are proposing.
Kevin Foster
Part of how we respond to victims and others is sometimes to look to resolve their immigration status as well. I would say it is quite proportionate that two parts of the Home Office work together on the enforcement of the UK’s laws, subject to it being proportionate and appropriate to do so. I think people would find it strange if that did not occur.
For the reasons we have outlined, with the robust safeguards in place, and the proportionate and legitimate aim of ensuring our immigration laws are not completely undermined, the Government will not accept the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am not sure I agree with his reasoning on what the new clause would or would not allow, but I will take that away and give it further thought. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 60
Report on the status and social security entitlements of UK nationals in the EU member states
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish quarterly reports on the progress being made by EU member states on the migration status and social security entitlements of UK nationals in their countries.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than a month after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”—(Kate Green.)
This new clause would require the Government to update the House of Commons on the progress being made by the EU27 countries on the implementation of protections for UK nationals in their countries on a quarterly basis.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kate Green
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Government to report quarterly on the status and social security entitlements of UK nationals in EU member states. I am grateful to British in Europe for its comprehensive briefing in preparation for this debate.
Implementation in the EU of the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement is still in its early stages, with few countries having final or even draft legislation in place. Application processes have begun in only a handful of countries. The situation has understandably been exacerbated by delays caused by the covid crisis. However, that creates uncertainty for thousands of UK families and individuals in the EU, who are awaiting the outcome of applications to be allowed to stay in countries in which they have made their home that have opted for an application or constitutive system.
The European Commission’s promised guidance note, which was eventually published on 12 May, is helpful in clarifying some of the uncertainties, but outstanding issues include how dual UK-EU nationals and other citizens who do not rely on the withdrawal agreement for residence rights can evidence their rights; how the withdrawal agreement applies to UK citizens who are eligible for protection under the withdrawal agreement in their own right and for protection under EU law as family members of EU citizens; and whether UK citizens eligible for protection under the withdrawal agreement, which of course confers no right of free movement to third EU countries, can obtain the rights at least to some mobility enjoyed by other third-country nationals, either in addition to their withdrawal agreement rights or by waiving that protection and opting to register as non-withdrawal agreement third-country nationals.
In addition, the common format of the card evidencing withdrawal agreement rights, mandated by the Commission for UK nationals in the EU, fails to distinguish between permanent residence and ordinary residence. The conditions for lawful residence under EU law, which applies during the transition period, and under the withdrawal agreement for those who have not yet acquired permanent residence or had permanent residence confirmed, include requirements to be employed or self-employed, or economically self-sufficient with comprehensive health insurance.
Those conditions are applied strictly in many EU countries. The lockdown restrictions of the covid crisis, however, have caused people to lose their jobs or much of their income, and some will be unable to obtain comprehensive health insurance because of exclusions—students studying abroad and recent graduates are at particular risk.
We know the Government do not intend to extend the transition period. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to ask EU member states to grant extensions to time limits for securing rights under the withdrawal agreement, which people have been unable to comply with because of covid restrictions on travel or the closure of administrative offices? That applies not only to residence rights across the EU, but to citizenship applications where 31 December this year is a cut-off date, such as is the case in Germany or Italy.
With much still unresolved, British in Europe and the3million have suggested that they should attend the specialised committee on citizens’ rights of the joint committee on implementation of the withdrawal agreement established—
The Chair
Order. The new clause is about the Government reporting to the House of Commons. I understand the points that the hon. Lady is making, but if she would relate her comments to the reporting, I would be grateful.
Kate Green
Of course, Mr Stringer; that is very helpful guidance. These are matters on which I hope the Minister may be able to give some immediate answers about the Government’s current actions, but obviously the report to the House would be able to demonstrate the effect on UK nationals in the EU of our withdrawal from the European Union, which I think the public as a whole will be concerned about. As I go through further remarks about possible effects, I will naturally seek to come back to the point that I seek the approval of the Committee on regular reports on these matters being made to the House, including on the suggestion by British in Europe and the3million that they should be able to attend the specialist committee on citizens’ rights of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee.
There are other uncertainties for UK nationals who are not covered by the withdrawal agreement. Jeremy Morgan of British in Europe agreed in our oral evidence session last week that UK nationals resident in the UK but who own second properties in the European Union will potentially now be caught by the 90 out of 180 days rule under the Schengen arrangements. It is not clear whether the UK Government have given up on negotiating up to 180-day stays for UK citizens visiting the European Union, so it would be useful to have regular reports to the House on whether negotiations are continuing, or on the impact if they are not.
The concerns I have outlined so far affect UK nationals who already live, work or own property in the European Union, but there will also be concerns about UK nationals moving to the EU in the future after the end of the transition period. In our evidence session on 9 June, Jeremy Morgan of British in Europe drew attention to whether UK nationals will be able to buy property in certain EU countries after the transition, which again I think would be of interest to the House and the wider public, and future reports on that would be welcome.
On Tuesday, we debated the implications of clause 5 and the draft social security arrangements published by the UK and the EU. I am grateful to the Minister for the letter he sent me late yesterday evening, which I think has been copied to all Committee members, in response to a number of issues I raised in that debate. The analogy drawn in the letter with other treaties between the UK and third countries simply exposes the more limited protection that those treaties provide, and that such treaties seem to be the model for our future arrangements with the European Union—for example, on aggregating contributions, sharing information or healthcare. If those are to be a model for future coverage for UK nationals in the EU, again I think that is something that should be drawn regularly to the attention of the House.
The draft social security agreement attached to the free trade agreement published in February makes it clear that the Government envisage that short-term visitors would be covered, but what of those who go to work or make their home in the EU in future? The Minister’s letter says that contributory employment and support allowance will be available for four weeks. I note in passing that a decreasing number of people get contributory ESA anyway, and that that four-week grace period will be of no use to disabled people moving abroad, or even visiting for five, six or seven weeks. I think the House would like to be aware of the implications of new arrangements for disabled people.
Similarly, on healthcare, the Minister’s letter may try to gloss over this, but for those who are not going to be covered by the withdrawal agreement, the S2 will be scrapped, so they cannot in future go abroad and have treatment paid for in the EU, even if the NHS cannot provide that treatment. Importantly, we will lose the mutual recognition of prescriptions, which could have quite significant consequences for some UK nationals.
My assessment is that, for those UK nationals moving to the European Union after the transition, the unspoken thrust of the letter sent by the Minister last night is a levelling down of protections and rights, which I feel the House should want to track on a regular basis. I recognise that a number of bilateral reciprocal arrangements—some going back many years—between the UK and certain member states may fill in some of the gaps in social security co-ordination arrangements in the future, but it is unclear whether either country will regard them as remaining effective. In any event, many of the arrangements offer only very limited protection. Again, I think it would be useful for the House to be updated on the standing of, and application of, these bilateral agreements.
If no agreement is secured with the European Union and the Minister hopes that instead a series of new bilateral arrangements might be negotiated between the UK and each individual member state, there may be a fear in those member states that that could impinge on the co-ordination arrangements that apply in relation to other member states, and that fall within the scope of European Union co-ordination regulations. It would be useful for the House to have regular updates on that.
The picture that I have painted suggests at best confusion, and at worst the prospect of less favourable protections for UK citizens in the European Union—those already there, and those who move to European Union countries in future. The UK Government have an obligation to look after the welfare of their citizens wherever they are located. Quarterly reporting to Parliament will make it possible to conduct scrutiny of the way in which the Government meet the obligation.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for moving new clause 60, which is well intentioned but ultimately unnecessary. The Government are monitoring closely the implementation of the withdrawal agreement for UK nationals in the EU and information on citizens’ rights in each EU member state is already provided by the Government on our “Living in” guides on gov.uk.
Having ratified the withdrawal agreement and legislated for it domestically in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 in January, the Government are now closely monitoring the progress of member state implementation during the transition period, via our network of embassies, high commissions and consulates across Europe. We are committed to providing UK nationals overseas with clear and appropriate information and are working with member states to ensure that any introduction of, or changes to, administrative procedures that are in line with the withdrawal agreement will be communicated to resident UK nationals.
The EU’s social security co-ordination rules will continue to apply in full to individuals in full scope of the withdrawal agreement, including UK nationals living and/or working in the EU, and EEA citizens living and/or working in the UK by the end of the transition period. Those rights are protected for as long as they remain in full scope of the withdrawal agreement.
Information is available via our “Living in” guides on gov.uk, and UK nationals should sign up for the latest information on the actions they need to take. The “Living in Europe” guide, which is also on gov.uk, provides further information on citizens’ rights to UK nationals in the EU.
Beyond that, we also have a governance structure established by the withdrawal agreement to monitor the correct implementation and application of the withdrawal agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has already met twice, on 30 March and 12 June.
The Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, co-chaired by UK and EU officials, met on 20 May. As set out in the joint statement following the meeting, both the UK and the EU exchanged updates on the implementation of the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement and discussed preparatory work for future meetings. The Government and European Commission share the objective of ensuring the correct and timely implementation of the withdrawal agreement to provide certainty to UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. The Committee will therefore meet regularly during the transition period and thereafter.
Finally, I reassure the Committee that we are calling on the European Commission and all member states to ensure timely implementation and clear communications to UK nationals in the EU, in line with what has been agreed in the withdrawal agreement.
I will briefly cover some of the points that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston made. The Government are continuing their negotiations with a view to a future partnership. We have already looked to extend our generous visitor visa provisions to EEA nationals from 1 January, on the same basis as we have to many of our traditional international friends and allies, such as Canada, the United States and Japan. We continue in discussions to seek a productive partnership. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not possible for us, in domestic UK immigration measures, to legislate for what other nations should offer the United Kingdom.
On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Kate Green
I feel that the Minister’s response has rather missed some of the points that I was trying to make. In seeking a report to Parliament, I am asking for something a little bit different from information to UK nationals about what they should be doing at any given time, whether or not they moved to the EU before or after the end of transition. Intergovernmental discussions—or discussions between the UK Government and the European Union—taking place in the joint committee are very important, but they are not a parliamentary event that ensures full public information and scrutiny of those discussions. My point on the bilateral treaties was also about thinking of protections for UK nationals, which, if I may say so, are in the gift of the UK Government. The signs are worrying when looking at the Government’s draft agreement, published earlier this year.
I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I gently suggest to the Minister that keeping the House updated on such matters is not only important to hon. Members, but of considerable importance to our constituents. We have found at times that Ministers are quite tardy in coming to the House to inform us about the progress of negotiations with the European Union, at least in relation to these important matters. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to encourage his colleagues to keep us as well informed as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Kevin Foster
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. I thought it appropriate to thank you and Sir Edward for your very effective chairmanships and for keeping us all in order—even me, with the interesting slip that I managed to make earlier today. I hope that it did not cause too much hilarity in the Committee.
Kevin Foster
I am sure it did. I should also thank the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson for the spirit in which we have debated the Bill, put on the record a number of important points and explored a number of issues of concern to a range of constituents. I am sure that hon. Members would want me to express gratitude to the Clerk, who has ensured that the Committee was conducted professionally and well. I also thank my officials at the Home Office and those at the Department for Work and Pensions who have supported me both by preparing for the Committee and by preparing briefings on a range of amendments.
I can imagine how you will rule on this point of order, Mr Stringer—probably in line with every other point of order that has ever been raised in the five years that I have been here—but I wanted to put those few comments on the record as we come to our conclusion.
Holly Lynch
On a point of order, Mr Stinger. I echo the Minister’s sentiments—I am grateful for the points that he just made. I thank my Committee colleagues, not least the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston—I am eternally grateful for her support on a personal basis; her experience in this subject area is second to none—the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North and Coventry North West, and our Whip, the hon. Member for Ogmore, for their support. I also thank you, Mr Stringer.
I echo the Minister’s sentiments: the Clerk has been incredibly helpful to Members across the Committee and her efforts have been nothing short of herculean, often responding to emails in the early hours of the morning. We are eternally grateful to her for that. I also put on the record my thanks to my staff members, Jamie Welham and Charlotte Butterick, as well as to Heather Staff in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston.
Putting politics and the subject matter to one side, we can always collectively breathe a sigh of relief when the intensity and pace of any Bill Committee comes to an end. I very much look forward to returning to some of these issues on Report and Third Reading.
The Chair
That was outrageously out of order. Thank you for the kind comments.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 30th June 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 344 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:53 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 342 / Noes: 248 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: Entitlement to remain—
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act, and who are in the care of a local authority, or entitled to care leaving support, shall, by virtue of this provision, be deemed to have and be granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must, for purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.
(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;
(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister.
(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose and no further immigration control purpose.
(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted status after the deadline of the EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”) will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with the status from the time of the Scheme deadline.
(6) This section comes into force upon the commencement of this Act and remains in effect for 5 years after the deadline of the EU Settlement Scheme.
(7) For purposes of this section, “children in the care of the local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following—
(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of accommodation for children: general);
(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (Care and Supervision);
(c) section 75 Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);
(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Provision of accommodation for children);
(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Interpretation); and
(f) Article 50 Children of the (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Care orders and supervision orders).
(8) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance.).’
This new clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
New clause 7—Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(i) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(ii) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(iii) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) as defined in subsection(1) under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(3) If “P” remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) the Secretary of State shall release P forthwith; and
(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since “P’s” release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] are met.
(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which “P” is first detained under a relevant detention power.
(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’
New clause 8—Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies, under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) “P” can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;
(b) detention is strictly necessary to affect “P”’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and
(c) the detention of “P” is in all circumstances proportionate.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) who section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies to under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—
(a) “P” has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section [Bail hearings (No. 2)]; or
(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to “P” in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section [Bail hearings (No. 2)] and that hearing has not yet taken place.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall authorise the Secretary of State to detain “P” under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.
(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” has the meaning given in section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals].’
New clause 9—Bail hearings (No. 2)—
‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.
(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—
(a) release “P”;
(b) grant immigration bail to “P” under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to “P”.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.
(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.
(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—
(a) grant immigration bail to “P” under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to “P”.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to “P” at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] are met and that, in addition—
(a) directions have been given for “P’s” removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;
(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of “P’s” removal or deportation; and
(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.
(8) In subsection (6) above, “a bail hearing” includes—
(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2) above; and
(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.
(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to “P” or “P’s” legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.
(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to “P” or “P’s” legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—
(a) “P” consents to the documents being considered; or
(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to “P” or to “P’s” legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).
(12) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—
(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail within the meaning of section [Bail hearings (No. 2)] of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2019.”’
New clause 10—Commencement of detention provisions (No. 2)—
‘Sections[Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss Nationals],[Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)]and[Bail hearings (No. 2)]come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.’
New clause 11—Report on the impact to EEA and Swiss nationals—
‘(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact on EEA and Swiss nationals of having no recourse to public funds under Immigration Rules;
(b) the impact of NHS charging for EEA and Swiss nationals;
(c) the impact of granting citizenship to all EEA and Swiss health and social care workers working in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic;
(d) the impact of amending the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove all fees for applications, processes and services for EEA and Swiss nationals; and
(e) the merits of the devolution of powers over immigration from the EEA area and Switzerland to (i) Senedd Cymru; (ii) the Scottish Parliament; and (iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(4) In this section, “health and social care workers” includes doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, social workers, care workers, and other frontline health and social care staff required to maintain the UK’s health and social care sector.’
This new clause would ensure that before this Act coming into force, Parliament would have a chance to discuss how EEA and Swiss nationals will be affected by its provisions, including no recourse to public funds conditions, NHS charging, the possibility of granting British citizenship to non-British health and social care workers, removing citizenship application fees and the potential devolution of immigration policy of EEA and Swiss nationals to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 12—Status of Irish citizens—
‘In addition to any rights enjoyed by virtue of their Irish citizenship under UK law, Irish citizens must be treated as having all rights enjoyed by persons with settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme.’
This new clause will ensure that Irish citizens enjoy the same rights in the UK as someone with settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme.
New clause 13—Exemption from no recourse to public funds—
‘(1) This section applies during the current Covid- 19 pandemic, as defined by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020.
(2) Section 3(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot be applied to persons who have lost rights because of section (1) and Schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) This section could not be disapplied unless a resolution was passed by each House of Parliament.’
This new clause would delay application of No Recourse to Public Funds rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides.
New clause 14—Immigration Health Charge: Exemption for EEA and Swiss citizens who are healthcare and social workers—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38 (Immigration health charge) insert—
“38A Health care workers and social workers from the EEA or Switzerland
(1) Any person who but for the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 would have the right of free movement is exempt from the Immigration health charge if that person is—
(a) a healthcare worker; or
(b) a social care worker.
(2) The exemption will also apply to a person who is a family member or dependant of an EEA or Swiss national who meets the conditions in section (1)(a) and (b).
(3) For this section—
“healthcare worker” means a worker who works in a healthcare setting within and outside the NHS who may come into contact with patients, including clinical administration staff, and care home staff;
“social care worker” means a worker as defined by section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000.’
This new clause would ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK to work as a healthcare or social care worker would be exempt from the Immigration Health Charge.
New clause 15—Tier 2 Immigration skills charge—
‘No Tier 2 Immigrations skills charge will be payable on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national and is coming to the UK to work for the NHS.’
This new clause would exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge.
New clause 16—Immigration health charge—
‘No immigration health charge introduced under section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 may be imposed on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national.’
This new clause would prevent EEA or Swiss nationals paying the immigration health charge.
New clause 17—Report on cost of recruitment—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the costs associated with the recruitment of overseas workers to the UK as compared to such other countries the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The report must also set out the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impact of the costs referred to in subsection (1) on different sectors of the economy.
(3) No regulations relating to costs for the recruitment of overseas workers may be made until such time as the report has been laid before Parliament and debated.
(4) In this section “costs” include, but are not limited to, the following in relation to the UK—
(a) fees paid by an employer to register as a Tier 2 sponsor;
(b) visa fees paid by a Tier 2 worker and family members;
(c) immigration health surcharges for Tier 2 workers and family members;
(d) the immigration skills charge
(e) recruitment costs; and
(f) legal costs,
and in relation to other countries, includes such fees and costs as the Secretary of State believes equivalent or otherwise relevant.
(5) “Overseas worker” means a worker whose right to work in the UK have been impacted by section 1 and schedule 1.’
This new clause would mean Parliament is aware of costs relating to recruitment of EEA workers to the UK compared with competitor countries, before it has to consider any regulations on fees tabled by the government.
New clause 18—Hostile environment—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that hostile environment measures do not apply to P, specifically—
(a) sections 20-43 and 46-47 of the Immigration Act 2014;
(b) sections 34-45 of the Immigration Act 2016; and
(c) schedule 2, paragraph 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018.’
This new clause seeks to limit the application of the hostile environment.
New clause 19—Data Protection—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has made provision to ensure that P has safe and confidential access to essential public services by ensuring The Secretary of State, or any other individual or body on his behalf, must not process personal data, by any means, for the purposes of immigration control or enforcement, where that personal data has been collected in the course of the data subject accessing or attempting to access the public services identified in subsection (3).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the relevant public services are:
(a) primary and secondary healthcare services;
(b) primary and secondary education; and
(c) the reporting of a crime by the data subject or, where the data subject is a witness to, or the victim of, the crime, any investigation or prosecution of it.
(4) The prohibitions contained in subsections (2) and (3) do not apply where the data subject has given his or her explicit and informed consent to the disclosure of the personal data, for the purposes of immigration enforcement.’
This new clause seeks to limit use of data gathered by key public services for immigration enforcement control.
New clause 20—Recourse to public funds—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that P can access social security benefits, where P is habitually resident, including repealing or amending the following provisions insofar as they relate to P—
(a) section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(c) any provision in subordinate legislation, which imposes a “no recourse to public funds” condition on grants of limited leave to enter or remain; and
(d) any other enactment or power exercised under any other enactment, which makes immigration status a condition to access social security benefits.’
This new clause seeks to restrict measures prohibiting access to public funds.
New clause 21—British Citizen registration fee—
‘(1) No person, who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end, may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.
(2) No child of a person who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen if that child is receiving the assistance of a local authority.
(3) No child of a person who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.
(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of people to whom subsection (1) applies of their rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to register as British citizens.’
This new clause would mean that nobody whose right of free movement was removed by the Bill could be charged a fee for registering as a British citizen that was greater than the cost of the registration process and would abolish the fee for some children.
New clause 22—Visa requirements—
‘Section E-LTRP.3.1 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules will not apply to persons who have lost free movement rights under section 1 and schedule 1 until the Coronavirus Act 2020 expires as set out under section 89(1).’
This new clause will ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals are not prevented from qualifying to remain in the UK as partners, merely because they cannot meet financial requirements in the Immigration Rules during the coronavirus pandemic.
New clause 23—Amendment of the Scotland Act 1998—
‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 5, at paragraph B6, delete the words “free movement of persons within the European Economic Area;”.
(3) In Schedule 5, at paragraph B6, insert at the end—
“(none) Retained EU law relating to free movement of persons from the European Economic Area; and the subject matter of section 1 and schedule 1 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020.”’
This new clause would devolved retained free movement law and the subject matter of clause 1 and schedule 1 of the Bill to the Scottish Parliament.
New clause 24—Remote Areas Pilot Scheme—
‘(1) Within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the government must introduce a Remote Areas Pilot Scheme to encourage EEA and Swiss nationals to live and work in remote areas.
(2) The scheme in subsection (1) must be designed in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(3) The scheme in subsection (1) must operate for at least two years after which an evaluation report must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’
This new clause would require the government to introduce a Remote Areas Pilot Scheme, similar to the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee.
New clause 26—Right to rent (EEA and Swiss nationals)—
‘The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals, and dependants of EEA and Swiss nationals, are not subjected to right to rent immigration checks.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that landlords do not carry out immigration checks on EEA and Swiss nationals under the Right to Rent scheme.
New clause 28—Data protection: immigration (EEA and Swiss nationals)—
‘(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In paragraph 4 of schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(5) This paragraph does not apply if the data subject is an EEA or Swiss national or a dependent of an EEA or Swiss national.”’
This new clause would ensure that the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals.
New clause 29—Family reunion and resettlement—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that an unaccompanied child, spouse or vulnerable or dependant adult who has a family member who is legally present in the United Kingdom has the same rights to be reunited in the United Kingdom with that family member as they would have had under Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) amend the Immigration Rules in order to preserve the effect in the United Kingdom of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependant adults; and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring the continued opportunity for relocation to the UK of unaccompanied children present in the territory of the EEA, if it is in the child’s best interests.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member”—
(a) has the same meaning as in Article 2(g) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
(b) also has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in Article 2(h) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013; and
(c) also includes the family members referred to in Article 8 (1), Article 16 (1) and 16 (2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(4) Until such time as Regulations in subsection (2) come into force, the effect of Commission Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependent adults with their family members in the UK shall be preserved.’
This new clause would have the effect of continuing existing arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, spouses and vulnerable adults to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.
New clause 30—Impact assessment on the social care workforce—
‘(1) No Minister of the Crown may appoint a day for the commencement of any provision of this Act until the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) This condition is that a Minister of the Crown has published and laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on recruitment of EU citizens, EEA nationals, and Swiss citizens to the social care sector.’
This new clause makes the coming into force of the Act conditional on the production of an impact assessment of the changes on the social care workforce
New clause 32—Non-applicability of hostile environment measures to EU citizens, EEA nationals and Swiss citizens—
‘(1) No amendment to the definition of ‘relevant national’ in section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014, so as to alter the provision made for a national of an EEA State or a national of Switzerland, may be made by regulations under—
(a) Section 8, Section 23 and paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(b) Section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020; or
(c) Section 4 of this Act.
(2) In Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“Immigration”)
(a) Omit “.” at the end of sub-paragraph (4),
(b) At the end of sub-paragraph (4), insert—
“, and
(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) do not apply where the personal data is that of a national of an EU Member State, an EEA State or Switzerland.”
(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’
This new clause would prevent the application of key aspects of the hostile/compliant environment to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens.
New clause 33—Differentiated immigration rules—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of a system of differentiated immigration rules for people whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must consider the following—
(a) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to nominate a specified number of EEA and Swiss nationals for leave to enter or remain each year;
(b) the requirements that could be attached to the exercise of any such power including that the person lives and, where appropriate, works in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and such other conditions as the Secretary of State believes necessary;
(c) the means by which the Secretary of State could retain the power to refuse to grant leave to enter or remain on the grounds that such a grant would—
(i) not be in the public interest, or
(ii) not be in the interests of national security;
(d) how the number of eligible individuals allowed to enter or remain each year under such a scheme could be agreed annually by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State; and
(e) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to issue Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Immigration Rules, as appropriate, setting out the criteria by which they will select eligible individuals for nomination, including salary thresholds and financial eligibility.
(3) As part of the review in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Government;
(b) the Welsh Government;
(c) the Northern Ireland Executive; and
(d) individuals, businesses, and other organisations in the devolved nations’.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay a report before Parliament on differentiated immigration rules for people whose right of free movement are ended by this Act, and sets out a non-exhaustive list of issues that must be reviewed including the possible role of devolved government.
New clause 34—Late applications—
‘(1) Prior to the deadline for applications to the EU Settlement Scheme, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out proposals for dealing with late applications and a motion to approve the report must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Until the report under subsection (1) is debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament, the EU Settlement Scheme must remain open for applications and the Secretary of State must extend the deadline for applications accordingly.’
The new clause will ensure that the EU Settled Status Scheme will remain open until such time as the Minister has published his proposals as to how to deal with late applications and that report has been approved by Parliament.
New clause 35—Visa extensions for health and care workers during Covid-19 pandemic—
‘(1) Where—
(a) A person (“P”) meets either the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3); and
(b) P’s leave in the United Kingdom would otherwise expire prior to 1 January 2021,
then P’s leave is extended until twelve months after the date on which P’s leave would otherwise expire without any further fee or charge being incurred.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the individual is a health and care professional, or a social worker, or employed in another frontline health and care role.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the individual is a family member of a person meeting the condition in subsection (2).
(4) In this section—
“health and care professional” is a person within the class of persons who are nurses or other health and care professionals, or medical professionals within the meaning of the regulations referred to in sections 2 to 5 of the Coronavirus Act 2020;
“social worker” is a person within the class of persons who are social workers within the meaning of the regulations referred to in sections 6 to 7 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.”
“employed in another frontline health and care role” means a person employed in a role conferring eligibility for the NHS and Social Care Coronavirus Life Assurance Scheme 2020.’
This new clause would put the Government’s policy of visa extensions on a statutory footing, and ensure that it includes all health and social care workers and other frontline employees including cleaners and porters.
New clause 36—Applications for citizenship from people with settled status—
‘Where a person with settled status applies for British Citizenship, then the period of person’s residence that qualified them for settled status shall be treated as not being in breach of the immigration laws.’
This new clause would ensure that persons who qualified for settled status cannot then be refused citizenship on ground that their residence during the qualifying period for settled status was in breach of immigration laws (for example, because of a period without Comprehensive Sickness Insurance).
New clause 37—Annual report on skills and the labour market—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay a report before Parliament setting out how changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected skill shortages in the labour market.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than a month after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’
This new clause would ensure that the Government has to publish an annual report on skill shortages and the labour market, and that it would be debated in Parliament.
New clause 38—European citizens’ rights—
‘(1) This section applies to EEA and Swiss nationals—
(a) who are within the personal scope of the withdrawal agreement (defined in Article 10) having the right to reside in the United Kingdom; or
(b) to whom the provisions in (a) do not apply but who are eligible for indefinite leave to enter or remain or limited leave to enter or remain by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules.
(2) A person has settled status in the United Kingdom if that person meets the criteria set out in ‘Eligibility for indefinite leave to enter or remain’ or ‘Eligibility for limited leave to enter or remain’ in Immigration Rules Appendix EU.
(3) A person with settled status holds indefinite leave to enter or remain and has the rights provided by the withdrawal agreement for those holding permanent residence as defined in Article 15 of the agreement, even if that person is not in employment, has not been in employment or has no sufficient resources or comprehensive sickness insurance.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision—
(a) implementing Article 18(4) of the withdrawal agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document), including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence;
(b) implementing Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document) including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence; and
(c) implementing Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document), including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence.
(5) A person with settled status does not lose the right to reside for not having registered their settled status.
(6) A person who has settled status who has not registered their settled status by 30 June 2021 or any later date decided by the Secretary of State may register at any time after that date under the same conditions as those registering prior to that date.
(7) After 30 June 2021 or any later date decided by the Secretary of State, a person or their agent may require proof of registration of settled status under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument, subject to subsections (8) to (10).
(8) Any person or their agent who is allowed under subsection (7) to require proof of registration has discretion to establish by way of other means than proof of registration that the eligibility requirements for settled status under the provisions of this section have been met.
(9) When a person within the scope of this section is requested to provide proof of registration of settled status as a condition to retain social security benefits, housing assistance, access to public services or entitlements under a private contract, that person shall be given a reasonable period of at least three months to initiate the registration procedure set out in this section if that person has not already registered.
(10) During the reasonable period under subsection (9), and subsequently on the provision of proof of commencement of the registration procedure and until a final decision on registration on which no further administrative or judicial recourse is possible, a person cannot be deprived of existing social security benefits, housing assistance, access to public services or private contract entitlements on the grounds of not having proof of registration.
(11) The regulations adopted under subsection (7) must apply to all persons defined in subsection (1).
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(13) In this section—
“EEA EFTA separation agreement” means (as modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it) the Agreement on arrangements between Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the EEA Agreement and other agreements applicable between the United Kingdom and the EEA EFTA States by virtue of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union;
“residence scheme immigration rules” has the meaning defined in section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020;
“Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” means (as modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it) the Agreement signed at Bern on 25 February 2019 between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Swiss Confederation on citizens’ rights following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from— (a) the European Union, and (b) the free movement of persons agreement;
“withdrawal agreement” means the agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU (as that agreement is modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it).’
This new clause will ensure that all EU citizens have settled status (whether they’ve applied or not) and to require the Government to make available physical proof of settled status.
Amendment 34, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “, or in connection with,”
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 36, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that EEA and Swiss nationals, and adult dependants of EEA and Swiss nationals, who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
Amendment 32, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
‘(11) Subject to subsection (13), regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for ensuring that all qualifying persons have within the United Kingdom the rights set out in Title II of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and implementing the following provisions—
(a) Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (Issuance of residence documents);
(b) Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (Issuance of residence documents); and
(c) Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (Issuance of residence documents).
(12) In this section, “qualifying persons” means—
(a) those persons falling within the scope of the agreements referred to; and
(b) those eligible under the residence scheme immigration rules, as defined by section 17(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
(13) Notwithstanding subsection (11), regulations must confer a right of permanent, rather than temporary, residence on all qualifying persons residing in the UK prior to such date as the Secretary of State deems appropriate, being no earlier than 23rd June 2016.’
This amendment would mean that EEA and Swiss citizens residing in the UK would automatically have rights under Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (and equivalent provisions in the EEA EFTA and Swiss citizens rights agreements) rather than having to apply for them, and ensure that for the overwhelming majority, that status is permanent.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
‘(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for admission of EEA nationals as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons.
(12) Regulations made under subsection (1) may require that the EEA nationals entering as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons can be “maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds” but in deciding whether that test is met, account must be taken of the prospective earnings of the EEA nationals seeking entry, as well as an third party support that may be available.
(13) Regulations made under subsection (1) must not include any test of financial circumstances beyond that set out in subsection (12).’
This amendment would ensure that UK nationals and settled persons can be joined in future by EU spouses and partners and children without application of the financial thresholds and criteria that apply to non-EEA spouses, partners and children.
Amendment 38, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
‘(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision enabling UK citizens falling within the personal scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement or the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement to return to the UK accompanied by, or to be joined in the UK by, close family members.
(12) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as at the date of this Act coming into force.
(13) References in subsection (11) to the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
(14) For the purposes of subsection (11), “close family members” means
(a) children (including adopted children); and
(b) other close family members where that relationship subsisted on or before 31st January 2020 and has continued to subsist.’
This amendment ensures that UK citizens who have been living abroad in the EEA and formed families before the UK left the EU, can return to the UK with those families under the rules that were in force before the UK left the EU.
Government amendments 1 to 4.
Amendment 35, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1A) Section 1 and Schedule 1 of this Act do not extend to Scotland.’
Amendment 39, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section 4 and section 7(5) expire on the day after the day specified as the deadline under section 7(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’
Government amendments 5 to 31.
There is a great deal of interest in this debate. I propose to start with a limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I know that those on the Front Benches are aware of the pressure on time.
Brendan O’Hara
New clause 1 stands in my name and in the names of the hon. Members listed on the Order Paper. It seeks an independent evaluation of the impact of the effect of this Bill specifically on the health and social care sector. The reason behind it is that the faith that this Government clearly have in their new points-based immigration scheme simply is not shared by tens of thousands of those working in the health and social care sector and millions of their service users.
As of this afternoon, no fewer than 50 organisations have given their backing to this new clause. Those organisations come from every part of the United Kingdom. They include: the Bevan Foundation; the Church of Scotland; Unison; the MS Society; the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations; the Centre for Independent Living in Northern Ireland; Disability Wales; the National Carers Organisation; Macmillan Cancer Support; the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; social workers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Voluntary Organisations’ Network North-East; and the Alliance for Camphill to name just a few.
By supporting new clause 1, all we are asking is that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, having consulted the relevant Ministers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as service providers and those requiring health and social care services, appoints an independent evaluator to assess the impact that this Bill will have on the sector and for Parliament then to debate and vote on that assessment. By accepting new clause 1, the Government would be saying to the sector, “We hear what you are saying. We recognise your fears and concerns, but we are confident that this new proposal will not adversely affect those caring for the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.” The Government would then be saying that they are happy to have that independent evaluation of these changes once it has been implemented.
The reason that this new clause has received such widespread support in the sector is that they, as the people who work on the frontline, simply cannot see how this Bill will help to deliver a better service to the millions of people throughout the UK who rely on it every day of their lives. One can understand their concerns, given that the sector is already struggling to recruit and retain the workforce that it needs right now to look after an ageing population, and a population with increasingly complex care needs.
At the end of September 2019, NHS England reported 120,000 unfilled posts. That is an increase of 22,000 on the previous year and it is a pattern that is being repeated across the United Kingdom. It is a bad situation, and it is one that is getting worse. There is genuine concern in the sector that the Government do not know what to do about it, and it is a concern that is only heightened by what is contained in the Bill.
In and of itself, filling those existing vacancies will be a major long-term challenge, but it becomes even more so if the Government are genuine about fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge to give every older person the dignity and the security that they deserve. To do that, they would not only need to fill the 120,000 vacancies that exist now, but would have to vastly increase the number of people recruited into the sector over a long and sustained period of time. The Nuffield Trust has said that providing just one hour of care to an elderly person with high needs who currently does not receive help would require 50,000 additional home care workers, rising to 90,000 if two hours’ care were to be provided. We must add to that the fact that one in four of the current health and social care workforce is aged 55 or over and therefore due to retire at some point in the next decade, resulting in a further 320,000 vacancies. I can understand why people are very worried. I cannot see how this Bill facilitates finding that army of workers, but, more importantly, no one I have spoken to in the health and social care sector sees how it can. In fact, there is a commonly held belief that the Bill will make recruitment of staff far more difficult and the delivery of what the UK Government claim they want well-nigh impossible.
I have said it before and I make no apology for repeating it: I believe that freedom of movement has been extremely good for this country and I bitterly regret seeing it go. It has been economically, socially and culturally beneficial for the UK. But if the Government are determined to abandon it, then the least they can do is to make sure that the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable are not disproportionately affected by it. I do not believe they have done that. I do not believe for a minute that they have considered the impact that this Bill will have on the health and social care sector—but I am prepared to be proven wrong. By accepting new clause 1, the Government will give the health and social care sector the confidence that this Government do know what they are doing, that they have carefully considered what the ending of freedom of movement will mean, and that they have a plan in place to protect the sector—and, more importantly, to protect those who rely on it.
Surely if the Government are really as confident about the efficacy of this new immigration Bill and the points-based system as they claim, they have nothing to fear from a comprehensive, independent evaluation that is there purely to assess the impact on the sector across the four nations of the UK. Indeed, it would be the prudent and responsible thing for the Government to do in order to ensure that any changes to the immigration system do not, however inadvertently, adversely affect the care needs of our most vulnerable.
This independent evaluation would not only ensure that no harm has been done to service users, but give any future Government a head start when planning and making decisions in the sector, particularly around recruitment of staff and investment. Surely the Minister can accept that such a far-reaching change as this should not happen on a wing and a prayer without a proper bespoke impact assessment on the sector—which there has not been—or at least an appropriate mechanism by which this House and Parliaments across the UK are able to accurately measure the effectiveness or otherwise of such a radical change.
By accepting new clause 1, the Government would ensure that these issues were being tackled from a foundation of accurate and independent research, allowing national Governments, local authorities, health and social care sectors, third-sector organisations and other key agencies to make strategic planning decisions while being fully informed by robust and independent evidence, thus securing the long-term future of the sector.
As probably never before, the people across the nations of the United Kingdom have come to appreciate the outstanding contribution made by those who work in our health and social care services. I doubt there is a family anywhere in the UK who has not benefited from their help in the past few months. But along with our sincere thanks and gratitude, we owe them an assurance that we will do everything we can to support them and the sector, and that must include providing them with the assurance that no decision taken in this place will undermine or adversely affect them. I hope the Minister will see that the Government have nothing to lose, but rather lots to gain, from agreeing to such an independent evaluation of the impact of this Bill on the health and social care sector, and I implore him to accept new clause 1.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
First, I declare my interests in the register. Secondly, it is getting rather difficult to talk to so many amendments in the space of six minutes. Perhaps I should have applied for a ten-minute rule Bill beforehand and got all my points in through that. I want to talk primarily to my new clauses 2 and 29. I certainly put on record my support for new clauses 7 to 10 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
A ten-minute rule Bill would have been good. In respect of new clause 29, which my hon. Friend is also speaking to, the Government will say that the matter is subject to negotiation, and that acting now would pre-empt and tread on that. I always listen with great respect to what he says, and I take a lead from him in many regards. Why is that not the pertinent point?
Tim Loughton
I have not actually come on to new clause 29 yet, and other people will speak to that point, but the problem is that the Government position has been weakened. They produced a negotiation document, which now has a discretionary scheme, rather than the mandatory scheme. The EU will be even less likely to want to agree to that, and it is absolutely essential that we have a scheme in place, otherwise on 1 January next year there will be no safe and legal route for the several hundreds of children who have been coming to this country safely to avail themselves of. That is the problem.
New clause 2 would ensure that all looked-after children and care leavers were identified and given status so that they do not become undocumented. Issuing settled status now would prevent another cliff edge in the future. These young people would have to re-apply for settled status in five years’ time, perhaps without the help of the local authority. The evidential burden would be lowered for local authorities applying and for Home Office caseworkers, saving time with the complex application process. The amendment to the process for identification and granting status is time-limited. As set out in the new clause, it would be effective for five years after the settlement scheme deadline, until 30 June 2026.
These are really vulnerable children. We do a great job of looking after them in this country, from which we can take great pride. For goodness’ sake, let us continue being able to do that job and keep them here legally without allowing them to become at risk. This is not about bringing lots of new children into the country—they are already here. We just want to make sure they have representation, recognition and the documentation to ensure that when they grow into adults and apply for a job, it is not all of a sudden found that actually they have no right to be here and they face deportation.
New clause 29—what a sense of déjà vu—was raised many times during the Brexit Bills. We were convinced by Ministers that that was not the appropriate place for it. I accepted that. We were told that it would be in the immigration Bill instead. It is not in the immigration Bill. We have been told that it is going to be down to the negotiations instead. Time is running out; the Dublin III scheme ends in exactly six months’ time, and there is no replacement for it yet.
As I said, the Government published their negotiation document. The most fundamental problem with the scheme that is now being negotiated—it is not guaranteed —is that the text removes all mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate family reunions and would make a child’s right to join their relatives entirely discretionary. The text intentionally avoids providing rights to children, contains no appeal process and attempts to be beyond the reach of the United Kingdom courts. Other categories of vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children, would lose access to family reunion entirely, and a series of other key safeguards have been removed, including strict deadlines for responses and responsibility for gathering information being on the state rather than the child.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Farron
I am at the far end of the Chamber, but I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman; I am very close to him when it comes to the point he is making. Obviously, this is a very regrettable state of affairs. Does he agree that it would be right for the Minister, at the Dispatch Box today, to commit the United Kingdom to signing up to the equivalent of Dublin so that children who are here unaccompanied can have their family come and join them, and children from outside this country who are unaccompanied can come and join family members here? That is the right and decent thing to do, and it would be continuing our obligations to those people.
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.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend is saying. Not only is his point correct, but I have found out, as a result of tabling a question to the Home Secretary, that over the past five years the taxpayer has had to pay out in excess of £20 million to people who were unlawfully detained. Is he aware of that?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I will return in a moment because it impinges on another claim made by the Home Office that is plainly not true.
We have established what these people are not—they are not all foreign national offenders—but we should understand what they are. I do not have time in the six minutes available to me to go through all of them, but I have in front of me case after case of people who have suffered human trafficking, torture, rape, forced prostitution and modern slavery—mostly before they got to these shores, but in some cases after they arrived here too. Many are damaged people to whom the world has dealt a very, very rough hand. And what do we do when they come here for our help? We lock them up for an indefinite period.
Tim Farron
The right hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I fully agree with everything that he has said so far. Is he aware of the detailed research by the Jesuit Refugee Service that looks into the psychological condition of the very people he is talking about? The research finds that that psychological condition is influenced by even the shortest of stays in indefinite detention and discusses what that means for those people and their families for the rest of their lives. I am sure that he understands that the Government need to consider the mental health and psychological impact of this kind of inhumane treatment.
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman is right: any stay is damaging. If someone was psychologically damaged before they arrived, it is even more damaging. If they do not know how long they will be detained, it is even more damaging again. He may remember that we had huge battles in this House over 90 days’ detention without charge, with the great defeat of Blair. We are now talking about detention of three months, four months, five months and three years.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely compelling case, and I am proud to have signed his new clauses. Will he take this opportunity to put on record a view that I think he shares with me—that people who are serious offenders should be promptly deported, not living in the UK at taxpayer expense?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend pre-empts the point that I am about to come to. A few are villains, and I would be the first to concede that, along with him. Predictably, as the Home Office always does when it has a weak case, it trotted out the gory details this morning—it listed 29 rapists, 52 violent offenders, 27 child sex offenders and 43 other sex offenders—designed, no doubt, to make our blood curdle.
That brings me to the other point of these new clauses. My question to the Minister, which I hope he will answer when he winds up the debate, is: when precisely did the Government start deportation proceedings on all those serious cases? Did they start the day that those people went into prison or sufficiently far in advance that those serious villains could go straight from prison to plane, with no stop at the detention centre? No, they did not, I am sure, but I would like to hear whether the Minister thinks they did the right thing on that.
The fact is that, to borrow a phrase from a former Home Secretary, the Home Office is not fit for purpose in managing deportations. Part of the point of these new clauses is to force the Home Office to get its act together, deal with the villains and stop punishing the innocent. That is why there is a six-month delay built into the new clauses—to give it time to get a grip.
I have one simple thing to say to the House. I have long been proud of our British justice system, but I am ashamed of what our incompetent deportation system does to people who arrived on our shores already badly damaged by human trafficking and modern slavery. It is time we put it right with new clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am in the unusual position of agreeing with pretty much everything that has been said by all four speakers so far, which I do not get to say very often, particularly in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara).
We in the SNP believe that this is a bad Bill—bad for families and bad for businesses—that sells EU nationals short and extends the scope of the hostile environment. Meanwhile, we have seen the Home Office move from disinterest in specific solutions for devolved nations to disdain bordering sometimes on contempt. It has been made clear during the passage of the Bill that there is to be no remote areas pilot scheme, despite that being a recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee and an earlier Home Office commitment. Our amendments give Parliament a last chance to remedy these defects, and we will support other amendments that seek to find a silver lining to this Bill, such as amendments on putting a time limit on immigration detention, protecting care leavers, and protecting family reunion rights.
Turning first to the issue of family, sadly, this Bill will destroy more families by extending the scope of some of the most anti-family migration rules on earth. The degree of complacency that there is in Parliament about the damage these rules do to families and children surprises me. Five years ago, just three years after the rules were introduced, England’s Children’s Commissioner estimated there were nearly 15,000 Skype families in the UK—kids separated from a parent overseas because of these ludicrous financial thresholds. These rules do not even take into account the prospective income of the persons applying to come into the country. The commissioner said at the time:
“Many of the children interviewed for this research suffer from stress and anxiety, affecting their well-being and development. It is also likely to have an impact on their educational attainment and outcomes because they have been separated from a parent, due to these inflexible rules which take little account of regional income levels or family support available.”
Amendment 33 puts a brake on extension of these rules and, as the commissioner recommended, starts putting the heart back into the policy.
A second group of families that are being put in an impossible position by this Bill are those formed by UK citizens living across the EEA who may in future want to come back here with their family. These are UK nationals who would have had no reason to doubt that if they had a family while abroad, they would have derived rights to return here with their family members to the UK without having to jump the impossible hurdles of the UK’s domestic family migration rules; they could not have predicted Brexit, and applying the UK family rules to them, denying many a right to return here with their family, would seem incredibly unfair.
To be fair to the Minister, he has acknowledged that there is an issue here and has provided a grace period until 2022, during which such families can return, but this is essentially just kicking the can a little bit further down the road. It still leaves many with horrible decisions to make: do they uproot their families now, just in case they do not qualify to return later on? None of these families could have predicted that they would be in this position, so why not remove the cut-off point altogether, as amendment 38 seeks to ensure?
Finally on the issue of family, we are 100% behind the cross-party amendment on family reunion. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will say much more about that shortly, and we fully support what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has already said, but it is plain to see that, despite talking a good game, the Government’s proposals mean they are backsliding on earlier commitments made to the House; they mean fewer safe legal routes for children to get to family here, and that means more children risking dangerous, unsafe routes. The Government’s stance is a boon for traffickers and people smugglers and a disaster for children and families, and that is why we must support new clause 29.
This Bill is not just anti-family; it is anti-business. I have spoken enough at previous stages about the huge problems that salary and skills thresholds will cause when the new system is brought into force, but today I want to focus briefly on the problems that the Bill will cause even if a job qualifies for a visa under the tier 2 system. Our system will make it unbelievably difficult and expensive to bring workers in, and will make this country an eye-wateringly unattractive place for people to come to. Figures from the international immigration law firm Fragomen show that under the future immigration system a tier 2 worker who enters the UK to work for five years with a partner and three kids could potentially involve a total payment to the Home Office of £27,000 upfront from October, once costs such as sponsorship licence fees and the immigration health surcharge are included. That is over 12 times as much as the equivalent for Canada and over 17 times as much as Germany, and it is similarly uncompetitive for other family arrangements.
Of course, skilled workers from the EEA are able to work in any other EEA country without paying a penny and with no need for the stress and uncertainty of a visa application. So if there is a skilled and sought-after French worker, that person can go to Dublin without paying a penny, no questions asked, but to get to Belfast they will need to pay many thousands of pounds and endure a Home Office visa process. It is a perfect incentive for skilled workers to go elsewhere, and it is a perfect incentive for key employers to move their businesses elsewhere. That is why we have tabled new clause 17, so that the Government have to be upfront and open with Parliament about the costs they are imposing on businesses and unskilled workers.
It is also why we have introduced new clause 16, a first step to removing the ridiculous immigration health surcharge, which makes up most of these humungous fees—a nonsensical double poll tax on workers, which is set to increase to £624 per person per year, all of which needs to be paid upfront.
So this Bill risks making it very hard to attract European workers to come to the UK in future, but what of the EU workers who are already here and other EU nationals? Amendment 32 would ensure that all EU citizens who are already here have automatic rights to remain and physical proof of their status. We support new clause 2, which would put in place that same right for looked-after children. Assuming, with regret, that the Government are not about to do that, they need to tell us much more about how they will respond when we wake up on 1 July next year to find an extra few hundred thousand undocumented EU migrants, without rights and potentially subject to removal. What will the Home Office do when a 70-year-old French woman writes to say: “I had permanent residence under the old scheme. I didn’t think I needed to apply, but now the DVLA have refused my driving licence and they say I’m here illegally.” What is the Home Office going to do in such circumstances?
The Government say that they will be “reasonable”, but what exactly does that mean? In Committee, the Minister helpfully explained that he will publish guidance for caseworkers with a non-exhaustive list of examples in which late applications will be allowed. That would be welcome and useful, but the key point is that I want to see it—and I want to see it before we close the EU settlement scheme to applications. Parliament should know precisely how late applications are to be treated before it allows the scheme to close. That is what new clause 34 would ensure.
Two other new clauses seek to push the Government towards fairer treatment of EEA nationals. New clause 36 flags up a new problem relating to EEA nationals who seek to become UK citizens. In fairness to previous Home Office Ministers, when the settlement scheme was established, the Home Office did not insist, as it could have done, on proof of comprehensive sickness insurance in deciding who had been legitimately exercising free movement rights. For some reason known only to itself, the Home Office has now decided to insist on that when it comes to applications for citizenship. That seems an awful miserly approach to take, and I urge the Minister to revisit it.
New clause 21 flags up the issue of those EEA nationals who have a right in law to register as British citizens, and I am grateful for the cross-party support for the clause. We are talking not about adults who have made a proactive choice to come here but about children and young people who were born here or who have been here since they were young, whose parents have subsequently settled or who have lived the first 10 years of their life here. In short, they are children and young people who had no choice over the fact that this is their home country. In law they have just as much right to British citizenship as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or me; the only difference is that they have to register. When Parliament passed the relevant careful laws, the fee for the process was set simply at the cost of processing, but it has now rocketed to over £1,000—just to access British citizenship. That is profiteering on the backs of children and it has to stop.
Finally, I turn to the issue of the devolved nations. The end of free movement will have drastic implications for Scotland, and if anything the challenges for Northern Ireland will be even more extreme. Home Office disinterest in any notion of a differentiated system has transformed into hostility. New clause 33, which has cross-party support, simply makes the modest proposal that, instead of its usual dismissive attitude, the Home Office looks seriously at the options for addressing issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the Government refusing to look at any regional variation, some in Scotland had at least taken comfort from the MAC recommendation of a remote areas pilot scheme to encourage migration to areas that have a very small labour market. Originally, the Home Office accepted that recommendation, yet in Committee the Government said it had been abandoned. New clause 24 would restore that provision, and I certainly hope that MPs from all parties who represent constituencies with remote areas will insist that the Home Office thinks again.
It is clearer than ever that the only way we will have an immigration system that remotely reflects our needs and circumstances and fixes the injustices that it contains is if we design one ourselves but, given the Home Office intransigence, I have no problem making the case that control over migration will be a key advantage of independence.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
There is no doubt that the Bill represents an important milestone in both the restructuring of the UK outside the European Union and the fulfilment of the promise that we made to, and that was endorsed by, the British people at the 2019 general election to end free movement. As an overarching policy, it is one that I endorse but, as with any wholesale reform to a national system—in this case immigration—there will be people caught up in the shifting sands created around them who, because of their own personal circumstances, will need specific understanding, attention and support to prevent them from being pushed to the very edges of society. Those people include, as we have heard, children in care and care leavers entitled to ongoing support. To that end, as a former Children’s Minister, I instinctively have sympathy for new clause 2, which proposes the provision of automatic settled status for all children in care and care leavers. In the short time available to me, I shall confine my remarks to new clause 2.
As we transition to a new legal framework for our immigration system, it is only right that, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said previously, we help to ensure that no one is left behind. As I understand it, new clause 2 is an attempt to put that principle into practice for children in care and care leavers, rather than leave it to chance.
Tim Loughton
As my hon. Friend and I have both done the same job, I think we appreciate the real problems that social workers and local authorities are having in identifying these children. Does he agree with me that part of the problem is that the Department for Education does not routinely collect data on the nationality of the children it looks after in the first place? Is it not essential that that is the very minimum that needs to happen if we are to identify all of those children who would be covered by this scheme?
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is right. When one is trying to understand the consequences of the actions one takes as a Minister—as we heard in the statement earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—the enrichment of data can help us appreciate whether we are making good progress. In the independent school exclusions review that I carried out for the Government last year, a lot of my recommendations were about getting better data about the children in our systems, why they are there and how we can better track them, so that we know we are making good decisions on their behalf. I agree that that information would be relevant to the considerations under new clause 2.
It is important that we get this right. The corporate parenting principles that we legislated for in 2017 are designed for circumstances just like these. Please can we make sure that we live up to them?
Yvette Cooper
I support the points made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and new clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), because we have a responsibility to ensure that children in care do not miss out on the European settlement scheme through no fault of their own, and that we do not end up with another Windrush generation because nobody was looking out for those young people and they missed out on their rights—just never got the right papers.
I will speak to new clauses 29, 30 and 32, as well as other new clauses that I support. New clause 29 seeks only to continue the UK’s current commitments to help child refugees. I welcome the work the Government have done to support Syrian families, to speed up the Dublin scheme and to support the Dubs scheme, as well as the recent flight from Greece. All of that work resulted from cross-party debates in this House that the Government rightly responded to. We should not turn the clock back now or rip up that progress.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have talked about their
“proud record on supporting the most vulnerable children”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 318.]
Does she accept that there can be no children more vulnerable than those she is talking about, and that the Government simply must maintain this commitment?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We are talking about children and teenagers who are alone, with no one to care for them, but who have family here who could look after them.
The Government have said that we should instead rely on the draft text they have put forward in the transition negotiations. However, the Minister knows that the draft text represents a major downgrade in support and rights for lone child and teen refugees. All it does is allow EU member states to request the transfer of an asylum claim. There is no obligation on the UK even to consider it, never mind accept it. There are no objective criteria on which an application could be based, no appeal rights and no safeguarding timetables to make sure that a case does not drift endlessly, leaving a child in danger and in limbo, and the child with no family will no longer have legal rights.
Let us consider the case of a 14-year-old stuck in the awful Moria camp on Lesbos, whose older sister or aunt is living here and could care for them. If the Home Office loses, ignores or refuses the Greek request for a transfer to the UK to join family, there will be nothing the child, the family or anyone else can do. That is wrong.
The Government do not need to wait for the negotiations to be completed. We should just decide what we think is right. We have the ability to do that. Whatever other countries decide, we in Britain should continue our support for child and teen refugees who are alone and need support. Any Member of this House who has visited the camps in Greece or northern France will know how desperate, unsanitary and dangerous the conditions can be. No child should be abandoned alone in a dilapidated refugee camp or shelter when they have close relatives here who would welcome them with open arms, care for them, get them back into education and reclaim a future for them.
Some child and teen refugees have fled war or escaped being child soldiers. Many have been abused, sexually exploited or assaulted, and many have lost family members along the way. Without safe legal routes to sanctuary, they will be easy prey to trafficking and smuggler gangs, and we know quite how perilous that can be. Desperate young people have already lost their lives; we should not turn our backs on them now. We need to sustain those safe and legal routes. That is why I urge the Minister to support new clause 29.
New clause 30 is intended to ensure that the new immigration system helps rather than harms our economy and public services by calling for a proper assessment of its impact on social care, similar to that in new clause 1, which I support. The Migration Advisory Committee said in its report that these changes will “increase pressure on social care”, yet so far there has been no plan from the Government on how they are going to address that. Social care and those workers are far too important to be ignored. That is why, as well as supporting new clauses 13 to 15—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the Front Bench—about supporting the contribution made by many of those workers during the covid crisis, I also urge the Minister to accept the spirit behind one of the other clauses that we tabled which is not in scope today, but which urges the Government to extend the free visa extension to social care workers, as well as to the NHS, doctors and medics. Supporting doctors and nurses is right, but excluding the care workers who hold dying residents’ hands, the cleaners who scrub the door handles and the floors of the covid wards, or the porters who take patients to intensive care is just wrong. We should be supporting them as well.
I will also speak to new clause 32, which is about trying to make sure the system operates fairly, because by default, the Bill extends the hostile environment, even though the Windrush scandal has shown the damage that some of those measures can do. The housing provisions do not benefit the immigration system, but they do lead to discrimination for legal residents and British citizens, including discrimination based on the colour of their skin. That is why the Home Affairs Committee recommended a full review of the hostile environment and why Wendy Williams’ report has called for the same. Extending those hostile environment measures now, rather than accepting the recommendation of Wendy Williams’ report, is the wrong thing to do.
I also support new clauses 7 and 8 in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Again, those reflect recommendations of the cross-party Home Affairs Committee, because we have found that by not having a limit on detention and not having proper reviews and safeguards, too often, the system just drifts. Too often, people are just left in limbo because there are not proper safeguards to make sure things happen in time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Yvette Cooper
I will not—I am conscious of time. The Government have a responsibility through this Bill to ensure that they build a system that can build consensus and cross-party support; that supports our economy and public services and does not undermine that; that recognises and rewards the huge contribution that people have made to this country, including and especially during the covid-19 crisis; that is fair and respects people; and that continues to support those who are most vulnerable, and particularly children and child refugees. The amendments that I and others have put forward are in that spirit of building a system that can provide consensus across the country. I urge the Minister to accept them.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Having served on the Public Bill Committee and knowing how much my constituents across Bishop Auckland care about this important Bill, it is my pleasure to speak in support of it in this debate.
We must never lose sight of why we are having this debate and why it is so important: this Bill symbolises the trust that voters put in our nation to decide our own immigration rules and, in turn, the trust that they put in this place to get those rules right. The Bill marks the start of a journey that will provide the framework to allow doctors, scientists and engineers to come to this country, contribute and make it their home, whether they are from Austria or Australia, Italy or India. There are some who mourn the end of free movement and indeed some—mainly on the Opposition side of the House—who would keep it indefinitely, but rather than seeing the changes to free movement as the end of a chapter of our migration story, we should view this as the start of the story in which Britain opens its arms to the rest of the world.
Turning to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—he is no longer in his place, but I have great respect for him and he has long been a proud champion of liberty—it is important that we look in detail at immigration detention and remember the reason why it is used. In moving into this new immigration system, we must remain robust and firm. We must have a level and fair immigration system, but one where those who fall foul and offend are dealt with and face sufficiently serious consequences.
Let us be clear: immigration detention is only ever used as a last resort. It is only used as an immediate precursor to removal from the country or where there is a serious risk of someone absconding or causing harm to the public. As with any system, there will be those who slip between the nets, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that these people are being fully considered in this legislation. However, looking at the current immigration detention figures, we see that 97% of people currently in detention are foreign national offenders, who have committed some of the most serious, heinous, disgraceful crimes—crimes such as murder, rape and child abuse.
By implementing an arbitrary time limit on immigration detention, we could make it much more difficult for those offenders to be removed from our country. That is not good enough and it is not something my constituents in Bishop Auckland would accept.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am enjoying listening to a number of the arguments I have heard being put forward. On this issue of foreign offenders, is not the right answer to deal with their immigration status while they are in prison serving their term, rather than throwing them into a detention system because we have not worked out how to do that in the first place?
Dehenna Davison
One could certainly argue that; I would argue the opposite, but I thank my hon. Friend for his point. Let me give a tangible example. Had a 28-day limit been in place in December, it would have resulted in the immediate release of some foreign nationals who were awaiting deportation, including 29 rapists, 27 child sex offenders and 52 violent offenders, including a number of murderers, and more.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Lady is doing a good job of regurgitating what the Government put out this morning—
Stuart C. McDonald
Well, it is, almost literally. All of these points can be rebutted. This series of amendments provides for a six-month process in which the Government could transition, so it is not an overnight thing. There would be six months for the Government to deal with foreign national offenders and to have them removed.
Dehenna Davison
The point I make is that these are some of the most serious offenders, and, as I said, my constituents would not accept something along those lines. Furthermore, when we look at statistics on current detention times, we see that for the majority those are very short, with 74% detained for less than 29 days. For those held for substantial time periods, there must be a compelling reason, such as public safety. For example, we have the example of a man who gang-raped a 16-year-old, has a history of absconding and has delayed his own removal with five unsuccessful judicial reviews. Lawful immigration detention is needed to keep the public safe, so I cannot support these amendments. My constituents want a fair immigration system but they also rightly expect that system to keep them safe.
Turning to new clause 2—
Dehenna Davison
I will not give way any further.
I praise my hon. Friends for their commitment to protecting children in care, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has long been a champion for children. Vulnerable children should always be in our minds when we make policy, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) on ensuring that nobody is left behind. However, I know that the Minister shares my concern that this proposal may inadvertently create a two-tier system. So rather than legislating in this manner, we should be strongly doing all we can to encourage local authorities to identify those vulnerable children and make sure that their EU settlement scheme applications are processed so that they have full and proper proof of their status and access to the documents for the rest of their lives, because we must never allow another situation such as Windrush to happen again.
On new clause 29, we have a proud history in this country of providing safe refuge, whether to the Kindertransport children or to Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin. These are human stories and they should always be in our minds when we look at our policies today. The UK’s resettlement schemes have offered a safe route to the most vulnerable and given them a safe home on our shores. Unaccompanied children who are seeking international protection in an EU member state and have specified that family members are here in the UK should continue to be reunited with them, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has stressed the importance of that. The Government have approached the EU to offer a future reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, and we know that a legal text was published in May to contribute to those negotiations. Getting a reciprocal arrangement is in the best interests of those vulnerable children and those families. We must not act unilaterally, as this amendment would have us do, as that would have a negative impact on the number of children who receive our help. Instead, we must work with the EU to form a joint agreement, and we in Parliament must allow time for these negotiations to play out, without binding the hands of our negotiators. We have seen what happens when Parliament tries to do that in past negotiations and we do not want to see a repeat of that.
This is an important Bill. It delivers on the referendum result and helps those of us on the Government Benches in particular, to repay the trust that the British people put in us in December. I vowed in December that I would do my utmost to represent the views of my constituents, whether in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Barnard Castle or Spennymore, and that means backing this Bill and supporting a fair, robust immigration system that opens our arms to people across the world who have the talents and skills that our country needs to prosper.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
This Bill defines the type of country that Britain will be for decades to come and, more importantly, it reflects the type of country we want to be. My constituents and I care deeply about fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with a regime that puts the United Kingdom first.
I wish to make it clear that the Bill has the support of my constituents. Rother Valley demanded an end to free movement: the Bill ends free movement. Rother Valley urged the Government to introduce a fairer points-based system for immigrants: the Bill does that. Rother Valley called for a transition to a high-wage, high-skill and high-productive economy: the Bill delivers that change while protecting our businesses and essential public services. We voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in Rother Valley. For too long, our voices were ignored on issues such as immigration. We watched our area decline from chronic underinvestment, which caused business closures, soaring unemployment and a lack of skills, training and education.
Meanwhile, Britain experienced an unlimited and uncontrolled influx of cheap labour from Europe. Thanks to the tyranny of the European Union, there was nothing we could do to manage our borders. A fundamental aspect of sovereignty was stripped from us and left us without a voice, but we have now found our voice. We took back control in 2016 and we are taking back control today with this very Bill, unamended.
In the wake of the coronavirus, we shall have a new immigration system in place that attracts the best and brightest from around the world, no matter where they come from—from Europe and beyond.
Christine Jardine
How would the hon. Gentleman react to the news that I had from my constituency that a professional couple who have lived here for 40 years—they were both born in France—and whose children were born here, who have contributed and brought skills to this country, are now thinking about leaving because of this sort of hostile environment that has been created by the Bill? Surely that goes against everything he has just said.
Alexander Stafford
I question whether the hon. Lady’s constituents are leaving because of this Bill, but I welcome everyone wherever they came from. In fact, my grandparents came to this country, and so I do not think the Bill is scaring anyone away. To say so once again underlines why the Bill is so important and the fact that those on the Opposition Benches do not get this country.
Crucially, this Government are ensuring that there will no longer be an automatic route for low-skilled foreign workers into the UK. We shall take immigrants as and when our economy needs them, but on our terms and not forced on us by bureaucrats in Brussels or by the real power brokers in Berlin.
Alexander Stafford
I have given way already, so I am not going to do so again. I will make some progress first.
We in Rother Valley are strong supporters of law and order. For that reason, I wish to address lawful immigration detention and highlight why it is necessary to keep the public safe. It has been suggested by some that we should impose a 28-day limit on immigration detention. I strongly reject that assertion, but I understand why hon. Members may suggest it. I also wish to remind the House that anyone wishing to leave immigration detention can do so at any time simply by leaving the country as they are legally obliged to. Nobody is forced to be in detention.
A 28-day limit would result in an immediate release of many foreign nationals who are criminals, as some of my hon. Friends have said. We want to emphasise that rapists, murderers and paedophiles could still be in this country under that system, and I for one—and the people of Rother Valley—do not want that.
Richard Fuller
I tried once, and I will try again with another Conservative colleague on this very question. We hear people trot out the stories that the Home Office has put forward about the people who are in detention and their heinous crimes. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a job for the criminal justice system, not a job for the immigration detention system?
Alexander Stafford
I am glad for that intervention. I am not here to say whose job it is, but one thing I can say is that I do not want rapists or paedophiles over here. If they can be deported, let them be deported. Let them be detained. That is what I stand for: strong law and order.
Rather than imposing 28-day limits, we should ensure that the whole asylum and removal system works much faster and more efficiently. Currently, the legal process can take years with protracted appeals. I am pleased that the Government are considering reforms to ensure that genuine asylum claimants can claim asylum faster, that decisions are made more quickly, and that delays will be eliminated. That is the efficiency of a Conservative Government. This will benefit not only communities such as Rother Valley, but those who find themselves in the system. The changes mean that the numbers in immigration detention will drop. I am proud that this Government are taking real action on immigration after decades of mismanagement by Labour. We in Rother Valley and across South Yorkshire know more than most about the Labour party ignoring our wants and needs. We have taken note of the fact that Labour voted against ending free movement and taking back control of our borders, yet again dismissing the will of the British people. Labour voted against our immigration Bill on Second Reading and the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has declared that he would bring back freedom of movement if he were ever to become Prime Minister.
Labour cannot be trusted with control of our borders and it has proved that time and again. This Bill marks a new beginning for Rother Valley and for the United Kingdom as we exit the EU transition period and bounce back from coronavirus. We must build back better, build back greener, and build back faster. A sensible robust immigration system that works for Britain plays a central role in this strategy and guarantees a bright new future for my constituency and for our country. This Bill, unamended, does that. We promised this in 2019 and we are delivering. We are a Government who deliver. We are taking back control of our borders while those on the Opposition Benches want open borders.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is now five minutes and it is likely to be reduced further later on.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). If he is concerned about Labour’s policies and about “leaving our borders open” then heaven knows what he will make of his own Government’s policy and how they are dealing with what could potentially happen at the end of the year and with what is happening with Brexit. He should have a word with Ministers about the things that they will need to do because of the arrangements that have not been made for our borders.
Let me return now to the substantive points of this debate. It was important to hear the points of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) who have pursued the issue of the rights of child and teenage refugees in this House with diligence, and I support them in their work. I also thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the Front Bench made an excellent contribution, and I support all the points she made.
I rise to speak to new clause 37, which is, shall we say, broadly drawn and asks for a report from the Secretary of State on the impact of the new immigration system on skills and the labour market and how changes made to the immigration rules for European economic area and Swiss nationals have affected skills shortages in the labour market. If this clause were to be put in the Bill, I expect that that report would be quite a long one, because the impact of Brexit and the new immigration system on our country will be extensive. However, I just want to make a few short comments about a particular industry that is likely to be badly affected, especially as that comes on top of the very serious impacts that it has suffered from covid-19—that is the creative industries. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how important those industries are to our country. In making these points, I am proud to draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I could not be more honoured to have received the support of a great trade union, the Musicians’ Union.
The creative industries are currently in turmoil. They employ 3 million people. It is an underestimate to say that not all of those people are wealthy. I know that there are some very wealthy people in the creative industries, but the vast majority of them are not at all wealthy. They earn around the average income in this country.
Brexit is already a challenge for this industry. The creative industries face myriad issues—a panoply—from copyright to intellectual property protection and so on. As I said, covid-19, with the restrictions on their ability to do their jobs, is also having a radical impact. We must add to this Brexit and the end of the transition period coming down the line, because the ability to travel has a huge impact on creatives, whether it is touring or working in Europe more generally for those who work in the visual arts, in dance or in other areas.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd.
I rise to speak to new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), and to support the amendments in the names of the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).
Immigrants have always played an integral part in the vitality of our communities, but we have been told, of course, that covid-19 changes everything. That prompts the question: does it change how we handle immigration as much as it does our approach to health and the economy? There has been some interesting mention of the value of the high-skilled jobs that we will expect from this immigration policy, but it is worth taking a step back and considering how things have changed under covid. I understand that 70% of people believe that the crisis has shown the key role of immigrants in running our essential services—the essential services that we have been clapping on the streets for many Thursdays; I think there is another clap here on Sunday—while 64% of people say that they now value so-called low-skilled overseas workers. We are now looking at who provides our services, and how, in a different way.
Surely what we have here is a hostile, inhumane immigration environment, and that is exactly what we should be questioning. Does such an immigration policy reflect the sort of society that we hope to be after covid-19? Plaid Cymru’s proposal in new clause 11 challenges how this Bill presents a radical change in UK immigration policy without allowing a thorough debate about the details of its replacement or the implications—although, as can be seen from the nature of the amendments, there is much concern about those implications. Before we legislate, we should have a proper comprehension of the following: the impact of discriminatory “no recourse to public funds” conditions; the impact of NHS charging; the merits of removing all fees for visas and citizenship applications; and the merits of devolving powers over immigration to our nations, recognising the different needs of the different nations.
Finally—crucially, in the current context—our new clause calls on the Government to investigate the possibility of granting citizenship to all health and social care workers who have given so much during this crisis. A former Government did the right thing and granted citizenship to the Gurkhas. Health and social care immigrant workers have been fighting heroically on two fronts. They have fought on our behalf against the virus; they are now facing having to fight a hostile environment in the Government’s immigration policy. The new clause would be a means to right that wrong; it would reflect the public mood, and I beg the Government to consider adopting it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I support the Bill, which I believe will make our immigration system better, and fairer. Some hon. Members—today, and before today—have bemoaned the fact that the new points-based system will end freedom of movement. I heard the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) say so earlier this afternoon. In fact, there was no such thing as freedom of movement; the concept was an illusion, a chimera, apart from for those who were fortunate enough to live on the continent of Europe.
I benefited from the system—my wife is from Sweden, and for a while I lived and worked in Belgium—but it is a bad system, an outdated model, a discriminatory model, a system that works for Europeans but against the rest of the world. It is unfair. It discriminates against people who want to come here—people whom we want to welcome, people who help us build, run and support our country, who add value to our communities, contribute to our national debate and bring talent, expertise and drive, but who struggle to get entry purely because they are not from Europe. I am glad that we seek to replace that system today.
To those who are already here from Europe in this country, that have made it your home, that have raised families, invested, worked, lived and contributed to our society , we must repeat and repeat that they will always be welcome here.
Andrew Bowie
I remind the hon. Member that the hostile environment was created by the previous Labour Government and had no effect on anybody who was coming into this country from the continent of Europe under freedom of movement in the first place. It is incredibly good news that more than 3.5 million applications to the EU settlement scheme have already gone through, and we can be very proud of that.
Christine Jardine
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Prime Minister should honour the pledge he made during the general election that all EU citizens here had no need to worry about settled status and would have guaranteed citizenship?
Andrew Bowie
What the Prime Minister sought to do during the election was to reassure anybody who was here and had come here under freedom of movement from the continent of Europe that they would always be welcome here. All hon. Members in this place should urge anyone they know who has not applied thus far for the settled status scheme to do so immediately, because they are welcome here and contribute hugely to our national debates and national life.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On his point about encouraging people to apply for settled status, does he agree that it is absolutely wrong for senior elected SNP politicians in Scotland to be urging people not to apply for settled status?
Andrew Bowie
If that is indeed the case, it is shameful. They should be doing everything in their power, from the position of responsibility they hold, to help and support those in this country who may be unsure about their future status here. They should urge them to apply for settled status, so that they can remain, and contribute to our country as we move forward.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Scottish Government are investing a lot of time and resources in encouraging people to take part in the EU settlement scheme. We have our differences on immigration, but will he join me in encouraging the Home Office to think again about having abandoned the remote areas pilot scheme, which would be of huge benefit to lots of constituencies around Scotland—such as his, I suspect?
Andrew Bowie
I share the hon. Gentleman’s views on that issue. In fact, I will come to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme briefly in my speech—if I get that far this afternoon.
In Scotland we have a problem—as I said in my speech on 11 February in this place, we are, as a country, simply not attracting enough people to live, work or invest. The Office for National Statistics estimates that Scotland attracted only 8% of immigrants to the United Kingdom between 2016 and 2018. That is fewer than the north-west of England, Yorkshire and Humber, the west midlands, the east of England, the south-east, London or the south-west. We now have a growing population in Scotland and we need it to continue to grow, but even with freedom of movement we are not attracting enough people to make up for what will soon become a declining population, with deaths already outnumbering births. In 2019, there were 7,000 more deaths than births in Scotland and the problem is even starker in rural communities, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) was just saying.
In speaking to new clause 1 the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was right to draw attention to the effects that the changes to our immigration system will have on the health and social care sector. Although I do not support new clause 1, I urge the Government here and the Government in Edinburgh to work together to find imaginative and creative solutions to the issue, and to work with all stakeholders to see what can be done through the UK-wide immigration system to support and continue to grow the Scottish population, particularly with regard to the health and social care sector on which we rely so much.
Before I move on, it would be remiss of me not to use the opportunity of a debate on immigration to talk about seasonal agricultural workers. I know that I am at risk of sounding like a broken record, as the Minister has heard representations from Scottish Members of Parliament on this issue a few times before, but the fact remains that Scottish agriculture relies on, and therefore simply needs, seasonal labour. A farm in my constituency saw a 15% shortage of seasonal labour last year, which led to an estimated loss of over 100 tonnes of produce. Although I welcome the quadrupling of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme from 2,500 to 10,000 workers—a very welcome first step in this direction of travel—the needs of Scottish agriculture for seasonal labour are, in fact, considerably higher.
Numerous amendments and new clauses have been tabled to the Bill, and no doubt they all have a good intention behind them: Members want to create an immigration system that is fair, humane and understandable. I say in particular to my hon. and right hon. Friends who tabled new clause 29 that although the intent is good, we must allow the negotiations with the European Union time to play out. We have presented an offer to the EU on the future reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, where it is in the child’s best interests. For the UK to act unilaterally now—as the amendments seek us to do—would undermine the negotiations and make it less likely that we would secure a reciprocal arrangement, which might mean that the number of children we could help would be reduced.
We in this country are rightly proud of the steps that we have taken over the years to provide shelter to refugees fleeing war and persecution from around the world. We have been a beacon of light to the poor and oppressed of the world for generations, and we continue to be that country. We are rightly proud that so many people across the world seek to call the United Kingdom—this country—their home, and I am proud that in moving the Bill forward today we will be taking one more step towards making our immigration system fairer, non-discriminatory and fit for the 21st century.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I rise to speak against this Bill in general and for any new clause that seeks to end the hostile environment.
Ministers seem to create confusion about the contents of the Bill. If they speak in public, they claim that it will introduce a points-based immigration system, which is not true. In any event, it is doubtful whether primary legislation is needed for such a system. When Ministers speak it is clear that they have no intention of introducing a points-based system, but rather an income-based one. There will be some exemptions because Ministers have been forced to accept the fact that many nursing professionals will not meet their planned income threshold, yet at the same time Ministers seem blissfully unaware that social care workers earn nothing like the proposed salary thresholds—and nor do the cooks, cleaners, security guards, porters and many others who have seen us through this pandemic.
Many of these people were on subsistence wages even before years of real-term cuts by the Conservative-led Government from 2010 onwards. There have been huge shortages of all these workers. Ministerial plans—if not this Bill—will only make those staff shortages much worse in care homes, in the NHS and in many other sectors of the economy, both public and private. It is as if this entire public health crisis has passed Ministers by. A plan that will exacerbate the crisis in the NHS and social care is one of the last things that this country needs.
The Bill in its current form is a disaster, so I am pleased to support the new clauses that would impose a strict 28-day limit on immigration detention; end the immigration surcharge, which should be ended for all; reform deportation law and citizenship fees for those who are brought to the UK as young children; and ensure that our moral obligation to child refugees for family reunion remains a legal one. Such provisions would address the glaring issues of our immigration system.
There is a further issue that I want to raise. Last week, the Home Secretary astonished most of us when she said that she would implement the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review “in full”. The entire spirit and some parts of the letter of that review run completely counter to the whole thrust of this Government’s immigration policies. In essence, to right the injustices perpetrated on the Windrush victims and to prevent their reoccurrence, the Government’s hostile environment policies have to go in their entirety, full stop.
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady keeps referring to this hostile environment. Let me just quote for her. In May 2007, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), then the Labour Immigration Minister, stated in a consultation document put out by the Home Office:
“We are trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”
Will she accept that and apologise to those of us on the Government Benches, please?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I will not apologise, but I will point out that the Conservative party has been in power for 10 years. To continuously blame various different Labour leaderships makes no sense. I have said it before and I will say it again: this is the second time in a decade that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have entered this country. We saw the misery that the Immigration Act 2014 caused the Windrush generation. What does it say about us that we are bringing EU nationals under the same rules?
I turn to what is in the Bill and its real effects on workers here, whether they are from overseas or not. There is a real risk that the effect of the Bill will be to lower the rights of all migrant workers in this country and, in that way, lower rights and terms and conditions for all workers. Crucially, the right to residency will be dependent on employment status. There is no right to a family life enshrined in the Bill, and “no recourse to public funds” remains an explicit policy. The combination of those and other factors effectively creates another, lower tier of the workforce, with fewer rights and very limited means of enforcing even those.
That is dangerous enough to migrant workers, but it can also rebound on the entire workforce as unscrupulous employers play divide and rule. Our legislation on health and safety, on equal pay and on opposing discrimination is not enforced vigorously enough as it is. If a large section of the workforce can be treated as second class, the situation will get worse for everyone. Quite simply, the Bill is not fit for purpose as it stands.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I am pleased to speak on the Bill, not least because immigration is a topic that can invoke the strongest of emotions, yet it is imperative that we have an immigration system that works for us as a free and independent sovereign nation.
Immigration policy is not just a buzzword for me, nor is it an excuse to play identity politics; it is the reason I am here. I am the son of a man who came to this country from halfway across the world. He came here for a better life for his family. Indeed, to my father, having anything but a system over which we have control is, frankly, odd, and that is the reason many from south Asian communities voted to leave the European Union back in 2016.
My father’s desire to be in this country was nothing short of a desire to pursue what I often term the great British dream. I know at first hand that it is a love like no other, the love held for this country by the hopeful migrant who arrives here in pursuit of opportunities and freedom—the patriotism of the one who singles out this country as the place they want to call home; the one who comes to this country and chooses to be British.
The result in the European Union referendum in 2016 was a vote for control—for control over our laws, control over our spending and control over our borders. This was not about pulling up the drawbridge, as it is so often described by those who want to belittle the referendum result; it was a cry for a greater stake in the way our communities and our country move forward. It was a vote for migration, albeit migration on our terms: looking out to the world beyond our immediate neighbours and forging relationships with new countries and old friends. The Bill captures the true essence of that desire for an immigration system that works for us—an immigration system that allows us to be agile, and one that allows us to adapt to the economic needs of our country.
It is important to point out that the Bill enshrines the will of the British people—a will that has been expressed on a number of occasions over the past four years. Clearly, I am firmly of the view that immigration has been a success for this great nation, and the Bill acknowledges and celebrates that success by working to make sure that the system is even stronger.
We must have a system that works for Britain so that we can ensure that the best opportunities are available to everyone in this country. It is only with a thriving economy and a strong society that Britain will continue to be such a nation and such an appealing destination for those around the world who want to come here and start a new life.
Britain was built on generations of immigrants, from the post-war migrants who came here to help us rebuild after the devastation of war to the seasonal workers who come to the UK every year to contribute to our agricultural sector and support British farmers. What we can learn from this is that immigration is not a static concept; it is a dynamic one, and it must adapt to suit our domestic and economic needs. Just as other countries adopt systems that best support their needs, the UK can be no different.
The Bill paves the way for a new system that prioritises the most talented and highly skilled. Crucially, control over our own system will allow for an unwavering commitment to protect those who come into our country from the evil prey of traffickers and unethical working practices as we move away from cheap labour and unchecked movement. I know that the Bill does not provide for the details of our new points-based immigration system, but, given my background in business, I know that, to operate to its full potential, our new system will require a continuous dialogue between Government and industry. I ask the Minister to ensure that we have a reactive approach, with the needs of the national health service, business, academia, hospitality and many other sectors being listened to. Particularly in the case of business, the channels of communication must remain open, because it is only by listening to the business community that we will avoid a time lag between what business needs and what Government implement.
Contrary to the naysayers, I believe that our country is progressive and forward thinking. We need an immigration system that matches that—one that allows us to advance in research and development and further our technological innovation as we compete on the global stage, and one that emboldens us to lead the world in medicine, technology, film making, science and sport. Simply put, we must have an immigration system that attracts the best and brightest from across the world. As we venture into the world as a free, independent nation, we have to model ourselves on what we believe we can achieve.
While we are repealing freedom of movement, it is vital that we have the EU settlement scheme, to protect the rights and legal status of EU citizens who have made Britain their home. The contributions of EU migrants are extensive and undeniable, whether that is imported cuisines from the continent or the groundbreaking research we see in our universities. I welcome this legislation because I am excited by what lies ahead for our great nation. With greater control over migration, we will continue to attract the brightest and best while remaining a tolerant and welcoming society.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
We must not forget that this Bill arrives before us today in the context of the Conservatives’ hostile environment—a hostile environment conjured as a pernicious smokescreen to blame migrants for the economic damage inflicted upon working-class communities by Tory austerity, predatory capitalism and years of neglect and lack of investment.
Nadia Whittome
I will not be taking any interventions; I need to make progress.
The hostile environment, from right-to-rent checks to the immigration health surcharge, is built upon the premise that migrants should be discouraged from coming to the UK. Not satisfied with the disaster of the Windrush scandal, this Government seem determined to press ahead with this unjust, discriminatory and poorly designed piece of legislation. The Home Secretary has yet to set out the details of what will come in place of freedom of movement. This Bill does not do that. Instead, it introduces multiple Henry VIII powers, which remove much needed scrutiny from our future immigration system.
I am afraid that the benefits of a points-based immigration system are a myth. Under such a system of employer sponsorship, workers are heavily restricted in their access to public funds, which puts many at risk of destitution. They are also less likely to join their colleagues in employment struggles for better terms and conditions. Migrants have been blamed for low wages, but it is not them who drive down employment standards—it is exploitative bosses who do, and it is this Government who allow them to do that. We have to make it clear that nobody’s rights should be linked to an employer. A person’s worth is not determined by their economic value.
Instead of removing EU citizens’ rights, the Government should have focused on making up the injustices that they have inflicted on the Windrush generation and other migrant communities. The Windrush compensation scheme is clearly not working. Does the Minister have anything to say to these families waiting in limbo?
This punitive, discriminatory piece of legislation is a slap in the face to the carers, cleaners, drivers and shop assistants who have risked their lives on the frontline to keep this country running throughout the pandemic, and who Members here have applauded every week. The scale of the Government’s hypocrisy is breathtaking—clapping for carers one day and downgrading their status in law the next. This Bill would class many vital jobs as low-skilled and prevent people from getting a new work visa or extension. That would include care workers—people like my colleagues who I worked with before becoming an MP and during the pandemic. The work may be low-paid and badly undervalued by those in power, but it is not low-skilled. Will the Minister, for the avoidance of doubt, clarify whether the Home Secretary still considers care workers to be low-skilled?
A recent report, “Detained and Dehumanised”, is based on interviews with people who experienced detention in UK centres. It was done before the pandemic. The report highlights a disturbing level of despair. One person said:
“I saw people cutting themselves, someone who tried to hang himself, someone who died in detention”.
Another said:
“The most awful thing was an uncertainty: Not knowing whether I will be released and what they’re going to do to me”.
As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has said, this is a terrible, inhumane position to be in. Ultimately, nobody should be imprisoned because of where they were born, yet the UK is the only country in Europe that does not have a time limit on how long a person can be held in immigration detention. Twenty-eight days is absolutely the longest time allowed in any other context.
I urge the Government to do the right thing, even at this late hour. They should not block the many sensible amendments and new clauses. Carers, shop assistants and cleaners are risking their lives on the frontline looking after us. The least we can do for them is to use our votes today to look after them.
Richard Fuller
I am very glad that I sat in on this debate today to learn the origins of the hostile environment. We learned today that the author of the hostile environment was none other than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the Labour candidate to be Mayor of the West Midlands. That is right. He is the author of the hostile environment for immigration. We have learned that today.
The second reason I wanted to contribute today was to be able to say thank you to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for bringing forward the points-based system for immigration. Like her, I felt that the opportunity to bring forward an immigration system that did not discriminate based on the origins of where someone came from was one of the strong reasons to support Brexit in the referendum. I am pleased that she has confounded her critics by coming forward so quickly in this Parliament with a new Bill that does precisely that. She knows, and many Members here know, that many areas of the Home Office do not work well, and I am pleased she has started there. Now let us turn to some other areas.
I will turn to what I can only describe as a shameful briefing note on immigration detention put out by the Home Office earlier today. In that note, the Home Office claims that 97% of the people in immigration detention were foreign national offenders. Do they think we are stupid? Do they not think we understand that most of the people in immigration detention have been put out of the detention estate during covid-19?
The note goes on to describe in the most lurid details what may be the case about the backgrounds of individuals, forgetting all those other people who have been put through immigration detention who have perfectly legitimate cases to remain in this country and who may have been victims of communal rape or child trafficking. It is a shameful document that was put out by the Home Office today, and that is why I am very pleased to support the new clauses in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that deal with 28 days as a limit on detention.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend gets it absolutely right about the misinformation that has been dispatched this morning. Is it not the case that a six-month grace period would be the result of the new clause? Those people would not be put out on the streets from the detention centre. The problem is that 63% of those in detention centres are released back into the community because the process has failed, and that includes serious sex offenders, rapists and other serious criminals, so it is happening now and not as a result of what the new clause would achieve.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in stressing that the issue is not the people but the process: it is the process that does not work. An immigration detention estate is a manifestation of a completely failed process that fails the person coming to this country right from the start. We should not have an immigration detention estate; we should not have it at all. We only have it because of the accumulated errors of the Home Office going back well over a decade, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am afraid that this Bill fails on every conceivable measure of a humane and just immigration policy, and I am concerned that my constituents are particularly vulnerable to the predatory aspects of this legislation. Some 43% of Leicester East residents were born outside the UK, as opposed to 10% nationally, and our citizens hail from over 50 countries around the globe. This diversity is what makes our city special, yet with a two-week lockdown extension announced in my home city, this Bill fails to protect its most vulnerable citizens. To ensure that every Leicester resident can seek the medical help they need during this increase in coronavirus, it is vital for full citizenship rights to be extended to undocumented workers, those with no recourse to public funds and people with no indefinite leave to remain, yet the Bill fails to provide the necessary protections.
Under most visa categories, migrants who are legally in the UK working and paying tax cannot access publicly funded support. The Migration Observatory estimates that nearly 1.5 million people currently have no recourse to public funds, including those with children who were born in the UK. For people who already face uncommonly difficult challenges in their daily lives, this pandemic has only deepened fears over how to maintain an income, remain healthy or even stay alive. Citizens Advice has recorded a 110% increase in people seeking advice about having no recourse to public funds during the pandemic, and a recent report from the Children’s Society found that almost half of children whose parents were born abroad live in poverty. The Government must introduce an amnesty for all migrants, including residency rights, for the duration of this pandemic and end the callous policy of no recourse to public funds.
An estimated 1 million undocumented workers lack any entitlement to support from the state. Many of these people are destitute and living in the shadows, unable to access healthcare and fearful of what will happen to them if they identify themselves. In nearly all cases, undocumented people are not criminals but simply those who have fallen through the cracks of the Government’s callous hostile environment policies. For people forced to endure this level of insecurity, it is impossible to comply with Government guidance on self-isolation and social distancing. With the overwhelming rise in coronavirus cases in my constituency and with a rate of infection that is beyond acceptable, it is imperative and in the best interests of everyone in our country that the basic needs of all our residents are met, especially given the disproportionate impact of covid-19.
The tragic irony is that many undocumented people, or those with no recourse to public funds who are living in constant fear of the state, work in the frontline services that the Government have been at pains the praise during this crisis. We must ensure that all frontline workers, regardless of their immigration status, are valued and protected as we rebuild our economy and society. It is vital that we repay the extraordinary contribution of frontline workers during the pandemic with a permanent extension of migrant rights. That means an end to the hostile environment, shutting detention centres and granting indefinite leave to remain for anyone living in the UK. In Leicester, the coronavirus pandemic has caused widespread suffering for too many individuals and communities, with widespread job losses—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry but we have to move on.
Paul Blomfield
There is clearly much to comment on in this Bill, but I rise specifically to speak in support of new clause 7 and to commend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for the powerful case that he made in speaking to it. Back in 2014, I was pleased to serve as vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry into immigration detention. We included parliamentarians from both Houses and all the main parties, many with huge experience, including a former Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. There were more Government Members than Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who also spoke powerfully on this issue a few moments ago. I pay tribute to Sarah Teather, who chaired the inquiry and who now leads the Jesuit Refugee Service UK, as others have mentioned. After an eight-month inquiry, our recommendations included the limit on detention that is proposed in new clause 7. That was endorsed by the House of Commons in September 2014, so it is disappointing that we are still discussing the issue—but it is important that we are, because, contrary to some suggestions, it is not a particularly controversial proposal.
The truth is that we have become too dependent on detention, which takes place in immigration removal centres. The clue to the purpose of those centres is in the title. They are intended for short-term stays, but the Home Office has become increasingly reliant on them, under successive Governments. Home Office policy states that detention must be used sparingly, but the reality is different.
In our evidence we heard from many organisations, NGOs and so on, but, most powerfully, we heard from those in detention over a phone link. One young man from a disputed territory on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon told us that he was trafficked to Hungary as a 16-year-old, where he was beaten, raped and tortured. He managed to escape and eventually made his way to Heathrow, using a false passport, which was discovered on arrival, and he was detained. He told us that he had been in detention for three years. His detention conflicts with the stated aims of the Home Office in three respects—that those who have been trafficked should not be detained, that those who have been tortured should not be detained and that detention should be for the shortest possible period. His case is not the only one. There are more people like him than there are so-called foreign national offenders, which the Home Office briefers urged Members to refer to. Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison, because in prison you know when you are going to get out. One former detainee said:
“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”
A medical expert told us that the sense of being in limbo, of hopelessness and despair is what leads to deteriorating mental health, and that
“those who were detained for over 30 days had significantly higher mental health problems”.
It is not simply the impact on detainees that demands change. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of a time limit encourages poor case working, saying that,
“a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that they looked at were a result of inefficient case-working.”
It has become too easy for the Home Office to use administrative detention, and that is what needs to be challenged. The Home Secretary talked about the culture change in the Home Office only a few days ago, in response to the Windrush review. Removing indefinite immigration detention would make a significant contribution to achieving that culture change, because with no time limits, it has simply become too easy for people to be detained, for too long, with no meaningful way of challenging that detention.
Our report gave a number of examples of alternatives to detention, which are being used by countries often held up as hard on immigration, such as Australia. We know that the Home Office is developing pilots on community-based alternatives, including one at Yarl’s Wood, which is a year in and is running well.
Richard Fuller
As the hon. Gentleman has raised the point about Yarl’s Wood, does that not show that with experimentation on alternatives, the Government can find ways to do what they want to do, but to do it better?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right. It is not simply the case that alternatives to detention are more humane—they are more efficient, more effective and more cost-effective for the Government.
I understand that the Government are shortly to announce a second pilot, and that is to be welcomed— I would be glad to hear anything that the Minister would like to say on that—but the pilot we have already seen and the experience of other countries have already demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based alternatives. We need to move faster. The proposal to end indefinite administrative detention in new clause 7 would be more humane, less expensive and more effective in securing compliance. The time really has come for Members from both sides of the House to get behind the proposals in new clause 7.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was pleased to contribute on Second Reading of this Bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak now, notwithstanding a sore throat.
In recent weeks, people have told me that the Bill is contentious, but it should be regarded as what it is, not as what others fear it to be. For a start, it allows our country to evolve in the post-Brexit era as we wish it to evolve, and allows us to decide who comes in. For too long, we have seen uncontrolled immigration and a failure to remove those who have accepted our hospitality but sought to do us harm. We have indeed seen lower rates of deportation. Inasmuch as we should be more in control of who arrives on our shores, we should equally be more robust about who leaves. If the process takes more than 28 days, then so be it. I am not therefore convinced by new clauses 3 to 11.
For those who come to the UK and are proud to live here, the opportunities are plentiful. Contrary to what many of our political opponents might think, this is the land of milk and honey for those who are prepared to work hard. Let us look at what is on offer. We will give everyone the same opportunities wherever they come from. Our points-based system will allow us to identify the skills we require. We will protect the rights of EU citizens, and we will protect the long-held rights of Irish citizens to live and work in the UK, so I am mindful of new clause 12.
People have told me that this Bill flies in the face of what has been achieved by so many during the pandemic, particularly in the NHS. Nobody here should need any reminder of the admiration and the awe with which the British people regard these heroes. The Government have rightly agreed to extend the visas of frontline NHS workers, so I am mindful of new clause 35. They have rightly introduced a new NHS visa, offering fast-track entry to the UK for qualified overseas doctors and nurses under more generous terms. The contribution of all public sector employees, public servants and low-paid staff is the stuff of legend, and we will always be grateful.
For the avoidance of doubt, immigration is a good thing, and we have built a proud nation on the back of our history, shared values and unrivalled diaspora. I have been honoured to serve alongside so many brilliant foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, but there is a problem here, too. Although this is not directly relevant to this Bill, I urge the Minister to take note. We have recruited many to join our armed services, but the House will know that a small number have slipped through the net by not applying for indefinite leave to remain when they would otherwise have been entitled to do so. Given that some now face particular difficulties in not being British citizens, including crippling NHS bills, I believe it is now time to offer an amnesty to the entitled few who have proudly worn the uniform and borne arms but not become naturalised. Once we have done this, we should then review the crippling visa fees, which remain beyond the reach of most servicemen and women and their young families.
Let us disincentivise those who come here via illegal means, remove those who commit serious crime and place the ruthless people traffickers behind bars, but the quid pro quo is to provide those whom we willingly invite to serve in our armed forces with the security they deserve. It is time that we did the right thing for all of our Commonwealth veterans and fully recognise the sacrifices that they too have made for our great nation.
As for the future of this Bill, I expect it to become law, but inasmuch as it promises a points-based immigration system that mirrors those of other countries in the free world, we need to be careful that it does not become a blunt instrument. The legislation must therefore be flexible and agile enough to respond to the employment market at any given time, particularly in terms of the skills being offered. There will be a need for seasonal labour, and we must be able to attract all those that we need when we need them.
To conclude, as contentious as the Bill might be to some, it is what many have requested for the past four decades, and it is what the Conservative Government have promised. We must also do more to reunite children under the vulnerable children’s scheme, and we therefore need an enduring scheme to be in place by 1 January next year. I am therefore sympathetic towards new clause 29. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, the UK must take back control of its borders.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) about armed servicemen and women from the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when the next immigration Bill is introduced, because there are some egregious cases that desperately need to be looked at fairly.
We will not vote for the Bill tonight, mainly because it seems to have been written before the covid crisis. It seems to ignore the fact that we need a new approach to immigration based on solidarity, decent jobs, employment protections and quality public services for all, with all EU citizens guaranteed the right to remain in the UK. Anybody who has been watching “Sitting in Limbo” and following the fantastic work done by the journalist Amelia Gentleman on Windrush will know that it is these sorts of debates that sometimes end up creating systems that cause huge problems for hard-working families.
I wish to speak briefly to some of the amendments and new clauses. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has tabled a proposal that emphasises the need for a plan for and provision in the crucial area of social care. We are nowhere near through this pandemic and we desperately need to encourage those working day in, day out in the care sector. Those watching this, perhaps in the course of their duties today, may well feel a bit down and depressed that we are not backing them a little more with this Bill.
Secondly, I wish to talk briefly to the question of care leavers, as addressed by new clause 2. Care leavers face numerous levels of disadvantage. Anyone who has worked in a local authority context will be aware of just how many placements the average child in care goes through. Many children go from home to home, from foster carer to foster carer, into residential care and out again, and into their own flat. Throughout that journey they often lose documents and the phone numbers of their legal advisers. Changes to legal aid mean that they can no longer access legal aid. We then have a very disadvantaged and needy 17-year-old who desperately needs immigration advice when they are about to turn 18. Such are the realities of children’s lives in care. We are talking about a tiny number of individuals. It is the sort of clause that we should all be voting for so that a very small number of people are not left out of the system.
Thirdly, I call new clause 29 the Dubs clause. So many Members from all parties have spoken in favour of it, particularly the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who has Yarl’s Wood detention centre in his constituency. Many children are desperate to join family members here in the UK. Many other immigration systems in developed countries have positive family reunion programmes that are quick, that include a system in which people do not have to go in and out of the rules and write to MPs and everything, and that are clear and provide for children who have been torn from their families, mainly by conflict, so that they can get that reunification.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the big challenges for local authorities in making offers has been that in so many cases young people brought to the UK for family reunion find that the family member simply cannot take care of them? Does she welcome the fact that the Government have, at long last, announced a very substantial increase in the funding rate for local authorities that are caring for those young people as they go in adulthood? That will go some way to assisting the issue, about which many Members have talked today, of ensuring adequate provision for care leavers who have arrived in this country as unaccompanied minors or through family reunion, which can rapidly make them unaccompanied because their family member cannot care for them.
Catherine West
Indeed. The hon. Member and I may, I think, previously have been on joint, cross-party delegations to Ministers in respect of several subjects in the course of our local government work. It is important that the Government recognise the important specialist work that local authorities do, and the costs involved in having extra social workers, foster carers and so on, so that young people are properly supported in that process. I welcome any additional funding for local authorities to discharge that important duty.
Finally, I want to talk briefly about my experience a couple of years ago of visiting Brook House detention centre—in the constituency, I believe, of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)—on the back of the report in 2014 that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned. He and other Members visited and did an extensive piece of work on indefinite detention and concluded on a cross-party basis that future legislation, such as this Bill, which is a wonderful opportunity, should introduce a 28-day limit, like every other European country has, on detention in immigration facilities.
We are not talking about the 300,000-plus people who arrive in the UK every year. We are talking about a tiny proportion of total immigration—very small numbers each year. I visited with the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, a volunteer group that visits facilities to provide friendship, second-hand clothing, mobile phones, and so on, to very vulnerable prisoners. These detainees are the only detainees in the whole country who go into detention and count up. Most prisoners count down from, say, one year—364, 363, 362, and so on. These individuals in immigration detention go in and potentially get lost in the system.
If any Member has ever had a case with the Home Office, they will know that the Home Office can make mistakes—[Interruption.] I see smiles. We could do something practical tonight and vote for this amendment, which has lots of cross-party support, and ensure a just outcome for this tiny number of people in immigration detention.
Mr Steve Baker
I rise to speak to new clauses 7 through 10, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am proud, as I said earlier, to have put my name on those amendments with him, and I pay tribute to the superb speech he made earlier. I have heard him make many compelling speeches, but I would say to the Front Bench that his speech earlier was probably his most compelling yet and I agreed with all of it.
I signed the amendments because I want a humane and just immigration system, and of course one of the principles of justice is that we treat people equally. I am very happy to say that as we leave the EU my right hon. and hon. Friends are working towards an immigration system that treats people much more equally, and I am delighted because of course it is the sort of pledge I have been making to my very diverse community in Wycombe. I am delighted and wish Ministers well as they deliver it.
I want to turn to a particular point though. In talking about foreign national offenders, my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said that constituents would not want these people loose in the UK. I am quite certain that the constituents of Wycombe do not want these people in the UK, but I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends and the whole House that we do not in the United Kingdom imprison people indefinitely on suspicion that they might reoffend.
Indeed, in 2003, Labour introduced a system of imprisonment for public protection, very much along those lines, and a Conservative Government repealed that system of IPP. I hope that my hon. Friends will not mind my saying that I feel a bit long in the tooth for remembering that we repealed that system. We did that because it was right to do so. I want to treat persons from outside the United Kingdom as morally, legally and politically equally as we properly treat people in the United Kingdom, and that means it is not right to detain people indefinitely on suspicion.
Of course, I do not think it is right either that we should be keeping serious offenders in the UK and paying for their upkeep. We should certainly be reforming the system so that such people are promptly deported, which the Home Office insists requires indefinite detention. I agree again with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that were the new clauses to pass it would put pressure on the Department to ensure that people are promptly removed.
I want to put on the record exactly what the Home Affairs Select Committee said about indefinite detention:
“lengthy detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm”.
It also recommended bringing
“an end to indefinite immigration detention and implementing a maximum 28-day time limit.”
I am absolutely in favour of doing that in combination with seeing to it that we can remove foreign national offenders.
I possibly have not got time, but I want to cover a couple of other points.
Mr David Davis
My hon. Friend and I have fought together on other battles, not least Brexit, with one thing being that we viewed Britain as rather distinctive. Does he, as I do, see it as shameful that the one thing we are distinctive on in this case is that we are the only country in Europe that allows the indefinite detention of people in our country?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and I certainly share his sentiment, but, for reasons that I am going to come on to in a moment, I am going to try to avoid any words of condemnation. I wish to thank Detention Action for providing a helpful briefing, which points out that the claim that trafficking victims, with whom it works, are rarely detained beyond 28 days is “not true”. It has given us a number of accounts, but I am sorry to say I do not have time to read all of them into the record. However, it states:
“J had to leave her country of origin because her partner, who held a senior position in the army, was abducted and she was raped by the people who abducted him. When she tried…to leave her country, she ended up being trafficked”.
The story goes on and on. Such a person ought to be helped. We have a real problem with people who have been trafficked all too often ending up with criminal offences; we end up prosecuting, whereas they are people for whom we should have compassion. I do not doubt that these cases raise extremely delicate and tricky issues of evidence and justice, because, of course, some people will plead falsely that they have an excuse under a trafficking law, but we really do have to rise to the challenge of looking after people such as J, and indeed A and P, whose stories are in this briefing.
On this point about the availability of bail meaning that people are not detained for longer than they should be, let me say that that is not correct. I understand that £8 million was paid out in unlawful detention cases in 2019, and that judges have wide discretion—indeed, my right hon. Friend’s new clauses try to reduce that discretion. Bail decisions can be made on the basis of very limited evidence, and first tier tribunal judges in bail hearings do not have jurisdiction to decide the lawfulness of detention, only the High Court can do that. On and on the evidence goes, but I do not have time to put it all on the record.
What do I really want to say to the Minister? I want to praise him and officials, because I recognise, after 10 years of representing Wycombe, diverse as it is, that dealing with immigration is an extremely delicate, difficult and tricky job, characterised by very high volumes of often heartbreaking case work. I want to pay tribute to officials and I do not want us to be in an environment of condemnation, where people who are working hard and doing their best, with high levels of skill, end up with so much incoming fire. I do, however, want to say to the Minister that I could have stood here for another 20 minutes going through cases of injustice and setting out areas where there is opportunity for reform.
As a former Brexit Minister responsible for legislation, I recognise that this is an EU withdrawal Bill and its scope is:
“To make provision to end rights to free movement of persons under retained EU law”
and so on. Listening to the debate, it seems that we have perhaps forgotten that this is the Report stage of such a Bill. I understand the scope of the Bill and that this is not the end of the journey on immigration, but I say as gently as possible to the Minister that when he comes to the Dispatch Box I am hoping that he will set out something of where the Government intend, in the round, to get to on these issues of justice in the migration system and, in particular, on the principle of indefinite detention. It is right, morally, that we should treat people equally, wherever they come from, whether they are UK citizens or not. With that in mind, we really should be working towards ending indefinite detention, and we should certainly make progress on all those other areas on which I can and will provide details to the Minister. I hope we can do that without an endless series of urgent questions and Adjournment debates.
Christine Jardine
I wish to speak to new clauses 26 and 28, and to support new clauses 1, 7 to 10, 13 and 29. I believe this Bill is hugely flawed and potentially damaging because of the atmosphere it will create and the way in which it will undermine people who make a valuable contribution to our economy. If we accepted the jigsaw of amendments, we could turn the Bill on its head and it could become a positive and welcoming piece of legislation, which would value people who come to this country and make a contribution. It would welcome children, reunite them with their families and send a positive message to the rest of the world.
New clause 26 would remove the right-to-rent charges, which the High Court ruled in March 2019 caused landlords to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity when demanding proof from proposed tenants, and therefore breached their fundamental human rights. I would think that a right-thinking Government would want it in the Bill, to protect those human rights.
New clause 28 is about the sharing of data between public bodies such as police, the national health service and schools with the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes. That is a fundamental pillar of the hostile environment that has appalling implications for those it affects, and often prevents victims and witnesses of crimes from coming forward for fear of being detained or deported.
As I say, those two new clauses could fit with the jigsaw of amendments placed before Parliament today, and fundamentally change not just the Bill but the atmosphere it creates and how it treats those who come to this country in search of a new life, including those whom we have for the past three months gone out many Thursdays and applauded for the contribution they make to our national health service and social care—the contribution they have made by putting their lives on the line for us. Instead of demanding a surcharge from them to work in that service, we should offer them indefinite right to remain in this country.
By making these changes, we would move away from the hostile environment, which I learned the origins of today, and I have to say that I am not as concerned about those as Conservative Members are. I am concerned about the impact it has had and continues to have on this country. I therefore ask the Minister and the Government to seriously consider these amendments, which would send out a message that we value people for who they are and the skills they bring to this country, and not just the monetary value of what they earn. We could do away with the NHS surcharge and allow those who have contributed to remain in this country and feel valued. We could create a system that reunites lonely, vulnerable, displaced children with their loved ones and gives them an opportunity to have a fine life, a good life in this country. We could say that we recognise that it is inhuman to keep people in detention for more than 28 days, and we could give asylum seekers the right to work, to contribute, to bring their skills to the table and help build and enhance our society and our economy, rather than denigrate them, rob them of their dignity and see, as a result, the sort of tragedy we witnessed in Glasgow last week.
We could send a message that we want to welcome people, that we will value them, and treat them humanely and with compassion. That is the country I have always understood us to be. An hon. Member said earlier that some of us on the Opposition Benches just do not get this country. I would contend that it is those of us on these Benches who do get this country, who get the people in this country and who get what they want to offer the people who come here to make a contribution and who have helped to make this country what it is.
Mr Mitchell
I have listened carefully to what has been said by Opposition Members, and I am not persuaded that the Bill is anything other than a good piece of legislation on the whole. The question for the House this afternoon is whether it could be improved, and that is why I put my name to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but he should remember that the Bill has a long journey still ahead of it down to the other end of the Palace, where undoubtedly some of these issues will be prominent in the minds of their lordships.
Like the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) I had the opportunity, courtesy of the Home Office, to visit Brook House. I went there following the “Panorama” programme, which led us to believe that the conditions were inhumane. Actually, I thought the conditions were both humane and decent.
I will come directly to the point I wish to make about the proposal for a 28-day limit. The problem is that the best regime in the world cannot ameliorate the fundamental injustice of a system that arbitrarily imprisons people without time limit, solely for administrative reasons. This is a matter not of criminal justice, but of the administration of our immigration rules—the distinction is important.
Many people in immigration removal centres have never been charged with any crime, while some have previously been in prison following conviction for a criminal offence, but have served their time. All are detained purely and simply because they are liable for removal. Some go on to be removed, but more than half are released at an arbitrary later date and are able to remain in the United Kingdom either temporarily or permanently. As other Members have said, we remain the only country in Europe to detain people indefinitely for the purposes of immigration enforcement.
If individuals have no right to remain here, our priority should be to strongly encourage other countries to accept the return of their citizens. That is something the coalition Government spent a lot of time trying to do from 2010 to 2015. Indeed, we should negotiate such deals and procedures as an urgent necessity. In this way, individuals are no longer left in limbo in immigration detention.
The proposal for a 28-day limit applies only to the use of arbitrary indefinite administrative detention. Convicted criminals will serve their sentences and then face removal if they have no right to remain. If the crime is particularly serious and the prisoner presents a risk to public safety, it will be for a criminal parole board to carry out a risk assessment and decide when and if they can be released. In those extreme cases, we should surely expect the immigration service to have removal arrangements in place to coincide with the release date.
The proposal is not a seismic change, but it would save the country the more than £500 a week per person that is currently spent on detention. That is a significant saving, since 27,331 people entered detention in 2017 alone. In addition, I was surprised to discover, as I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, that over the past five years, £21 million has been paid out in damages for unlawful detention. That figure came from a recent Home Office question. That figure could be vastly reduced, if not eradicated, if a 28-day time limit were in place.
Mr Steve Baker
Of necessity, the amendments that have been selected apply only to EEA and Swiss nationals. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying to Ministers that we would like the Government to adopt this proposal, but for everyone?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes an extremely reasonable point. I am sure that the Minister, who will have listened to the reasonable points that have been made on both sides of the House, but particularly on his own side, will take it on board.
The absence of a time limit does nothing to promote speed and efficiency in the administration of justice by the immigration service. I believe that the introduction of one would improve working practices, as well as creating a more humane system of immigration control.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are eight people on the call list and we have just over half an hour. If everybody sticks to four minutes, even if they take an intervention, we will get everybody in. Help your colleagues, please.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I want primarily to address new clause 12, which appears in my name and the names of other hon. Members, but I will first make a couple of other points. I agree with the many Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in opposition to the hostile environment. To those who are, in a sense, celebrating the end of freedom of movement, I stress that it has worked both ways. It has also provided opportunities for UK citizens inside the European Union, which we are now walking away from.
I want to make a few detailed comments on new clause 33, of which I am a co-sponsor. The ending of freedom of movement in relation to Northern Ireland brings some potential distortions, above and beyond the challenges facing the UK economy and society overall. Northern Ireland exists in both a UK-wide and all-Ireland context. Under the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, we stay in the single market with respect to goods, but the four fundamental freedoms are interconnected. That includes the freedom of movement and the ability to engage services. The protocol makes reference to the wider context of north-south co-operation. That will create some degree of difficulty, particularly for EEA nationals who are engaged in enterprises that operate on both sides of the border in Ireland. We run the risk of seeing industries that depend heavily upon labour from elsewhere in Europe not being competitive any longer and moving out of Northern Ireland, southwards into the Republic of Ireland.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I was pleased to serve on the Bill Committee, which was my first in this place. It was a whole five days of my life that I will never get back, but it was very enjoyable and informative. I particularly enjoyed the submissions from the Migration Advisory Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses and No5 Chambers, a Birmingham law firm. It was good to see a Birmingham firm down here contributing to our national debate. I cannot say that I agreed with most of what it said, but it was good that it was contributing.
A number of Government Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), have mentioned the real genesis of the hostile environment. They named him, but he is actually a Member of this place—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who was also the architect of austerity, because we all remember the little note he left behind as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He still sits on the Labour Benches. Labour MP after Labour MP stand up and complain about the hostile environment and austerity, but sat among them is the architect of austerity and the hostile environment. That is the sort of double standards that I do not want to see representing the west midlands in the mayoral election next year.
The ending of free movement of labour is a key cornerstone of the manifesto that I stood on in December and something that I am keen to get into legislation as quickly as possible. People have been calling for this for many years and many a politician have ignored their wishes. Included in this points-based system are things such as having a job offer or a sponsor before coming here, or being able to speak English sufficiently well, or meeting tougher criminality checks. Those are the sorts of things that people have been calling for and I am pleased that I am supporting those measures in this Bill tonight.
On the issue of immigration detention, I say to my colleagues that I hear their concerns, but I am convinced that immigration detention is used as a last resort. It is an absolutely necessary tool to ensure that we keep people safe on the streets of our country.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) mentioned, the list of people who would possibly have been released early had we put in place a 28-day limit would have made it hard for me to look any of my electors in the eye. I would not have been able to say that I had allowed those people on the streets early when I was out door-knocking. It is not as if those people are just banged up and forgotten about; they have rights. If they think their immigration detention is unfair, they can apply to a judge, and their case is often heard within a matter of days. Anyone wishing to leave immigration detention can do so at any time by simply leaving the country. I agree that, in general, the whole asylum and removal system needs to work much faster, but we also need to have a tough and robust system in place.
Many Opposition Members would have us believe that, if we did not have EU migration, the social care sector and the NHS would fall apart overnight, but as we heard in the evidence sessions from Brian Bell from the MAC, only 5% of the social care sector comes from EU migration. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said that she thought the Bill had been written before the covid crisis. I can tell her that, a couple of weeks ago, during the crisis, the latest claimant count from my constituency was 10.2%. Is she and many other Labour Members—
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I speak in support of new clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and new clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), both of which I have signed.
The largest employer in my constituency is the University of St Andrews. I visited there back in February as part of the Royal Society’s parliamentary pairing scheme. I enjoyed seeing the amazing work that is being undertaken by researchers from across the EU and beyond and supported by EU funding. Their status and the funding that supports their ground-breaking work are both at risk. As of May 2020, more than 9,000 EU nationals in Fife have applied for settled status, yet nearly 4,000 are either still waiting for a final decision or have only been granted pre-settled status. I am not convinced that the Home Office will be properly able to manage the settled status applications of my constituents and the 3 million other EU citizens living in this country. Providing no certainty is no way to treat them. A British Futures report estimates that the difficulties in navigating the application system and the lack of awareness of the process will result in 175,000 EU citizens living in the UK with an insecure immigration status or no status at all. We risk the denial of legal rights of jobs, homes and medical care to EU nationals who are entitled to them but cannot prove it, and that is not right. That is why I speak in favour of new clause 38, which would ensure that all EU citizens have settled status and require the Government to make available physical proof of that status.
A particular concern has been raised with me by constituents relating to comprehensive sickness insurance and I thank Fife4europe for its representations to me in this regard. CSI was not a requirement for settled status until Government policy appeared to change on 15 May this year. EU citizens who are students or classed as self-sufficient do now need it. That is unjust. There was no CSI requirement for a number of years, and many of my constituents who are EU citizens are understandably concerned. There are some urgent questions for the Government to answer. Why has the requirement been introduced at this time? What are the reasons for it? What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to ensure that EU nationals are aware of this new requirement? Will it be applied retrospectively? What does it mean for applications currently being considered? I ask the Minister to provide clarity on this issue.
There has been little communication, zero justification and the cloud of uncertainty over EU citizens is growing. My constituents are concerned that the retrospective application of the CSI requirement could be used to prevent people from attaining settled status and prevent those who do have settled status from gaining citizenship. The fact that EU citizens in my constituency are worried about this indicates the total lack of trust and communication between the Government and these individuals, who have been left frustrated and concerned by intolerable delays. Therefore, I urge Members to support new clause 36 in the name of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which would ensure that not having CSI could not be used to disqualify an EU citizen with settled status from citizenship
Finally, I would like briefly to address the role for workers in our agricultural sector. I welcome new clause 37, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which would require the Government to publish data on where skill shortages are in our economy. If we do not have the data, we will not be able properly to assess our agricultural needs. Farms in my constituency have access to the seasonal workers pilot scheme, but it is clear that we need a lot more people to be able to come here to work under the scheme. The figure of 10,000 was almost plucked from thin air. It was clearly never going to be sufficient.
Obviously there are challenges this year in relation to covid, but farmers are being told that they need almost to go back in time in how they harvest their crops, and that is simply not sustainable. I commend the local workers who are working on our farms—some during furlough—but we should note that fruit picking is no longer some part-time hobby occupation. These are operations with multiple complex supply chains that cannot operate on a hand-to-mouth basis while waiting to hear what crumbs the Government are going to provide to augment the workforce. I must also mention that many of the workers who come from abroad also train other people. The Government simply have to do more in this regard.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I was delighted to sit on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who have spoken in this debate. It is always interesting to get that extra Birmingham-west midlands angle, particularly in relation to the previous comments by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) about the hostile environment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti)—another west midlands Member—said, this Bill paves the way for a new system that values people on what they can contribute to the UK, rather than where they are from. That is the fundamental underpinning of what we are doing today. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who said that those who have served our country deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for the contribution that they have made. I hope that the Government will continue to look at ways in which those who have served this country, either in the military or in other forms of public service, can be sped through the immigration system to make it easier for them. Overall, there is no doubt that immigration has made a massive contribution to the United Kingdom, whether that is through many of my constituents who came over decades ago from the Republic of Ireland, or the people who came to the other parts of the UK from the Commonwealth and across the world more widely.
Let me turn to the amendments. I share some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who made some really strong arguments. However, I worked with the Minister in Committee and know that he is working hard to ensure that as many concerns as possible are addressed. I hope to hear more about that in his winding-up speech.
On new clause 7, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mention that new options for detention are being looked at, including perhaps in a community setting. If such measures save money and deal with situations more efficiently, they are exactly the sort of things we need to be looking at.
I also share the concerns raised through new clause 12, as this is an issue that is particularly dangerous; we need to ensure protections for those from the Republic of Ireland who have been here for very many years, and with whom we have a different and historical relationship. We should not be splitting up that relationship through this legislation or treating those people as we would other people from across the world. The EU settlement scheme has been a great success. I urge the Government, as I do my constituents, to do everything possible to ensure that people who can settle here are settled here. It might be time for a big Government communications programme to the public on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that the system will be better and fairer. I really do hope that that is the case. It is particularly important for my constituents—whether from Weardale, Consett, Crook or Willington—that they see the system that we promised at the election coming forwards: a system that values everybody equally. This Bill really honours that commitment. It honours not only the referendum but the result of the last general election, which delivered a majority for the Conservative party not seen for 30 years, and in which seats like mine finally woke up to the fact that the Labour party was not listening to them any more on issues like this.
The Bill will therefore have my support today, but I hope that the Minister will be able to address some of the issues raised by hon. Members from across the House.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Before I start, I would like to thank Members from across the House for their support for me, the victims of the tragedy in Forbury Gardens and indeed our whole local community. It has been a very difficult time for our town.
This debate addresses a series of important issues, which, as Members have said, affect the rights of European citizens living in Britain and many other vulnerable people. I support the concerns that have been expressed on a number of points and very much recognise the powerful speeches that have been made. I am aware of the limits on time, so I want to focus on new clause 2, on vulnerable children, and new clause 14, on scrapping the surcharge. I want to talk about the loss of rights that is, I am afraid, a defining characteristic of Brexit.
This is a very serious issue for people in my constituency living in Reading and the neighbouring town of Woodley. We have over 7,000 EU residents living in our constituency and I pay tribute to them. These are hard-working people who make a significant contribution to our community and indeed the whole country. They have made Reading and Woodley their home, and they should be supported and respected. That, for me, is the context of these two new clauses.
New clause 2 relates to the issues affecting vulnerable children. I am very aware of the problems with the settled status scheme. I have dealt with a number of issues facing EU residents in my area. For example, it is difficult for someone to go through the scheme if they have limited documentation. They might perhaps have an incomplete set of payslips because their employer does not provide them, they may have lost them, or there may be some other issue. They might have had to come in and out of the UK to visit or support relatives in the EU. They may be a long-standing resident, perhaps retired, who moved to this country after world war two and has made a contribution for many decades. All these categories of people are struggling to go through the settled status scheme.
Imagine the difficulties, then, faced by vulnerable children and their social workers, as described so effectively and eloquently by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). This is a really challenging issue for hard-pressed social workers. In my area, and indeed possibly in his constituency, social services are under severe pressure. We struggle with a lack of funding for them. We have high living costs locally. The last thing a hard-pressed social worker is going to able to do is to provide a great deal of extra documentation and support, however much they wish to do that. It is worth considering supporting this new clause, and I urge Members from across the House to do so.
The point about the surcharge has been well made, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). At this time, when so many of the workers in our health and social care services are from the European Union, surely we should be supporting them and doing absolutely everything to make them feel welcome in this country. Enshrining the Government’s words in law is very important at this point. Hundreds of people in my constituency work in the local hospital and have been on the frontline during the covid crisis. Some of them have actually stayed across the road from the hospital in temporary accommodation—effectively, in Portakabins—to maintain social distancing from their families. These are the sorts of people we should be showing support and respect for tonight. I therefore urge Members to support the new clause.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I support the contents of this Bill. It is straightforward and to the point: we are delivering on our promises in ending the free movement of people from the EU. The calls to end free movement of people were never about some skewed idea that the British people are inherently xenophobic. They were never, as some have attempted to brand them, part of a wider project to shut our island off from the rest of the world.
I have always been a strong believer in the need to open up our immigration system to the best talent from across the world, and not limit ourselves. This Bill is not designed to shut people out. The coronavirus pandemic has shown that we need to co-operate with our friends and partners across the world even more closely as we look towards our collective recovery. We are of course committed to controlling and reducing migration overall, but this must be done by extending the opportunities open to those from other countries outside the EU.
On new clauses 7 and 8, I hear the concerns of my colleagues across the House.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right about the balance between migration from outside the EU and from within it, but we need to cut immigration per se. It is not just a question of displacement. This is a question of cutting immigration, as we committed to do and as the British people want us to.
Nicola Richards
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Obviously, we want to reduce the numbers on immigration. We were not able to do that while we were members of the European Union, but overall, it limited the number of countries and the areas that people were able to come from and that is what we are putting right now.
On new clauses 7 and 8, I hear the concerns of colleagues across the House, but I am pleased to hear that the Home Office already looks to avoid detention altogether where this is possible through community engagement programmes, and that detention is only really made where there is a reasonable timescale for the removal of an individual. I agree that detaining an individual indefinitely is wrong and should not happen.
Our current dual immigration system is simply not fit for purpose and does not serve our interests as a country. That is exactly what the people of West Bromwich East tell me. From Friar Park to Great Barr, people have been saying the same thing—that the EU does not and did not work for us. It became a one-size-fits-all club, especially with regard to immigration, and we have had enough.
I have said in the House before that we Black Country folk are proud of our diverse communities and we value those foreign nationals, both from the EU and elsewhere in the world, who help to deliver a world-class health system. I am really pleased that the new points-based immigration system will not just allow, but actively welcome a range of health professionals to this country. Our NHS simply would not function without the dedicated army of foreign nationals who work in it. We can see this on display in every hospital across the country, including Sandwell General Hospital, which serves so many of my constituents so well. The Bill allows us to further protect our treasured health service, as we can go beyond the strict arrangement that we have been bound to while in the EU by adding more flexibility to the way that we recruit our doctors and nurses. So we should embrace this opportunity.
This short Bill is the natural precursor to the immigration framework that we want to operate under once the transition period ends. It is surely right that, in an open, tolerant meritocracy, such as the one we have in Britain, we should have an immigration system based on skills rather than nationality. I also welcome the Immigration Minister’s commitment to a “digital by default” system. I know from my own casework that this has been a difficulty for some people and I am pleased that we are looking to make these necessary changes.
A simpler, fairer immigration system is what the Bill will pave the way for. I think that it is a landmark moment, given the strength of feeling about immigration in our communities, and it proves that the Government are getting on and delivering on their promises. This is democracy working at its very best. We are stripping away the old and allowing ourselves to be bold and ambitious moving forward. I want the people of West Bromwich East to know that this is what we voted for and it is what we are delivering on. I commend the team at the Home Office for their work, and I commend the Bill in its current form.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like many others, I have been inundated with briefings and questions regarding the Bill, and I understand the importance of us all getting things right today, if possible. We certainly must, at all costs, protect our social care sector.
I was very happy to add my name, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to new clauses 3 to 10, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I hope that he presses these amendments to a Division and that the Government perhaps will accept them, even at this late stage. I feel strongly about the time limit on immigration detention. New clause 3 would hopefully change that to protect people by having a period of 28 days. The other proposals relating to bail hearings, the criteria and duration are also important, and it is so important that we get this right.
I have seen the existing pressure on the social care workforce in my constituency, and one thing is certain from their side: there is not the staff or structure to carry all that is required. The social care workforce will need to expand to deliver the Government’s laudable commitments. It is important to note that the number of staff needs not only to rise to reduce the over 120,000 vacancies that currently exist, but to increase considerably over a sustained period to meet the Prime Minister’s pledge to give every older person the dignity and security that they deserve. The current system leaves a large number of vulnerable people going without any help.
Research by the Nuffield Trust indicates that providing just one hour per day to older people with higher needs who currently get no help would require approximately 50,000 additional home care workers in England alone, never mind Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and providing two hours per day would require 90,000 extra workers.
Although it can be argued that the economic impact of covid-19 will pull in more domestic workers, it is far from clear that that will create the permanent step change needed to deal with the loss of migration, fill the vacancies and grow the workforce all at once. In her new clause 29, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has put forward a solution, and I hope that there is a cross-section of people in the House who will pursue that.
Analysis of the data by the Nuffield Trust shows that, from 2009-10 to 2018-19, almost half—46%—of the expansion in the social care workforce across the UK was accounted for by people born outside the United Kingdom. That is a case for why we need an immigration system that enables those people to come in and help our social care system. In regions with the greatest projected future need for social care, such as London, not only has the proportion of EU staff increased over time, but migrant staff now make up a large proportion of staff, with more than two in five care workers from abroad.
I remind the Minister very gently and respectfully that countries such as Australia and Canada have long employed points-based immigration systems and have introduced a range of special migration programmes out of necessity, including to help the long-term development of the domestic workforce. New Zealand has an agreement with the residential care sector under which it may offer more generous visa terms, such as longer stays, for a range of key jobs, including personal care assistants and care workers. In exchange, employers develop plans to boost the domestic workforce.
Having seen vulnerable people struggling to care for themselves, and yet knowing the difficulties of securing an adequate care package, I welcome this opportunity to speak on this matter. I hope that the Government listen to Members’ pleas in relation to the new clauses that have been tabled. They were tabled for the right reason—to do what is right today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is a pleasure I have had on many occasions since joining the House. Overall, this has been a good debate on a wide range of issues relating to immigration. Members will appreciate that, in view of the time remaining, I will be unable to respond in detail to every new clause and amendment. However, I would like to address some of the more prominent issues that were raised during the debate.
I know that Members were restricted by the narrow scope of the Bill, but I would like to put on the record that most of the new clauses and amendments, if implemented, would lead to a discriminatory immigration system with differential treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens, which cannot be justified and is not in line with the Government’s approach of having a single global migration system in the future. However, I accept that the reason for the wording of the amendments was to get them in scope.
I turn to the 31 Government amendments in relation to social security co-ordination, which is dealt with by clause 5. As social security co-ordination is transferred in respect of Northern Ireland and partially devolved to Scotland, clause 5, as currently drafted, confers powers on a Scottish Minister or a Northern Ireland Department to legislate in areas of devolved competence. As is required, we sought legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Social security is reserved in Wales.
The relevant Northern Ireland Minister has indicated that a recommendation will be put to the Executive to bring forward a legislative consent motion in the Assembly; however, the Scottish Government confirmed on 19 June that they would not recommend legislative consent. The Government amendments therefore amend clause 5 and schedules 2 and 3 to restrict the powers in the Bill in relation to Scotland so that the clause does not now engage the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament. I therefore hope that Members will be prepared to agree to the amendments.
Turning to one of the more substantive issues raised, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) started the debate around new clause 1. I recognise that Members across the House care deeply about the health and social care sector. I am pleased to again place on the record the Government’s thanks and recognition of the fantastic job that those working in health and social care do for the whole of our United Kingdom.
Mr Steve Baker
I have been listening to the Minister very carefully, and I repeat my earlier praise: he has a tough job to do. I do recognise that this Bill relates to the withdrawal agreement, and I can tell him that I will abstain on the amendments I have signed, and I shall vote with the Government on the rest of them.
Kevin Foster
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. Certainly, the Government look forward to working with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, because this is an area where we want to see better outcomes for everyone—a better outcome for those who end up in the immigration system, and a better outcome for the taxpayer and the public as well.
Moving on to new clause 2, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important issue of how we best protect the rights of vulnerable children in care and care leavers. Since the full launch of the EU settlement scheme in March last year, we have had agreements and plans in place with local authorities to ensure that relevant children and care leavers receive the support they need in securing their UK immigration status under the scheme. Local authorities and, in Northern Ireland, health and social care trusts are responsible for making an application under the EU settlement scheme on behalf of an eligible looked-after child for whom they have parental responsibility by way of a court order. Their responsibility in other cases to signpost the scheme and support applications has also been agreed.
The Home Office has implemented a range of support services to ensure local authorities and health and social care trusts can access help and advice when they need it. This has involved engaging extensively with relevant stakeholders such as the Department for Education, the Local Government Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and equivalents in the devolved Administrations. Guidance has been issued to local authorities regarding their role and their responsibilities for making or supporting applications under the scheme.
The Home Office will be conducting a further survey of local authorities across the UK shortly, as part of the support we are offering to them with this important work. This survey will ask local authorities to provide the assurance that they have so far identified all relevant cases. We will share relevant data from the survey with the EU settlement scheme vulnerability user group, comprising experts from the local authority and voluntary sectors, to help it to discuss progress in this important area and to focus our efforts in supporting local authorities with this work.
To be clear, new clause 2 does not facilitate applications to the EU settlement scheme but proposes a declaratory system under which those covered automatically acquire UK immigration status. This would cause confusion and potential difficulties for these vulnerable young people in future years, with their having no evidence of their lawful status here. They will need evidence of their status when they come to seek employment or access the benefits and services that they are actually entitled to access. This is not something we can allow to happen. However, to reassure hon. Members, the withdrawal agreements oblige us to accept late applications indefinitely where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. This and other rights under the agreements now have direct effect in UK law via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, so this commitment is already effectively enshrined in primary legislation.
We have therefore repeatedly made it clear that where a person eligible for status under this scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply—to give a specific example, where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. This will ensure that individuals who missed the deadline through no fault of their own can still obtain lawful status in the United Kingdom. I am happy to underline this commitment at the Dispatch Box where children in care and care leavers are concerned, and this is not just for a five-year period, as suggested in this new clause.
Some Members have spoken about the Government’s “no recourse to public funds” policy during the covid-19 pandemic, and there are some new clauses relating to this. Let us make it clear that a range of safeguards are in place to ensure that vulnerable migrants who are destitute or at imminent risk of destitution and have community care needs, including issues relating to human rights or the wellbeing of children, can receive support.
We recognise and are immensely grateful for the contributions made by so many migrants, especially during the recent pandemic. We have provided more than £3.2 billion of additional funding in England and further funding in the devolved Administrations to support local authorities to deliver their services, including helping the most vulnerable. We have also made it more straightforward for those here on the basis of family life or human rights to apply to have the “no recourse to public funds” condition lifted, with change of condition decisions being prioritised and dealt with compassionately.
It is worth noting that those with no recourse to public funds have also been able to benefit from the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and other measures introduced by the Government, such as protections for renters and mortgage holidays.
Kevin Foster
I will not be able to; I just do not have the time.
Moving to new clause 29, I have listened carefully, and I assure all Members that the Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children, as set out in a letter I sent to all Members of Parliament this morning. We recognise that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict and persecution and the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country. However, new clause 29 does not recognise the current routes available for reuniting families or the negotiations we are pursuing with the EU on new reciprocal arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in either the UK or the EU, as set out in the draft legal text.
Kevin Foster
I am afraid I do not have the time. A negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity. The new clause seeks guarantees that cannot be provided for in UK domestic provisions alone.
The current immigration rules also include routes for family members wishing to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a family member who is a British citizen or settled in the UK, as well as those who are post-flight family of a person granted protection in the UK. Those routes will remain in place at the end of the transition period.
The new clauses on the devolution of migration policy are another unsurprising attempt by the Scottish nationalists to fulfil their ambition of setting up a passport control point at Gretna to fulfil an agenda of separation. We are delivering an immigration system that takes into account the needs of the whole of the United Kingdom and that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, and we will not put an economic migration border through our country. As Members who have spoken pointed out, serious discussion needs to be had about how Scotland can attract more people to live there, work there and be a vital part of the community, and many of those issues are absolutely in the hands of the Scottish Government to address.
Finally and very briefly, we had reference to comprehensive sickness insurance. To be clear, the rules have not changed in terms of the EEA regulations. The insurance would not block someone getting through the EU settlement scheme and we would be happy to hear any such examples. With that, I have explained why the Government does not accept the new clauses.
Brendan O'Hara
Very briefly, I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank Robert McGeachy of Camphill Scotland on a personal level for all the help he has given me, and I thank the Minister for replying to the debate, although I am very disappointed he has refused to accept new clause 1. It is beyond me why a Government would refuse an opportunity to say to the health and social care sector and its users that they understand the concerns, they have a plan, they know what they are doing and they would welcome transparency.
New clause 1 gives the Government the opportunity to make up for not having done a proper impact assessment and not having put in place any mechanism whatever for this House and other Parliaments across these islands to be able to assess and measure the effectiveness or otherwise of the Bill. For that reason, I will test the will of the House this evening and press new clause 1 to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I put the Question, I have to remind Members who are proxy voting that they need to email the Public Bill Office after each Division and that they need to specify which Division they are voting in each time. I also remind Members that I will lock the doors after 15 minutes for this Division and, if possible—if Members move fairly quickly—after 12 minutes for any subsequent successive Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Under Standing Order No. 9(3) and the Order of the House of 18 May, I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the new clauses selected for separate decision. Before I put the Question on new clause 7, I must inform the House that there is an error in the text published on the amendment paper. Lines 4 and 5 of new clause 7—the 11 words beginning with “(a)”—are duplicate text and should not have appeared. I do not think that that will make much difference to Members’ judgment as to whether they intend to support the new clause.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 7
Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(i) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(ii) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(iii) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) as defined in subsection(1) under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(3) If “P” remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) the Secretary of State shall release P forthwith; and
(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since “P’s” release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] are met.
(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which “P” is first detained under a relevant detention power.
(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’—(Mr Davis.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. In the exceptional circumstances that have just been reported to me about an error made in the way in which Members were guided through St Stephen’s Hall and into Members Lobby, it has come to my attention that some Members were, correctly and in an orderly fashion, in the queue to vote and have been unable to do so. Fortunately, this matter has been reported to me before the Tellers have reported the numbers. I am therefore going to unlock the doors in order that the Members who have not already voted in the Division on new clause 29 and who are now present in the Division Lobby ready to vote may very swiftly and immediately do so.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 1st July 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 22nd July 2020
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to bring this much anticipated—I will not say “most welcome” to some of your Lordships—and most important of Bills before your Lordships’ House. It will pave the way for the ending of freedom of movement for EU citizens and the introduction of a single, fairer points-based immigration system which treats people in the same way, regardless of their nationality.
It is now over four years since the British people voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. I know that not all noble Lords were happy with that result, but it was the clearly and democratically expressed will of the people of the United Kingdom, and I do not think that anyone can doubt that concerns about immigration played a part in the referendum. This Government believe that we must deliver what the people voted for, and that position was given added weight by the emphatic result in the general election last December.
The heart of the Bill is that it ends free movement. It does that by repealing EU immigration legislation that is retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. By ending free movement, EEA citizens, including both EU citizens and those from EFTA countries, and their family members will become subject to UK immigration law and will require the same permission to enter and remain in this country as people from the rest of the world. This will pave the way for the introduction of our new points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021, as we pledged to do in the general election manifesto that my party put before the people last December. The design of the new system was set out in the Government’s policy statement issued in February and further details were published on 13 July. I will say more about this new system shortly but, before I do that, I want to highlight some of the other key features of the Bill.
The first is about Irish rights. We are enormously proud of our deep and historic ties with Ireland and of the contribution that Irish citizens have made to the UK over many years, which is why this Bill will protect the rights of Irish citizens. The long-standing arrangements between our countries ensure that Irish citizens benefit from specific rights in the UK—the same rights that British citizens enjoy in Ireland. They include the right to work and study, to access healthcare and social security benefits, and to vote.
This Bill makes it clear that, once free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, regardless of where they have travelled from. There will remain limited exceptions to this, as is the case now; namely, where an Irish citizen is subject to deportation orders, exclusion decisions or an international travel ban.
The wider rights enjoyed by Irish citizens in the UK that flow from the common travel area arrangements remain, as reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed by the UK and Ireland last year. Both Governments are committed to preserving the unique status and specific rights in each other’s countries enjoyed for over 100 years.
The Bill also includes an important power to ensure that UK legislation remains coherent once free movement ends. This power permits amendments to primary and secondary legislation which become necessary after the end of free movement. It means that we can align our treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens, and deliver a system that treats people fairly based on the skills they have and the contribution they make, regardless of where they come from.
The Bill will also enable us to make any necessary changes to our social security system as we align access to benefits for EEA and non-EEA citizens. These policies are led by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and her officials in the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Bill contains powers for the UK Government and/or a Northern Ireland department to amend the retained EU social security co-ordination rules from the end of the transition period for those not in scope of the withdrawal agreement. Scotland will need to make its own primary legislation as appropriate to amend the retained rules in its area of devolved legislative competence.
We are currently in negotiations with the EU about possible new reciprocal arrangements on social security co-ordination. We have been clear that any future agreement on social security must respect Britain’s autonomy to set its own rules. We have already announced that we will end the export of child benefit, and the Bill will enable us to deliver on that commitment.
The UK is working to establish practical, reciprocal provisions on social security co-ordination in order to remove barriers and support the mobility of workers. Any agreement with the EU should be similar in kind to the agreements that the UK has with countries outside the EU. It could include arrangements that provide healthcare cover for tourists, short-term business visitors and service providers; arrangements that allow workers to rely on contributions made in two or more countries to access their state pension, including uprating; and arrangements that prevent dual social security contribution liabilities.
As I have indicated, once free movement ends, we will introduce a single immigration system that encompasses citizens of the whole world. It will be a system based around skills, with the greatest priority given to those with the highest skills who can make the greatest contribution to the UK economy, rather than giving privilege to particular nationalities.
It will be an evidence-based system. Noble Lords will be aware that we commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise us on the design of a future system. We have followed its recommendations very carefully and I am pleased to have this opportunity to put on the record once more the Government’s appreciation of the thoughtful and considered work that the MAC does.
It will be a system that works for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. We do not believe that any part of this nation would be well served by operating different immigration systems in different regions. Such an approach is a recipe for chaos and confusion.
Of course, it will be a points-based system, in keeping with the promise that we made to the electorate. Prospective migrants will be able to score additional points if they have particular skills or based on the nature of the job they are coming to do. This will ensure that it really is an immigration system that enables us to attract the very best migrants from around the world.
We are seizing the opportunity to change the entire system for the better, with simpler, clear and transparent routes. That is why we welcomed the Law Commission’s report into simplifying the Immigration Rules, and why we have accepted many of its recommendations. Cutting through the complexity and streamlining processes will be at the heart of our new system.
As well as working closely with the MAC, we have listened to businesses and stakeholders across the UK in designing the new points-based system, and we will continue to engage and work with employers to make it a success and prepare them for the changes. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, and since the policy statement was published in February, the Home Office has facilitated over 50 events with a wide variety of stakeholders. They include the food and drink manufacturing, retail, automotive and transport, professional business services, agriculture, creative industries, broadcasting, education, public administration, defence, and air and water transport sectors. This is in addition to extensive stakeholder events held in 2019.
Our engagement has focused on those sectors most impacted and those who have previously had little interaction with the immigration system due to reliance on EU labour. We are engaging with advisory groups, a specific group focused on small and medium-sized enterprises, the devolved nations and parliamentarians, as well as holding external events. We have adapted our programme of engagement via increased use of remote technology and are keeping it under continuous review during the current Covid-19 situation to ensure that it remains effective.
We have designed a number of policies which will support the NHS and wider health and care sector to continue to access the best and brightest talent from across the world. We recently announced the introduction of the health and care visa from this summer, which will offer fast-tracked entry to the UK for eligible health and care professionals, reduced application fees and dedicated support through the application process. Those eligible will also be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.
In addition to this new visa, we have introduced a number of unprecedented measures to support health workers from overseas. These include: supporting NHS workers with a free, automatic one-year visa extension for those with six months or less left to stay on their visas; exempting all NHS workers, wider health professionals and social care workers from the requirement to pay the health surcharge; and, as we have clarified, refunding payments made since 31 March. Our EU settlement scheme also continues to enable EU citizens whose home is the UK to build their lives here, including those working in our NHS. We have now seen over 3.7 million applications, with over 3.4 million of them concluded. The scheme is simple and easy to use, and there is just under one year to go until the deadline for applications.
The events of recent weeks have also illustrated just what a crucial role the care sector plays in our society. Talented and dedicated social care workers have risked their lives on the front line in providing vital care to the most vulnerable. We truly value the work they are doing, which is why the Government set out steps in our Action Plan for Adult Social Care to support the workforce and ensure that we have the staff we need and that they feel both supported and valued. The Government’s long-term plan for social care is focused on investment in the sector and those employed in it who deliver compassionate and high-quality care.
The Department for Health and Social Care recently launched a new national recruitment campaign, Every Day is Different, highlighting the vital role that the social care workforce is playing during this pandemic and the longer-term opportunity for working in care. We have also commissioned Skills for Care to rapidly scale up capacity for digital induction training, provided free of charge under DHSC’s workforce development fund. This is free of charge for employers when accessed directly from Skills for Care’s endorsed providers. DHSC is also providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adults’ and children’s social care in 2020-21.
As the MAC identified in its own report, published earlier this year, the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector. It would be a very poor reward for all of those who have worked heroically in the care sector if we were to set up an immigration route which had the effect of keeping wages in the sector at or near minimum wage—a point that the chairman of the MAC has made. As we implement the new immigration system, we want employers to focus on investing in our domestic workforce. The Government are working closely with the sector to go further to recognise the contributions of social care workers. This includes a widespread focus on training, increasing the prestige of our domestic workforce, and introducing a proper career structure to provide opportunities for those in the sector while making it an attractive profession for prospective carers.
In conclusion, there are many across this House who care passionately about immigration issues. It would be remiss of me not to mention my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement yesterday on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review and how we are progressing towards implementing the recommendations. We will undoubtedly have a very valuable and detailed debate on the breadth of these subjects this afternoon. However, the Bill is a simple one, focused on ending free movement. It enables the Government to deliver an immigration system that is firm, fair and fit for the future, supporting economic recovery and prioritising jobs for people here in the UK, while continuing to attract the brightest and the best global talent. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The purpose of this Bill is narrow in scope. It is to end EU freedom of movement rules in the United Kingdom and it has just nine clauses. EEA nationals will become subject to United Kingdom immigration laws after the Brexit transition period, and thus be covered by the Government’s points-based immigration system, to be introduced next year. This Bill is nearly identical to its predecessor, which fell due to the general election last year. It took just six weeks to complete all its stages in the Commons before being passed unamended at Third Reading on 30 June. Progress in the Lords will not be so rapid as in the Commons, although it remains to be seen whether that will be due solely to the August Recess.
The Bill does not itself create a new immigration system. The change to the points-based system will be covered in unamendable Immigration Rules. However, the Bill gives Henry VIII powers to the Government which are so wide-ranging in the way they are worded that they would enable the Government to modify, by unamendable statutory instrument, both primary immigration legislation and retained direct EU legislation. The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4 are only to address necessary technical legislative changes to primary legislation, arising from the ending of free movement.
The same powers in Clause 5, say the Government, are there to enable, first, consequential modifications to be made to primary legislation and other retained EU law if areas of the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations, co-ordinating access to social security for individuals moving between EEA states, have to be repealed because they are not covered in a reciprocal agreement with the EU following the end of the transition period; and, secondly, if consequential technical amendments are needed to legislation arising from any new reciprocal agreement with the EU.
The Lords Delegated Powers Committee said of the previous Bill, however, that Clause 4 presents
“a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive”,
and on Clause 5 it said that
“Parliament is being asked to scrutinise a clause so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton.”
Parliament is going to be denied any proper say and involvement in determining even the basic principles of our future immigration policy post Brexit, and the ending of free movement. Yet the Government admit in their fact sheet 3 on the Bill that:
“By ending free movement, the Bill makes a substantial change to the UK’s immigration laws.”
This is not about the merits or otherwise of Brexit; that decision has been made. It is about the Government’s attitude towards Parliament and its major law-making process in scrutinising and then deciding which Government legislative proposals should, or should not, be passed, rejected or amended.
While the Bill seeks to deny an opportunity to address issues of concern about our immigration system, that does not mean they were not raised in the Commons and will not be raised in the Lords. Issues that have had cross-party support include a time limit on immigration detention for the purpose of deportation, the granting of automatic indefinite leave to remain to eligible EEA and Swiss national children who are in care, or are care leavers, and the need for the continuation of the existing EU arrangements on unaccompanied child refugees and family reunification.
Further issues include, but are not confined to: the application of the “no recourse to public funds” rules, in the light of an apparent promise of a review made by the Prime Minister on 27 May; the progress being made on the Government’s commitment to abolish the immigration health charge for all migrants working in the NHS and social care; exemption from the immigration skills charge for NHS employers in the light of the reality that some hospitals are now paying nearly £1 million a year; clarity on the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK following the end of the transition period, including proof of settled status; and limitations on the duration of the Henry VIII powers.
The end of free movement and the move to the points-based immigration system, with its general salary threshold of £25,600 per annum for coming to work in the UK, seeks to equate low pay with low skills and low value. Consequently, this sends a very clear negative message to low-paid, but not low-skilled, EU nationals currently working in the UK. Many of these people have been among those who have kept, and are keeping, our public services going during the pandemic, not least in the care sector. This sends a clear negative message that, in today’s sometimes distorted view of the value of different jobs to society, we do not appreciate the contribution they make and the skills they bring.
In the Commons last week, a Home Office Minister said that the reason that care workers had been excluded from the qualifying list for the health and care visa was because the Government had a “vision” for the social care sector that it should no longer carry on looking abroad to recruit at or near the minimum wage, and that the Government’s priority was that, in future, care sector jobs will be
“valued, rewarded and trained for, and that immigration should not be an alternative.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1250]
If that means significantly better rates of pay in the underpaid social care sector, I am sure it will have widespread support. However, yesterday the Government said that with the vast majority of social care workers employed in the private sector their
“ability to influence pay rates there is limited”.
Since there are already 100,000 vacancies in England’s care sector alone, and the current flow of people from abroad to fill low-paid care sector jobs is about to dry up, how have the Government been able to satisfy themselves not only that UK-based workers will immediately step in to fill that gap but that they can lower vacancy levels in the social care sector?
If higher pay rates materialise in the social care sector, as a result of the points-based immigration system, there will presumably be an increase in the cost of providing social care. Who will finance those higher costs? Will it be the elderly care home residents and residents receiving care at home? Will it be already cash-strapped local authorities, or will the providers of care provision have to absorb the costs? Or does the Government’s vision extend to them financing the additional costs of a welcome improvement in pay in the social care sector? Perhaps the Government could provide an answer to that question in their response at the end of this debate.
The Government have said that ending free movement from the EU plus the future points-based immigration system should reduce net migration. On what basis have the Government come to that conclusion, bearing in mind that net migration from outside the EU, where there is no free movement, exceeds net migration from the EU, where there is free movement?
Perhaps the Government’s conclusion is an indication that, in the absence of publicly declared targets for net migration, they expect their approach to deter sufficient numbers of people from seeking to come and work here, in which case the hostile environment approach may still exist in spirit, if not officially in name. What happens and what is said during the passage of the Bill may throw some light on that. We will have to see whether some amendments to the Bill are accepted, or whether the absence of any movement on the Bill in the Commons really means a Government which think they are 100% right and that an alternative approach on anything related to the Bill is 100% wrong.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords will have had briefings from many organisations. I wish, in the time, I could do them justice, but I thank them. They say this is an important opportunity to raise issues; noble Lords will make it an opportunity, well beyond the narrow scope of the Bill.
I shall be blunt on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. We understand where we are with Brexit, but we deplore so much of UK immigration policy, we do not support the Bill and we deeply regret the loss of free movement and our membership of what we regarded as a union which was more than political.
Ironically, in the context, the Bill denies parliamentary sovereignty. It is always a concern when excessive powers are granted to the Executive. In its report on the same Bill in a previous Parliament, our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, made that quite clear.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which lives its name, lists the issues of the Bill: legal uncertainty; lack of detail; the power of the Secretary of State to remove unspecified rights; the power to thwart the will of Parliament; the power to amend Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation, which there is an awful lot of; the power to set immigration fees, the size of which can restrict the exercise of rights; diminishing scrutiny; and no clarity on how changes in relation to Irish citizens will affect the rights of Northern Irish citizens under the Good Friday agreement.
Preliminary research by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has identified three important legal protections which are not in any way addressed in the Bill. These are: protections for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive; protections for asylum seekers in the receptions conditions directive; and protections for victims of crime in the victims’ rights directive.
Our immigration law is, in the words of the Law Commission, “overly complex and unworkable”. A new Bill should simplify it. This is not dry or geeky—it is constitutionally important, and the personal impacts are enormous. An overarching policy that is hostile, harsh, robust, compliant—however it is badged—impacts individuals and personal relationships, often in ways never expected. Ask anyone faced with the need for a spouse visa, who becomes part of a Skype family.
The Windrush review recommendations include assessing whether policies, individually and cumulatively, are effective and proportionate. The recommendations deal too with the engagement of groups and communities affected by proposed policies. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to this and that the Home Office is clearly taking this seriously. We look forward to progress reports on the work now going forward, announced yesterday, and to its outcome.
I did not expect to feel so viscerally shaken by Brexit, not by the direct effect but by a sense of shame in what is heard as “Nice to have known you”—“you”, the millions of people who, through free movement, have become integral to our society. For British citizens living in the EU, their loss of free movement between member states is a real and immediate worry.
Huge numbers of applications have been processed through the settled status scheme, and it has been very successful for those for whom it has been successful. Inevitably, some troublesome aspects are coming to the fore as we draw closer to the close of the scheme, and they will become clearer as time goes on. That is why my noble friend Lord Oates will be tabling an amendment regarding physical documentation in the scheme. If I were renting property, facing an employment check or opening a bank account, I would want that too.
There is a shortage of specialist advice for people whose applications are not straightforward or who may not be able to look out for themselves—many children are within both groups. The detail and nuances of the scheme are not well understood. I read of a civil servant—so no slouch, one assumes—who did not appreciate that his pre-settled status was not the end of it.
We should listen to the people affected: they have a real-world view. We should thank those who painstakingly and responsibly analyse impacts such as entitlement to benefits, no recourse to public funds and allied issues like naturalisation, where comprehensive sickness insurance has reared its head as grounds for refusal. My noble friend Lady Ludford will pursue this in Committee; I miss her today as she is unwell, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis who is covering some of what she planned to say.
Social security co-ordination needs a whole laundry basket of hot towels. It was a relief to read that the DPRR Committee recommends leaving out Clause 5, but I do not suppose that that will be all we discuss. I hope that I have not contributed to my noble friend Lady Ludford’s ill health by suggesting that she deals with Clause 5.
It is not beyond the bounds of the possible that, as values diverge, asylum may be sought in the UK from countries where discrimination becomes persecution—I am thinking of Hungary and Poland—so it is entirely right that, in an EU Bill, we address whether, how and for how long we use detention in immigration removal centres. Did moving detainees when Covid-19 took hold show that there are real flight risks? Asylum seekers never have an easy time; it feels heartless to reduce them and their situation to an item in a list. Unable to work when they are keen to contribute, they are caught with so little income that even existing is a challenge.
We will have more time to debate that in Committee, as we will have more time to discuss family reunion for refugees and ensuring safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children—something that member states have mandated the EU to deal with, so there are no bilateral agreements there; all that is on the table is a very inadequate draft text from the UK.
The immigration system is much more than the points-based system, but the PBS is currently in the spotlight. It is to be preceded by the health and social care visa and a belated nod to the health charge levied on health workers who pay tax, but hands-on
“care workers won’t be able to apply for a visa dedicated to care.”
That neat summary comes courtesy of the BBC’s Dominic Casciani. Are we heading for an even bigger shortage of carers? They ensure that people can stay in their own homes, which means big savings all round and support for the biggest band of carers: the family. Low paid does not mean low skilled. With care workers, it is often a skill that is innate and a matter of culture. I hate the term “brightest and best”. Best at what?
A lot of sectors will be mentioned. A number of my noble friends have stood back today but plan to take part in Committee, when these issues will be explored. I do so want to talk about the creative industries; I will join that debate then.
Time is against me. I can combine two areas of concern—agri-food workers and seasonal workers—to mention seasonal agri-food work. I can also make the link between two Bills: this one and the Domestic Abuse Bill. The link is the lack of provision for migrant women suffering abuse.
Let one sector in the PBS stand proxy for many. Apparently, 80% of the UK’s 10,000 international architects are from the EU; the RIBA says that £7,000 a year will be added to the cost of bringing one in. That seems counterintuitive when we are told to plan for a great burst of building infrastructure.
The requirement for a level of English makes me acutely conscious of my own lack of facility in another language. It is sadly typical of our still too prevalent, overwhelmingly proud and complacent insularity.
No doubt adjustments can be made to business models. Paying a fair wage and not exploiting people must be part of that model, but can this be achieved overnight and while gearing up for a full Brexit, whatever that may comprise?
I know that many of our concerns are shared widely across the House, so we will be glad to support Members on other Benches on a number of amendments, taking forward those proposed in the Commons, as well as having plenty of our own. There are far more issues than we can even touch on today.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, given the large number of noble Lords down to speak in the debate, I gently remind them of the three-minute Back-Bench advisory speaking limit.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, the two Opposition Front-Bench speeches that we have just heard raise the question, why do we restrict immigration? After all, most immigrants are good, industrious and enterprising people, welcome here as our friends, neighbours and colleagues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
Some immigration is indeed good for the economy, but you can have too much of a good thing. That is why we limit immigration. Immigration is a lubricant for the economy—not, as Tony Blair appeared to believe, its fuel. If you do not lubricate your car, it grinds to a halt; if you stopped all immigration, it would harm the economy. But beyond a certain point, adding more lubricating oil does not make your car go faster, and allowing mass immigration has not made our incomes grow faster—on the contrary.
The British economy suffers from three major weaknesses, all of which have been exacerbated by mass immigration since Tony Blair lifted the lid. First, we have a major housing shortage, yet over the last five years, net immigration has averaged 300,000 people a year. We need to build a city the size of Hull every year just to accommodate those incomers, and more when they have children.
Secondly, our chronic reluctance to train people means that fewer British workers have vocational and technical skills than any of our competitors; yet encouraging employers to recruit from abroad undermines their incentive to train and employees’ incentive to upskill. After Blair opened our borders, training time per worker halved and funding for training fell by 16%. We are told that the NHS needs migrants because Brits do not want to be doctors and nurses. Untrue—there are 10 applicants for every place in a medical school, and we turned away 35,000 applicants for nursing courses last year. The NHS finds it cheaper to import doctors and nurses from poor countries, which need them more than us, rather than train British applicants.
Thirdly, we invest less per head than most of our competitors. A ready supply of cheap labour reduces employers’ incentives to invest in improved productivity, and most skilled immigrants work in low-skilled jobs.
So, we need this Bill to reduce pressure on housing, encourage training in skills and boost investment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I and many others will focus on some of the potential unintended consequences of this Bill as we endeavour to speak on behalf of those with limited voice and means and without the level of expertise required to navigate our highly complex immigration and social security systems. At this stage, I will not set out a shopping list of the many areas where we would like clarification; we will be able to do that in painful detail in Committee, which I hope will be conducted in your Lordships’ House with rather more time, care and attention than was possible in another place.
This afternoon, I want to focus on an area that the Minister confessed on Monday is of particular interest and relevance to her. During an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who will speak later in this debate, she indicated how pleased she was to find a colleague in your Lordships’ House who shares her interest in her particular area of policy responsibility: digital ID and data. One might ask what relevance accurate and reliable digital ID and data have to this Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that accurate and reliable data are not a defining characteristic of the modern Home Office. Whether it is confusion over the accuracy and segmentation of our estimated immigration statistics, the exact numbers of care leavers or children awaiting adoption, or the lamentable lack of knowledge and clarity about the legal and citizenship status of the Windrush generation, there is much room for improvement.
There are three areas where accurate and reliable data are of particular importance to this Bill: immigration statistics; exact data on the different categories of EUSS applicants; and the dilemma of how to evaluate policy toward those with no recourse to public funds when there is an absence of proper data on exactly who, and how many, the condition affects. I ask the Minister to do her utmost to commit to clear actions, initiatives and policies and measurable targets to bring about a dramatic improvement in the quality, timeliness and accuracy of data, which are completely fundamental to successful policy direction and implementation. Given her professional and personal interest in this subject—a passion that she appears to share with a certain Mr Cummings—I look forward to her working with your Lordships’ House toward achieving a step change in the quality of Home Office data.
This Bill is regarded by those who believe that we made the right decision in leaving the European Union as the dawn of a new era. Whatever one’s views about that decision, this is an opportunity to ensure that we create new legislation and policies using a level of data and insight that has been sorely lacking in the past—and, alas, is also lacking today.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the introduction of this Bill in another place is a signal opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government comprehensively to reset the legislative basis for immigration control in this country, to set out a vision for doing so, and to rationalise and streamline the more than 1,000 pages of immigration legislation under which we labour. It is surprising, therefore, that, as other speakers have pointed out, this Bill is so narrow in scope.
The Government have separately published intentions for their policy on the Immigration Rules which extend neither refuge, welcome nor the means of integration, but instead offer a system that meets the labour demands of business and is therefore entirely different from the Australian points-based system. The Bill is silent on the issue of EU citizens in the UK—another immigration crisis in the making. We now know that the estimate of the numbers of EU citizens here was too low and that the campaign to get them to apply for settled and pre-settled status has been solely in English. The Home Office has cut its funding to NGOs which would help reach those who have not applied, and what about those who think they need not apply, whose English is still poor, or who are children in care in this country?
Following the Government’s recent announcement on their points-based system, I asked the noble Baroness to respond to the concerns around visa routes for ministers of religion and other religious workers, which are particularly exercising for the Roman Catholic Church and black majority churches, where cost is a major factor. Additionally, definitions of “ministers”, “religion” and “religious workers” are leading to confusion. The Church of England would be willing to offer help around definitions, and if the Government would consider the issue of cost, that would be well received by those affected.
There is a strong moral case for the tariff on visas and other fees to be confined to administrative costs. The current system is an unwarranted and burdensome levy on migrants, which is iniquitous. Those who come here to work already pay tax and national insurance to fund our public services. Why must they pay a health surcharge as well? I trust that the waiving of this surcharge during the pandemic is a sign that the Government are having second thoughts on this regrettable manifesto commitment. A migrant applying for indefinite leave to remain in the UK must pay £2,389, whereas the average cost to the Home Office to process such an application is a mere £243.
We should welcome applications to become British citizens and not saddle applicants with debt. Scandalously, the fee for a child is over £1,000, although the High Court found last year that the Home Office had failed to assess the best interests of children in setting this fee. Will the Minister update the House on the implementation of this ruling?
There are two amendments that I would likely be ready and willing to support. Time and again in my diocese, I am told of asylum seekers who are massively disadvantaged by the current ban on paid working. Furthermore, I will support an amendment that sets clear limits on periods of detention. We ignore the relational aspect in the delivery of any public service at our peril. I hope the Government will commit to immigration reform on just principles.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the only market the Conservative Party is not in favour of is the labour market. In opening this debate, the Minister talked about the referendum and the December election. A number of seats surrounding my city of Sheffield have gone Conservative. I think those voters would be astonished to find that while the numbers from Europe have literally fallen like a stone, the numbers from the rest of the world, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, have rocketed. The changing culture that that will bring in due course might bring pause for thought to the Conservative Party.
I want to concentrate briefly on the contradictions between skilling our own people and this Bill. As has been said, we should of course skill people and do everything possible to ensure that we transform their life chances and the ladder of learning through life. The more people learn and the higher the skill they obtain, the less likely they are to work in those industries and services which are absolutely crucial to our survival.
There are 120,000 vacancies in adult residential care and a turnover rate of 30%. It is estimated that about a quarter of a million people of overseas origin work in adult care services. The Government will probably be saved temporarily by the aftermath of the Covid virus, because people will be desperate to take a job—any job. However, as they skill, they will find that those from overseas will not take the jobs that they are leaving but the jobs that they are seeking—that is, as managers or owners of residential care services. This can be replicated right across the sector.
We deprecate young people going to higher education, as the Secretary of State and his higher education Minister did recently, and suggest that it would be better if they took other jobs. We also imply that those with little skills should take up the jobs previously occupied by migrants who then educated themselves and contributed to the economy.
There is not time to go into the disparaging of the Labour Government by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I am very happy to take him on in future, inside and outside the House, on the statistics he quoted, the attitude he displayed and the real importance of understanding the contradictions and difficulties of managing migration policy at the same time as transforming the life chances of those already here.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is heralded as the UK taking back control, not least by ending the free movement of people under retained EU law. Noble Lords will also remember the promise that EU citizens will no longer have any advantage over citizens of non-EU countries. And then Brexit dogma hits reality.
Noble Lords will remember when e-passport gates at UK airports were restricted to UK, EU and EEA citizens only: you simply scan your passport and you are free to enter the UK. Compare this with the often vast queues for other passport holders, whose reason for entry is questioned and whose passports and visas are checked manually by Border Force officers. Of course, the Government cannot continue to give preferential treatment to EU citizens, so the enormous number of EU and EEA visitors to the UK would surely have to queue with those from the rest of the world. After all, we are taking back control of our borders, are we not? Well, no, because the system would grind to a halt if that happened.
So what are we doing now? The Government’s solution is to let citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States also use e-passport gates, as well as EU citizens—then, of course, the Government cannot be accused of giving EU citizens preferential treatment. These visitors can come to the UK for six months, do a day trip outside the UK and then come back to the UK for another six months—no visa, no fee, and no way of tracking where they are, how long they stay or whether they have left again. The Government say that
“they may not live in the UK by means of repeat visits”,
but there is no way of checking, unless the Minister can enlighten us; I will listen to her response with interest. Rather than taking back control of our borders, we have thrown them open to even more people.
If you go to the United States of America as a UK citizen, Homeland Security officers at the border will assume that you intend to stay and work illegally until you convince them otherwise. Your photograph and fingerprints are taken and you have to record where you are going to stay and when you intend to leave. When a US citizen comes to the UK, they swipe their passport at the e-passport gates and waltz through the border. It may be a trivial example but, across a wide range of issues, the dogma of ending free movement will result in a detrimental impact on the UK, ranging from staffing our NHS and social care systems to ensuring that our crops are harvested.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Three-minute speeches require one to cut corners, which is always a dangerous thing to do and no more dangerous than when on is talking about immigration, an area where every phrase is liable to misinterpretation.
In the mid-1990s, before the Blair Government opened the gates to and encouraged large-scale immigration, the population of the country was 58.1 million. It is now 66.4 million, some 8 million higher. The ONS projection for the numbers for 2040 is another 6 million on top of that. It means that, in half a century, we will have added a quarter to our population. Today, as I speak, the population is going up by just under 1,100 a day, or just under 400,000 a year, with a third, roughly, from the natural increase—the excess of births over deaths—and roughly two-thirds from immigration.
Members of your Lordships’ House may regard all this with equanimity, but let me tell them that, outside, our fellow citizens do not regard it with equanimity; they are very concerned about it indeed. Recent polling says that no fewer than 74% of those polled believe the Government should introduce policies to deal with the challenges of rapid population growth. Of course, it is important, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, not to demonise new arrivals; they bring a degree of economic and cultural dynamic without which we would be a much poorer country. But it is about scale, and it is important to recognise that, under the system of the past few years, there have been losers.
Who are the losers? They are the poorest in our society, as the wages for the bottom decile are now 12% lower in real terms than they were in 2008; they are older people, as it is increasingly difficult for people over 50 to get a job, and at a time when we are raising the retirement age from 65 to 68. Another loser is the British economy, whose Achilles heel is a poor productivity record, which is linked to the free availability of labour, meaning that no investment has been made in machinery; it is the developing world, because we, along with the rest of western society seem to see no moral fault in draining the developing world of its scarce trained resources. Lastly, it is our environment and ecology, because of the damage caused by rapid population growth.
In this Bill, we will be resetting the dial on this critical issue. In Committee, I will want to probe my noble friend on the Front Bench to reassure us, first, that those who have lost out in the years so far will not lose out in the next set of years and, secondly, that proper weight will be given to the quality of aspects of population growth, since they will have such an important and vital consequence for the country we leave our children and grandchildren.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She is not responding. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will concentrate on those parts of the Bill that make provision for social security co-ordination, particularly Clause 5 and Schedules 2 and 3.
We are currently part of the EU system, which is based on four principles: the single state principle that, at any one time, EU citizens are covered by the social security system of just one country and have to pay contributions in only one country; equal treatment, whereby if they are in another member state, they have the same rights as their nationals; aggregation, meaning that periods of insurance, employment or residence in other member states count when determining eligibility for benefits; and exportability, meaning that they can receive benefits from one member state even when they live in another. There is a well-established system of administrative co-operation behind this and these provisions will still apply after the transition period for those within the scope of the withdrawal agreement. The UK has also done a deal with Ireland that broadly replicates the current provisions.
However, the position of other people moving between the UK and the EU after the transition period will depend on whether a future relationship agreement covering social security co-ordination is secured. The augurs are not positive. Last month, a Commons Library brief noted:
“The EU’s Draft Protocol on Social Security Coordination and the UK’s Draft Social Security Coordination Agreement differ significantly in terms of both the matters covered and the persons covered.”
Oh dear.
There is some common ground on state pensions, where both sides want aggregation and for pensions to be able to be exported and uprated annually, but not on disability benefits or healthcare for pensioners living abroad. And there are no co-ordination provisions for benefits other than pensions.
Can the Minister tell us whether there is an agreement in the offing? If not, am I right that this could mean that, without an agreement, workers moving to or posted to an EU country could have to pay national insurance contributions in both countries; people moving between the UK and the EU could find that their contributions paid overseas are ignored if, say, they later fall sick and need to claim benefits; and that there will be no clear rules about which country is responsible for paying someone’s benefits and no mechanism for resolving disputes?
There is deep uncertainty about the future position, but the right response is not a Bill containing Henry VIII powers so broad that they will allow Ministers pretty much to rewrite the social security co-ordination rules at will. Social security co-ordination is an essential prerequisite for labour mobility. But it is also about fairness. These issues affect a lot of people and Parliament deserves more clarity, control and accountability than this Bill currently affords.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, there is little positive to say about this Bill and much, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has so eloquently summarised, that is not only negative but deeply alarming. In its current state, the Bill has the potential to disrupt the family life of British citizens resident in the EU and risks creating a bureaucratic quagmire for EU citizens after the settled status deadline expires, leaving all of them without physical proof of their right to live in the UK—a point that I will come back to in Committee.
The very first clause abolishes free movement. From January next year, EU citizens will lose their free movement rights in the UK. At the same time, every British citizen will lose their right to live, work and travel freely throughout the European Union. EU citizens will lose their rights and privileges in one country; British citizens will lose their rights and privileges in 27 across the European continent. Ministers who enjoyed those rights for the majority of their lives have ensured that they are stripped from their children and grandchildren for ever. They have shrunk the horizons of our country and of our children’s futures, and it is a shame. I recognise that the Government will not reverse course, but I hope that they will at least reduce the impact by listening to the arguments to improve the Bill as it progresses through the House.
I want to focus on three particular areas for improvement. The first is in respect of British citizens resident in the European Union. Those with non-British spouses and family members need to know that, should they wish to return to live in the UK with their family, they will be able to do so. All British citizens living in the EU want to be reassured that we will uphold the treaty rights of EU citizens in the UK; the better to insist that they are upheld for our citizens in the EU. Secondly, the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary made a categorical commitment to EU citizens during the referendum that they would retain exactly the same rights as they had before exit. That promise has long since been betrayed but, at the very least, the Government could make one small concession and provide EU citizens with settled or pre-settled status with physical proof of their right to be in the UK. It is a small thing to ask, but it would make a huge difference, especially to the elderly, many of whom are particularly anxious about the current digital-only status. Finally, I urge the Government to amend the Bill to guarantee that the rights of EU citizens will not be subject to alteration by ministerial fiat, but guaranteed in primary law.
In conclusion, let me make this appeal. The Government have the opportunity to reconsider the Bill by accepting amendments that will bring it at least a little closer to the promises made in the referendum campaign and will help to alleviate the anxiety felt by millions of people facing an uncertain future. To do so, they will need the strength and humility to swallow their pride and do the right thing. I hope that they will find it.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, my concern is the negative impact of the end to freedom of movement and the subsequent points-based system on two discrete groups of people: teachers of modern foreign languages and public service translators and interpreters, especially in the NHS and the criminal justice system. I declare my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
An estimated 35% of MFL teachers and 85% of classroom language assistants are EU nationals. The new system would result in such drastic shortages in the supply chain of MFL teachers that the viability of languages on the curriculum would become terminal. If languages disappear in schools they will also continue to disappear in universities, cutting further the supply chain of homegrown MFL teachers and the linguists needed for diplomacy, trade, defence and security. Around a third of public service interpreters are EU nationals and many more are from other countries. The new rules would create severe shortages and many people will have justice or healthcare either delayed or denied. The national register of PSIs has shrunk by nearly a third since 2012 and, unless we improve recruitment and retention, the risk is that, to quote the register’s director, “Inadequate pseudo interpreters will be used and there will be life-threatening situations using bilingual children rather than qualified, experienced, registered and regulated interpreters who understand medical terms and are trained health and medical language experts.”
Some amendments to the new rules would prevent this crisis. Qualified teachers would meet the salary threshold, but it is an impossible barrier for interpreters, almost all of whom are freelance with average annual earnings as low as £15,000 a year. A PhD offers a smoother path into the UK, but this would rule out most vocationally trained practitioners. It would also be fairer to classify them as “highly skilled” rather than just “skilled”, as at present. Freelance status itself is an issue. There is no dedicated route for self-employed people and, as low-earning freelancers, PSIs will not be able to get a sponsor and do not fit into the so-called innovator route. There is a vague promise of a future route that could help, and I ask the Minister to make good on this promise now. Public service interpreting should also count as a specialist occupation.
Finally, it would help enormously if PSIs and all MFL teachers were on the shortage occupation list. Teachers of Mandarin are listed, but with a shortfall already of 38% in MFL teacher recruitment, they should all be on it. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at all the weaknesses I have identified in relation to these two groups of highly qualified, highly skilled workers vital to the UK’s economic and cultural well-being and our human rights. If for nothing else other than enlightened self-interest, we should offer them a better deal.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the Bill, but I regret the context in which it is presented, particularly as it was presented in the other place. Immigration from the European Union has never prevented us permitting the entry of highly skilled and talented people from elsewhere in the world. Indeed, the number of skilled and talented people coming from outside the European Union has always been considerably higher, but there is an implication that EU migrants are somehow of lesser ability. Bearing in mind the number of them working in the NHS, this is clearly wrong.
We have enjoyed considerable benefits from the 2004 enlargement. Yes, the numbers turned out to be greater than anticipated, but permitting migration from the newly admitted nations was a bold move and a gesture to those states formerly under communist rule. Moreover, the move met with only limited opposition from the then Conservative Opposition.
I also regret the Bill because it marks a very clear break with our neighbours in Europe. It signals the end of the benefit of free movement throughout the EU by UK citizens and we should in no way be triumphant about that. No, European Union immigration is not going to deliver the greatness we seek; it never stopped us having it.
It is not clear to me where the negotiations are regarding travel for UK citizens. I have been asking over time about the efforts Her Majesty’s Government are making to ensure that 180-day visas for visitors, which we are giving to visitors from the European Union, are matched by the 27. I understand that this is a matter for separate negotiation with each of them. It may be that my noble friend can tell me where we are and whether the Government are even concerned about the situation and the potential difference in treatment. Can she also tell me where the negotiations are taking place?
I turn now to Clause 5, which I have read carefully, together with the Explanatory Notes. It is probably me, but I found them quite difficult to follow. Does this clause permit the existing rights of those with EU settled status to be changed to their detriment post 2020? My noble friends have already referred to changes to child benefit. What other changes do the Government have in mind and what other provisions are capable of being changed under the Bill’s provisions? Surely people who have applied and are about to apply for settled status need to know that their entitlement will not be different from UK citizens’. My noble friend referred to the outcome of negotiations. This creates uncertainty for EU citizens, who in fairness need to know where they will stand.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s introduction of the Bill, particularly her reference to the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. This is particularly welcome today because in recent weeks there has been some concern about Northern Ireland and the message from Dublin that British visitors to the Republic of Ireland are not welcome this year due to the pandemic infection level in Great Britain.
At 7.30 this morning the Dublin Government issued their “green list” of visitors, and while citizens of the EU are allowed to come, people from Great Britain are sadly not on the list. To me, that seems a contradiction of the common travel area. The common travel area has worked successfully and I fully support it. I am glad to say that, for the first time since the south of Ireland left the United Kingdom, last year more people from Britain went to live in the Republic of Ireland than Irish people came to live in the United Kingdom.
I am a governor of the second-largest boarding school in Northern Ireland. Of the total number of pupils who board there, we have some 40 to 50 from foreign countries such as China, India and now even Russia, as well as from the Republic of Ireland. I am concerned about the issue of English language schools in the United Kingdom because they are now in trouble. We have 400 such schools, attended every year by some 150,000 students. The sector is worth £1.4 billion to the United Kingdom economy and it supports 35,000 jobs. Moreover, having students from foreign countries in our schools helps our soft power when they return to their home countries.
However, the statistics are not good for this year. Student numbers were down 28% in the first quarter, down 79% in the second quarter, down a further 83% in the third quarter, and 83% of school staff are now on furlough. Of course, the schools have missed out on the peaks for Easter and summer breaks. There is uncertainty in the key markets—for example, China—and concern about the effect Brexit may have on EU students and staff coming to the schools.
At the same time, competition is increasing from such countries as the United States, Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland. In fact, the Republic of Ireland has this year extended its visas due to the pandemic, to make it easier for students to go to English language schools in the Republic. There is big competition out there in the wider world, and the English language schools in the United Kingdom require support. Therefore, I suggest that the temporary workers scheme be introduced with a dedicated visa category for those attending schools, similar to the one we have for seasonal agricultural workers.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows for any EU-derived rights to cease to be recognised in domestic law if they are either inconsistent with immigration legislation or
“capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.
An important body of EU-derived rights has been the human trafficking directive, one of the aims of which is
“to enable the victim to recover”.
Article 11 requires assistance and support for victims. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 made many positive changes, it did not, regrettably, include a statutory right to assistance and support, as in the parallel Northern Ireland and Scottish legislation. When the directive ceases to have effect, the EU rights for victims in England and Wales will disappear. It would seem, therefore, that the legal rights of these victims will be negatively affected by the power in Schedule 1.
Last week, the Centre for Social Justice published a report on modern slavery. It said that the Government must enshrine survivor rights in law to guarantee and protect access to support. It, like me, urges the Government to give all trafficking victims certainty over support and immigration status by adopting the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Sir Iain Duncan-Smith’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which would give confirmed victims of trafficking immigration leave for a minimum of 12 months to receive assistance and support to recover from their abuse.
In the context of the imminent termination of the immigration rights implicit in the right to free movement and the protections in the directive, which have not been translated into UK law, the need for the McColl/Duncan-Smith Bill is now greatly strengthened. I hope the Government will now prioritise giving this Private Member’s Bill time to become law, led as it is in part by two eminent Conservative parliamentarians, one a former leader of the Conservative Party.
I very much welcome the Minister’s opening remarks. She said that all parts of the United Kingdom will be treated as equals. That is very important, and I could not support it more.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful that a day or two ago, the Minister allowed us to ask questions and discuss the Bill in a more informal way than we can today. I still regret that there is so much in the Bill that it will not be in our power to do much about: in other words, the powers given to the Government under the Henry VIII provisions or immigration rules will be such that we can hardly influence them, and we cannot amend them. Can the immigration rules come to us in two stages: the first, amendable in draft form; and then the final version?
Other noble Lords have talked about the difficulties with social care. The Government are saying that their policy is that social care workers should have higher pay, and we should train more of them so that we do not need to have immigrants to deal with social care, where there are 100,000-plus vacancies at the moment. The trouble is, there will not be time for that: we will be near the end of the year and it takes time to train people; it is wishful thinking. The danger is that we will have a larger gap in social care provision as a result of this legislation. It is a retrograde step and we shall live to regret it.
I shall refer to one or two issues on which, if amendments are tabled, I hope I shall be able to support them. I am concerned about the length of immigration detention. As far as I know, we are the only country in Europe that has no limit on immigration detention. In 2019, 24,000 people were detained in this way. Currently, some 1,500 to 2,000 are detained, although it may have gone down a bit because of early releases due to the pandemic. I hope the Minister will confirm that a large proportion of those detained are, in the end, not removed from the country and are released. The only figure I can find is that 37% of those under immigration detention were removed and the remainder were released, so why detain them at all? What is the purpose of that? It seems to me quite wrong, in a democratic country, that we should be doing that.
The right to work for migrants should be such that they can work after six months and not one year. It is very hard for people who have arrived in this country and want to contribute to our economy and pay their taxes if they are not able to do that. I am also concerned about the discussions about no recourse to public funds, which punishes people twice over. I hope to be able to move an amendment to the Bill on child refugees. I believe that public opinion, if the arguments are put, supports bringing into this country some of the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings—child refugees in Calais and on the Greek islands. I very much hope the House will support such an amendment in the interests of human rights and justice.
Lord Dholakia (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effect of various pieces of immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious. The present immigration and social security co-ordination Bill is a clear example of the failure of the Government’s strategy to make migration work for Britain. All the promises about controlling numbers—fewer than 100,000 a year—have not worked for Britain.
Economic migrants have helped to make Britain one of the richer countries in the world, both economically and culturally. There remains a positive economic benefit from managed immigration, filling the demand for skills and labour that are in short supply. It is for this reason that we should concentrate more on the economic and cultural benefits of this process. Constant harping on the control of numbers has skewed our approach to this subject. The cultural and operational practices adopted by the Home Office are notoriously inefficient. Nowhere is this more explicit than in its failure to provide a service that is efficient, effective, timely and fair for all. There is a very high error rate in the initial decision-making process, which results in a culture of rejection.
We have seen race and immigration issues being exploited during both general and local elections. The attempts by politicians to appease a certain section of the public and the media shamefully made a political football of the immigration issue. The last Greater London mayoral election was a case in point. We were told that millions of Turkish migrants were ready to enter this country after the referendum. One does not need Home Office vans touring the streets of London telling illegal immigrants to go home: this is not the way to run our country.
Immigration policies have played a crucial role in successive Governments over the past few years. Let me cite an example. The Labour Government in the 1950s, at the time of Windrush, set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the possibility of legislation and administrative methods to deal with the matter of immigrants. Its key recommendation was that any solution depending on an apparent or concealed colour test would be so invidious as to be impossible to adopt. However, it concluded that, nevertheless, it has to be recognised that the use of power to restrict the free entry of British subjects would, as a rule, be confined to coloured persons. This was nearly 70 years ago. It is no wonder the price we are paying for Windrush, which has now affected so many lives.
We have the same situation now. We are refusing to give proper documentation to settled migrants from the EU, despite the concern expressed on this by EU ambassadors and others.
Finally, there are many issues in the present legislation that we intend to probe; many of them have been highlighted by other speakers. Key among these is that the Bill leaves the immigration system to secondary legislation. This is unacceptable, and the Government should be prepared to expect problems in Committee.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My concern is the interests of EEA citizens who are victims of human trafficking and exactly how their situation will change on 31 December. Hitherto, some EEA victims have been able to remain on the basis of treaty rights that will no longer exist. Even if the Government allow all EEA victims of human trafficking to be automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain, the criteria are tight.
On the basis of past experience, only a tiny portion of confirmed victims of human trafficking are likely to be granted leave to remain. The EEA cohort of victims of trafficking is therefore likely to experience a significant net reduction in access to public funds. This will have significant implications for UK rates of destitution and retrafficking, given that 39% of victims were EEA nationals as of 2019.
In this context, do the Government recognise the strategic significance of my Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned, it is sponsored in another place by Sir Iain Duncan Smith. It provides confirmed victims of slavery a minimum of 12 months’ support to help them rebuild their lives, avoiding destitution and retrafficking with all its associated costs and trauma. It will also greatly assist the conviction of traffickers by making it much easier for all victims to think about giving evidence in court.
The Government deserve great credit for their commitment in dealing with human trafficking and slavery, and I am particularly grateful that they adopted my first anti-trafficking and slavery Bill after your Lordships kindly passed it in this House. I therefore look forward to their adoption of my second Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, as kindly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association and we are being contacted by an increasing number of members, who include some of the most vulnerable people in society today, desperately worried about the future shortage of skilled carers as a result of the planned immigration system. A very real staffing crisis is looming, with serious implications for the health and safety of a significant number of these vulnerable people.
Carers are not used just in hospitals and care homes. Many disabled people live in their own homes and have live-in carers or carers who visit them every day. These carers include many overseas nationals, and they are absolutely essential in managing disabled people’s health needs and enabling them to lead active, productive and fulfilled lives. They are key workers. Carers are a vital and integral part of the healthcare system.
Low paid does not mean low skilled. The vast majority of social care roles do not meet the planned immigration system’s salary threshold of £25,600. Restricting the numbers of overseas nationals who can work in this sector will put lives at risk, especially as we have an ageing population. We need people with a work ethos who want to help and look after people and enjoy and take satisfaction in doing this.
There is a danger that people who cannot get work of their choice are pushed into doing care work, with such horrifying results as happened at Whorlton Hall near Barnard Castle, Thors Park in Essex and Winterbourne View near Bristol, where patients were abused and bullied. This cruelty was exposed by “Panorama”. We must surely try to prevent this sort of thing happening again. I hope the Government will listen before it is too late.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to the debates on the Bill in Committee and at other stages and draw attention to my registered interests, not least the work I do with charities representing child refugees. I endorse the comments made by a number of noble Lords already in the debate about the need for us to show more humanity in our approach to that. Hopefully your Lordships’ House will indeed do that.
I pick up on one of the remarks made by the Minister in introducing the debate. She said that any regional approach to immigration in the UK would cause chaos and therefore should be avoided. I reflect back on 2004 when, as First Minister of Scotland, I had identified the problem of Scotland’s depopulation. One of the ways we could tackle that problem was to encourage in particular those who had come to study in Scotland to stay, but also to attract new people to Scotland to energise both our population numbers and our economy with the entrepreneurship they would bring.
I agreed a scheme with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary—an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent Home Secretary, who I think would win that debate he promised us at the end of his earlier contribution. He agreed a scheme that involved a fresh talent visa in Scotland. It was particular to Scotland and allowed those who had studied in Scotland to stay longer to secure work and perhaps establish a family and home in our country. The scheme was never abused. Report after report showed that it was possible to have a scheme in one part of the United Kingdom that worked for the local circumstances there. The partnership we developed at that time between the Scottish Government and the UK Government—the Home Office—was an exemplar in devolved-central government co-operation in the UK.
While debates about regional approaches to immigration are sometimes coloured by more extreme demands for devolving responsibility for immigration to one of the devolved nations—which I have never been in favour of—it is possible to have regional approaches. There are parts of the United Kingdom where a one-size-fits-all approach no longer works. This is not just in Scotland but can be in other parts of the UK too. I hope that when we come to debates on this in Committee or on Report, the Minister will be willing to listen to the opportunities that would exist if we opened the door to regional approaches, which would benefit the whole UK and not just the nations or regions affected.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the Government say that this Bill aligns the treatment of people from the EEA seeking asylum or to migrate to the UK with that of the rest of the world. From the Government who were responsible for the Windrush scandal, this is indisputably a levelling down and needs extensive scrutiny in this House. Some may question whether any EU 27 citizens would claim asylum. Clearly they have not spoken to people from Poland, where, under the latest iteration of Section 28, municipalities in one-third of the country have declared themselves LGBT-free zones, or to people from Hungary, where President Orbán used the Covid-19 emergency to obliterate the legal recognition of trans people. I hope our Home Office will not treat citizens as inhumanely as it does LGBT asylum seekers from the rest of the world.
Cancer Research UK has pointed out the fear that this Bill threatens the UK’s position as a centre for world-class research. We need an immigration system that enables our institutions to be go-to destinations for global research and innovation talent. That means having a skills pipeline of young junior research scientists, who do not reach the income levels set out in this Bill. Will the Government carry out an urgent review of the UK’s visa costs and their expected impact on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff? If our visa system remains one of the most expensive in the world, we will simply create a hostile environment for research.
We still await the Government’s detailed proposals for the future of social care, but this Bill will definitely disrupt the supply of care staff from abroad. What modelling have the Government done to work out the impact of this Bill on the health and social care sector?
The Bill is heralded by Ministers as laying the foundation for a new immigration system, but it is silent on the nature of that foundation, let alone the substance of any system that may be built upon it. Let us use it as an opportunity to remove one stain on our national reputation: unlimited detention. Let us use it to do what the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place said on 21 March 2019, when it made wide-ranging criticisms of our current detention policy and practice and concluded that:
“Lengthy … detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm.”
It recommended an end to indefinite immigration detention and the implementation of a maximum 28-day limit.
This Bill has the potential to do great harm to the health and well-being of our nation. I hope it receives detailed scrutiny and amendment during its passage through this House.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to take part in the Second Reading of this important Bill, as hundreds of thousands of final decisions are made annually under the Immigration Rules which are life-changing for the applicants.
In the past, many have said that the rules have been too complex, so I am pleased about the work to complete redrafting, making the rules simpler and more accessible to applicants, and the twice-yearly updates creating more certainty and transparency.
The Bill commits the Government to deliver a fairer, skills-led immigration system based not on where people come from but on their skills, not only enabling businesses to flourish but giving people the opportunity to begin one, to help drive and deliver a high-performing UK economy. It does this while giving us full control over our borders, together with a future points-based immigration system for when transition ends. As this new system is introduced, decisions can be made, importantly, far quicker and more accurately.
In supporting our economy, business and trade, the Bill ensures that workers and employers pay contributions in only one country at a time. Those who are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period are protected by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and will be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme to secure their immigration status in UK law until 30 June 2021. I am also pleased with the confirmation of the rights of Irish citizens.
Let us not forget that migrants play a huge role in our economy—you have only to look at the contribution they make to our health service, brought to prominence particularly during the Covid crisis. It is important to note both that those currently working in the NHS will be subject to an automatic extension for a year and the settlement scheme for EU citizens, which opened in March 2019 and received 3.7 million applications.
This Bill will allow the Government to identify understaffed sectors and make provision for those who want to make a new life here and contribute to our economy. The costs to the public sector of ending free movement will relate to the administration of the evidence-based system. They will not be minor costs, but the Government are responding to the people across the country who have called for this change.
As the Secretary of State said, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our immigration system so that all EU and non-EU citizens will be treated equally—a system to develop our national interest and the economy which treats immigrants from all countries on the same basis. It is fair and not anti-immigration. It is based on people’s skills rather than on their nationality. It is a system which mirrors those of other countries and will give us a lever to open up to the world, which I welcome.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fully endorse the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Hodgson. I declare a non-financial interest as founding co-chairman and now president of Migration Watch. In those capacities I have followed immigration for nearly 20 years; indeed, I am now on my 10th Home Secretary and 15th Minister for Immigration.
Migration Watch is the only body that has consistently called for a reduction in the scale of immigration, a view which, according to nine recent opinion polls, is shared by a majority of the UK population. That amounts to approximately 30 million adults. I add that Migration Watch has a remarkable record in projecting immigration levels. For example, in 2002, we estimated that non-EU net migration would run at 2 million over the following decade. We were met with disbelief, but the ONS later estimated that it had indeed amounted to 2.1 million.
This points-based system will cause net migration to spin out of control. The only question is how rapidly this will occur. Secondary legislation under the Bill will lower salary and educational requirements. At the same time, work routes will be opened up to the whole world and will generate a pool of potential—I stress “potential”—candidates running into literally hundreds of millions. Some employers will want cheaper, non-unionised workers; others will follow suit to stay competitive. Furthermore, as these routes will lead to settlement, many candidates around the world will have relatives already here to guide and encourage them—all this as unemployment in the UK heads into several millions.
In a nutshell, the Government are heading for a car crash. There is only one way to avoid this: to start with a cap on work permits and then adjust it as necessary. The public will simply not understand why, having promised to take back control over immigration, the Government should then hand control over to employers, most of whom have very little interest in controlling it.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, under cover of the pandemic, Ministers are doggedly pursuing their Brexit immigration agenda when we are in the grip of a pandemic-induced economic tsunami. A hard Brexit, sought by many Conservatives, will sever links with our most important trading partners and neighbours, and unilaterally end free movement on 31 December, with our economy still on its knees and facing a major skills crisis.
This will be the second time in the last 10 years that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants who have legally entered this country to live and work here. The Bill aims to prioritise “skilled” labour with a points-based system based largely on salary. However, as shown by a recent Ipsos MORI poll, the public recognise, with my noble friend Lord Rosser, the important role played in the pandemic by the 180,000 European Union-national health and care workers, most of whom would be identified by the Home Secretary as “low-skilled” and would not have qualified for visas under the Bill.
Unless deals on citizens’ rights are reached with the European Union, these workers, many of them heroes in the Covid crisis, will be exposed to the harsh reality of the Home Office’s failed and inhumane hostile environment policy. It is also likely that there will be a second Windrush for the children of migrants, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said in this House on 2 July. The Government’s promises on EU nationals’ rights mean nothing if they are not backed by primary legislation. They should be granted automatic settled status. The Bill does neither.
To lead a recovery from Covid, the Government are promoting investment in construction and infrastructure, highly dependent on skilled labour from the EU, yet they have no effective strategy for domestic skills-based programmes, which take years to deliver results. By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants, on whom we have depended for years. The Huawei debacle has illustrated that the “global Britain” assumed by leave in the referendum campaign no longer exists. Our legal, economic and trading relationship with the EU—the world’s biggest, richest market, right on our doorstep—which is in no way settled, should remain our most important for years to come. Our immigration system should reflect that, not the other way around.
Another huge consequence of the Bill is that, as a direct consequence of the lack of reciprocal agreements on citizens’ rights, 66 million UK nationals will lose the benefits of their EU citizenship, their rights to travel freely and to live, work and study elsewhere in our European home. Frankly, this is all a shambolic disgrace.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I believe our nation welcomes the broad thrust of this Bill, as I do, but in the short time available, I will pick out just three points. First, I suspect that all noble Lords are well aware of the challenge with care workers. There is no doubt that there needs to be some transition, some amendment to how we deal with care workers. We have 8% of roles in adult social care vacant at the moment: 122,000. In addition, 8% of the social care workforce have an EU identity—et cetera.
It seems to me that Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to mention just three countries that face a very similar problem, have found what they believe to be a fair answer to meet this challenge—which is not a challenge that can be dealt with in five minutes. I have been a Member of Parliament, as have a number of my colleagues sitting in the Chamber this afternoon. We know about care homes, old people’s homes and nursing homes, so we know you cannot adjust them furiously in a few minutes. But I say to my noble friends on the Front Benches that we have to find an answer.
The other aspect of the NHS is doctor recruitment. We have had far too few young men and women entering the medical profession. It is highly oversubscribed, but—I am sorry to say this; I might be seen to be sexist—60% of the intake today is female, and, of those, well over half only ever work part time, so that is not an answer. We need to increase the intake to our medical schools.
My noble friend Lord Lilley mentioned nursing. What was the figure he gave: 25,000 nurses applying to nursing schools turned down last year? We have to find an answer to this. If we do not, the figure of 29% of doctors working in NHS hospitals coming from overseas will never be solved. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: I hope that will be looked at.
Finally, a number of colleagues in the House know that I am closely involved with Sri Lanka. I know a fair bit about illegal immigration; I know about self-harm; I know about alleged torture; and it is still happening. I am sorry to say that: self-harm is still happening. That is not good for the individuals involved and it is putting money into the pockets of people that it should not be, so I should like that investigated, and I will be supplying my noble friend with some information about that.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Bill includes extraordinary powers for Ministers to make changes to primary legislation. It does so without any safeguards or restrictions on how they may be exercised. These powers were described as “very significant” by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Refom Committee, and it rightly expressed concern. I am concerned too. This legislation, even if it is narrow in scope, is seen as laying the foundations for a new immigration system. If that is the case, this is an opportunity to ensure that it is underpinned by principles and purpose that will guide the exercise of immigration powers and ensure that it is compliant with fundamental rights.
Our immigration system is becoming responsible for a vastly increased number of people and applications, but is the system up to the task? Apparently not; the Windrush scandal shows that. The Law Commission recently highlighted the complexity of the Immigration Rules. The system is in need of reform, and this is an opportunity to make it compliant with fundamental rights and, in the words of the Home Secretary, to make it firmer, simpler and fair. It is an opportunity to have a system which supports refugee family reunion and takes steps towards ending immigration detention, among other things.
With regard to family reunion, in Committee on the Bill in the other place, the Immigration Minister, Kevin Foster, stated that the Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children. These words should be matched with action. Currently, the Dublin regulation includes transfers for the purposes of family reunion, but at the end of the Brexit transition period this route for family reunion may be lost. This is an opportunity to amend domestic legislative rules and provide a legal and safe means for vulnerable individuals to join families, and to mitigate some of the risks of leaving the Dublin system. With regard to detention, this is an opportunity to significantly improve the law by providing a statutory limit of 28 days for any person to be held in detention.
Finally, I wish to raise an issue which has been drawn to my attention by English UK, the national association of English language teachers. The current situation is that EU, EEA and Swiss citizens can use ID cards in lieu of passports to enter the UK under free movement rules. The Government plan to scrap the EU ID card entry by 2021. This threatens to deter EU and EEA students, particularly junior students under 18. This could lead to a downturn of juniors coming here; we might lose them to Ireland or Malta. About 260,000 students travelling to the UK to study are under 18. Many do not have passports. The cost and bureaucracy of obtaining them for a short period is prohibitive.
Four hundred English schools bring in 550,000 students every year and inject about £1.4 billion into the economy. The benefits to the economy of the UK and to UK soft power are evident. The future of English schools is already in danger due to Covid, and if no action is taken on ID cards, we may see closure of those schools. A small amendment, such as creating a passport-free joint travel document which could be used by a group of students travelling together with the group leader, would ease the situation and minimise delays at the border. The security risks of juniors are minimal, as they will be travelling as a group with a leader, so I hope this small amendment will be accepted in the course of the Bill’s passage.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, immigration policy has been controversial, often bitterly controversial, in this country for more than 130 years, since the waves of Jewish immigration in response to the pogroms in Russia in the 1890s. Looking at policy since then, we see that there have been periods of substantial immigration that have led to civic reactions against it and then a closing down of immigration.
The last time we went through a process similar to the one we are going through at the moment was in the 1960s when, in response to the substantial immigration from the Commonwealth, there was a big social reaction, bitter political controversy caused by it and, in the two Commonwealth immigration Acts of the 1960s, an almost complete cessation of immigration. From the late 1960s until the expansion of the European Union in the early 2000s, there was almost no net migration into this country. Looking at the challenges that we have faced and the situation the Government are responding to in the context of Brexit, it is always important to get the history right to understand what the right policy is for the future.
What went wrong after 2003 was not too much Europe but too little. What we should have done with the expansion of the European Union to central and eastern Europe—I bear my share of responsibility for this—was to have implemented the same seven-year transitional controls as virtually the whole of the rest of the European Union implemented. If we had actually been a team player in the European Union, which we have been so bad at doing for almost the entirety of our membership, I do not believe we would have had the social pressures which led to the big immigration concerns about Brexit after 2010. We were at fault in that, which is why Britain became the overwhelming focus of immigration after 2004, and it was not properly managed.
However, two things were going on at that time. One was net migration into this country from central and eastern Europe, predominantly—although there had been earlier waves from Italy and Spain, they were of smaller numbers. However, the other crucial development, which is why the whole system is unstable is, of course, that Brits were going freely to travel, live, study and settle abroad. The bit which will make this system entirely unstable is that anything we do in response to migrants coming from the rest of the European Union will be done in respect of the more than 1 million Brits who have already settled and many others who want to take advantage of similar rights in the future. When the public wake up to the fact that their own rights to travel, study, settle and work across the European continent will suffer in exactly the same ways we restrict rights to others in Europe coming here, this situation will become controversial in this country and not just internationally.
Of all the speeches made so far, the one which the noble Baroness and the Home Secretary should be really worried about is that of the noble Lord, Lord Green. He is correct. My analysis of the points-based system with the salary threshold is that the Government do not in fact have any control. In the guise of taking back control, they do not have control over the situation hereafter. We now have a massively unstable system, potentially millions of new immigrants coming from the wider world beyond the European Union, and a British population that will be increasingly disgruntled when they realise that their own emigration and travel rights across the rest of Europe will suffer. I therefore see this as a staging post in a very unstable situation with regard to immigration in the future.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is clear from the Minister’s introduction that she knows how damaging the Bill is. The Government deploy a circular argument. They say they are delivering on the referendum result, and that immigration was a factor in that result, as if members of the Government had not been the ones who helped persuade the British public that leaving the EU was a good idea, and that there were risks of huge increases in immigration if we did not.
We have been clapping for NHS, social care and other essential staff. The Government are belatedly realising how important they are. It is specious for the Government now to say what they are saying about pay in the social care sector when they have not addressed it in funding. What will they say when those helping to underpin, for example, our virtual system, leave? Will they say that they just did not know? There are so many others in so many other sectors, from agriculture to warehouse distribution. We depend on the City of London for the tax revenues required for the NHS and social care, let alone the so-called levelling up of the north. Yet here the City of London is undermined.
We are in the middle of a pandemic, with things likely to get worse this winter. We choose this moment to fail to secure a deal with the EU that keeps us in the customs union and the single market, or any but the most basic of arrangements, further damaging our better businesses. Then we make it worse by introducing this immigration system into an economy which, prior to coronavirus, had record levels of employment. The Bill gives business totally inadequate time to prepare. Why is so much in secondary legislation, which is so difficult to scrutinise? It shows how unprepared the Government are that they are seeking to do it this way. They are beginning to realise the unintended consequences of their system.
The Chancellor said that he was not driven by ideology. He has recognised the support required for our economy. If only his colleagues in the Home Office could be as pragmatic, and spend their time protecting the country from the effects of that referendum. The proposed new system is deeply damaging to Britain, to the British economy and to those whom the Government say they wish to help.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I pay tribute to the Minister and her team for the immense work they have put into preparing for this stage of the proceedings.
I declare an interest in that I am half Danish—the product of a union between a Scottish father and a Danish mother. There are deep historic ties between the UK and Denmark and I regret that they will be broken at one swoop in the Bill. I too take very seriously the words of the noble Lord, Lord Green. My noble friend the Minister referred in particular to the vote. I am sure that she is right that this is the general folklore as to why people voted in the referendum for us to leave the European Union. However, did they vote to see EU net migration fall to now well below 100,000 and to see non-EU migration rise to 250,000 in the same period? I am not entirely sure whether the public have yet grasped the consequences of the vote.
I will put one or two specific questions to my noble friend and would like to explore them further in later proceedings on the Bill. Should we not be making provision for a grace period to clarify the rights of EU and EEA citizens who live here and who may be caught out between 1 January 2021, when the new provisions come into effect, and 30 June 2021, when more detailed subsequent statutory instruments and guidance will come into effect under the terms of the withdrawal agreement? It would be helpful to have that clarified, as obviously both those citizens and their legal advisers will be concerned by this.
I echo the comments of other noble Lords who flagged up category of the low-skilled worker, which will come back and cause the Government and the country enormous problems. All of us are concerned about the healthcare workers, and I mention the 29% of doctors working in the NHS hospitals, to whom we are enormously grateful, and the 12% of non-British EU health care workers who will be caught out by these provisions. There are also the farm workers, who pick the vegetables and fruit at this time of year. If my noble friend could address my concerns in that regard, I will be very grateful. I hope the Minister will also have regard to a plea from businesses about the lack of time until the new provisions come into effect. Will better guidance be made available before the end of the transition period?
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I acknowledge the comments from the Minister and welcome the Government’s intention to make significant improvements to the pay and conditions of social care workers. The health and care visa route recently announced excludes social care worker from its list of skilled workers. In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, where a points system like that proposed by the UK Government operates, they have included an alternative immigration route for social care workers.
In April 2017, the New Zealand Government increased care and support workers’ pay by 21% to improve recruitment and retention in the sector. That also resulted in greater parity between social care and health workers and meant that migrants in the sector were more likely to meet the income threshold under New Zealand’s points-based immigration system. In Canada, like in the UK, social care workers are in demand across the country. There they are listed in the target occupations list, which means that migrants with experience or relevant qualifications can gain a Canadian permanent resident visa.
If the Government will not create a visa route to allow social care workers into this country, prior to the new system being introduced next January they must develop a strategy for social care that will ensure an adequate supply of labour in the sector. Nearly 8% of roles in adult social care are currently vacant, equivalent to 122,000 vacancies at any one time. We know that the NHS is a direct competitor for staff in some roles and can offer enhanced pay levels and a national career structure. For example, nurses working in the NHS earn 7% more than those working in adult social care—a gap that is set to grow under the recent NHS pay deal.
Parity of recognition for social care staff is acknowledged as important. It is more than important; it is essential. I hope the Government will recognise this and act accordingly.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol [V]
My Lords, migration is a natural part of life and an experience shared between all living things on our planet. Moreover, for those of us who trace our faith back to Abraham, migration has been a continuous and inescapable feature of our human history.
In this context, I welcome any debate to discern together what guiding principles and moral framework should underpin a new system for managing migration. However, given the narrowness of the Bill, I hope we will not lack further opportunities for healthy public debate, and that the reservation of so much to secondary legislation will not hide future policy from scrutiny and discussion.
Research indicates that a hostile immigration environment does not deter migration. Rather, it makes migrants more vulnerable to abuse. I record my particular concern about the lack of provision for victims of human trafficking and modern-day slavery in the Bill. Indeed, this legislation could see crucial protections for the most vulnerable in society being lost, without appropriate replacement. I think in particular of the EU anti-trafficking directive, as the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McColl, indicated.
However, it is not just victims of modern-day slavery who are extremely vulnerable. Asylum seekers and refugees continue to be denied the right to work. It seems very strange that the Government continue to deny people waiting on a decision from the Home Office the opportunity to support themselves—and to pay taxes.
Meanwhile, the Government are keen that the United Kingdom should attract the brightest and best from overseas. Many people displaced by conflict or persecution have valuable professional skills in areas such as medicine and engineering but are stuck in refugee camps, unable to use those skills to support their families and rebuild their lives. I welcome the Government’s openness to considering a displaced talent visa to level up access to labour market mobility for those displaced from their homelands. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I look forward to further discussions in Committee.
Finally, I highlight the lack of provision for children in the Bill. According to Children’s Society research, many local authorities are not aware of how many children in their care will be affected by our exit from the European Union. This would leave an already vulnerable group of children and young people without recourse to public funds liable to immigration detention or forced removal from their home and the country they have grown up in.
Migration is a constant feature of our nation’s story. Our shared task is to discern how we can create a system that benefits all.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, although I too am pleased to speak in this Second Reading, I am sorry that we have this Bill at all. Like so many of our fellow citizens, I regret it. It is a Bill that makes provision to end the excellent free movement that we had under EU law in exchange for what I believe to be a punitive points-based system.
Like my noble friend Lord Rosser and others, I will concentrate on the care sector. We have seen how much care workers do under the pressures of the virus, and how the problems of funding and security have created problems for the care sector and shown how it is often treated as a poor relative of the NHS. We need to give more consideration to the care sector’s value and to work to keep its workforce; otherwise they will continue to be an afterthought in immigration, as well as other areas. As others have said, part of the new points-based immigration system disadvantages them. They will be excluded from the new health and care visa. Even senior care workers would not qualify with the minimum salary threshold. It is unjust and unfair, particularly on top of the lack of support they have had during the Covid epidemic. I hope this matter can be dealt with and looked at more carefully in Committee and on Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and my noble friend Lord McConnell, did, I will touch on whether this applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. As a Scots Peer, I think that immigration must remain principally a UK-wide competence, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said. I strongly disagree with the SNP’s proposal for an alternative immigration system for Scotland. That is very different from the very limited scheme that my noble friend Lord McConnell introduced, which he described earlier. Scotland’s immigration needs are not significantly different from other parts of the United Kingdom. Anyway, how could we prevent immigrants moving around the UK without border controls? The Deputy Speaker will know and I am sure that he would agree that the last thing we need are border controls at Gretna and Berwick.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, this squalid little Bill would end our participation in Europe’s greatest post-war achievement: freedom for all of us to live, love and work without hindrance anywhere in 27 countries. I deeply regret its loss.
We have to wonder how we have plummeted so far since the heady days of the London Olympics. In just eight years, that pride in our country and the welcome we gave to the world have given way to division and cynicism. What has changed is that the cabal of leave campaigners, who cheated and lied their way through the referendum, went on to capture the Conservative Party and then the Government. They have not changed their shameful methods. They are still peddling the beguiling but delusional myth of British exceptionalism, claiming that everything they do is world-beating when it manifestly is not. The hard truth is that their stewardship has taken us into the relegation zone of the world Covid league. When they combine that with a hard Brexit, we will tumble out of contention altogether. Our excessive death toll from the virus was caused by the PM’s absence in February while rearranging his marital affairs, his dithering over lockdown in March and his adviser’s barely concealed fetish for herd immunity.
Yesterday’s ISC report described Russia as
“a muddy nexus between business and corruption and state power”,
but this sounds a bit familiar closer to home. Here, we have rushed planning decisions to help party donors, huge untendered PPE contracts with unsuitable companies and the ruling party being dangerously close to wealthy, Kremlin-connected Russians. Indeed, Mr Johnson has a penchant for oligarchs’ hospitality. At the risk of gifting them kompromat in 2018 he cavorted with them, without his security detail, but with a former Russian spy, at an Italian palazzo. At the same time, the citizens of Salisbury were reeling from Russia’s use of deadly nerve agent on their streets.
The Prime Minister’s chief adviser, who, remarkably, retains his post while being literally in contempt of Parliament, and whose mantra is “Never admit mistakes, never apologise, never resign”, has three years in Moscow on his CV. Is it then any wonder that these people buried the ISC report before the election, or that they are still resisting the cross-party calls for an investigation into Russian interference in the referendum? What on earth could they possibly have to hide?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I shall strike a rather less partisan note. Like my noble friend Lord Naseby, I welcome the Bill because it is clearly a necessary part of the Government’s attempts to reduce the large-scale immigration we have had over the past 20 years to a more sustainable level. Large-scale immigration is damaging to Britain in a number of ways. First, it reduces the quality of life in these islands. The UK is a heavily populated country. The population is growing at its fastest for more than a century and two-thirds of that growth comes from immigration. The extra people have to be provided for, and that has many adverse effects. For example, an area of countryside the size of Cornwall has been lost to development since 1990. All this is well set out in a pamphlet by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which I recommend the House reads carefully. It is much more interesting than most government pamphlets and much better illustrated.
Secondly, large-scale immigration damages the economy. Most obviously it deters businesses from investing in training and apprenticeships for the domestic population. Thirdly, immigration on the present scale also increases inequality because the lowest paid suffer most from immigration. Fourthly, large-scale immigration makes the problem of maintaining social cohesion far worse. Fifthly, there is a moral point. What right has Britain to scour the world for skilled people when they are often desperately needed in their own countries? Finally, British people have repeatedly shown that they do not want large-scale immigration at this level. Despite this, the Labour Government under Tony Blair went ahead with large-scale immigration. It harmed the country, it cost Labour votes on a massive scale and it increased distrust of politicians because people felt they had not been consulted—and, indeed, they had not been.
This is an enabling Bill and does not set out the Immigration Rules. Like the noble Lords, Lord Green of Deddington and Lord Adonis, I hope that when the Minister considers these comments she will look at what they said because I am afraid we have insufficient control of this situation and we have given employers too much control. None the less, I am delighted that the Government have said that they will keep the situation under review and will act quickly when necessary. I hope my noble friend will confirm that in her wind-up speech.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by explaining that I am married to someone who has gone through the EU settled status scheme after having lived here for more than 25 years. His experience as a German national was relatively straight- forward, albeit expensive. The dénouement came when his citizenship ceremony took place. Other new migrants had been given crib cards showing the words of the national anthem, but they were unable to sing it when the audio system broke down in the town hall in the middle of their rendering of “God Save the Queen”. Suffice it to say that while we are good at most big things, we tend not to be able to pull off small but symbolic things very well in this country.
Turning to the Bill, I shall pick up the thread of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about data and statistics that will determine the future rights of some EU citizens. The Financial Times recently showed up the discrepancy between the Office for National Statistics data and the reality of the number of EU citizens in the UK who may be eligible for settled status. According to the ONS, some 3.4 million people from the EU are eligible for settlement. However, the number of EU migrants who have applied to stay after Brexit already exceeds the official estimate. At the end of May, there had been some 3.6 million applications. The FT surveyed EU embassies and discovered that the UK Government had underestimated the EU-born population of the UK by more than 500,000 people.
This is reminiscent of Mr Blair’s breezy estimates about how few people would move to the UK when people from the A7 countries were allowed to come, but it is more serious because of its consequences. When the deadline for applications comes on 30 June 2021, there are likely to be people who will lose their legal status overnight and face wrongful deportation. I understand that the Home Office has said that it will take a “flexible and pragmatic approach” and that anyone with “reasonable grounds” for missing the deadline will be given further opportunities to apply. I would like to hear from the Minister what the flexibility and reasonable grounds criteria will be. What opportunities will be available and, more importantly, will they be publicised to EU nationals and their family members? That further opportunity is bound not to be taken up if people do not know about it.
In Committee, I will press for an improvement in the granting of visa for the tech industry. When I was chairing the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee, we heard from numerous groups about the importance of a fast-track, simplified system for people who establish start-ups or work in the fintech sector. There is a vast amount of data on the success of those born abroad in driving growth in the fastest growing companies. Half of the UK’s fastest growing companies have at least one foreign-born co-founder, according to studies. As time is short, I shall pick up on this theme in Committee. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my questions.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in the time I have today I shall restrict my comments to two issues. The first is care workers. As noted by many noble Lords, there are around 120,000 jobs currently vacant in the adult social care sector and around 250,000 social care workers are EU or non-EU nationals. The immigration system proposed in the Bill will seriously undermine the social care workforce. It puts up barriers that will stop people from overseas coming to the UK to work in adult social care. This will lead to an even higher level of staff shortages in the care system, which is already stretched thin and experiencing a high number of staff vacancies. It is also wrong to exclude care workers from the qualifying list for the new health and care visa. While the senior care worker role is included, the salary threshold will make the vast majority of care workers ineligible to apply. Will the Minster set out clearly in her response why the Government are reluctant to provide a sector-specific visa route which allows international recruitment into social care? Such a route exists in other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, so why is such a route not being considered for the UK, especially as our need is as great as theirs?
The second issue I want to touch on is EU children in care. I echo the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Thousands of children in care and care leavers could be at risk of being left unlawfully resident in the UK next year without co-ordinated action between central government and local authorities. The Government are the corporate parent of these children and should act as any parent would. They have a responsibility to ensure that all children in their care receive the settled status to which they are entitled. Applying under the EU settlement scheme is not simple and straightforward. For children in care and care leavers, gathering the required evidence has been a challenge. Will the Minister give the House up-to-date figures on the number of children in care who have applied under the scheme to date and indicate how many of them have been denied settled status? If she does not have the figures to hand, perhaps she will write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Will the Government commit to put in place the processes and policies necessary to guarantee that all EU children in care and care leavers receive the permanent immigration status to which they are entitled?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank all the NGOs and businesses which have been in touch with me regarding the Bill.
The Bill allows the Government to create a new immigration statement by statutory instrument. The Bill is asking for a blank cheque, but on something as important as this, proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential. The Bill also dispenses with the consent of the Scottish Parliament to social security co-ordination measures. Not only is the content of the Bill bad, it is a constitutional outrage that concentrates executive power in the UK by taking control over the consent of nations and Parliament at the expense of child refugees, migrant workers and others.
Further, the Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that unaccompanied children, spouses or vulnerable dependent adults who have a family member legally present in the United Kingdom have the same right to be reunited in the United Kingdom as they would have had under Commission Regulation EU 604/2013.
The deadline for applying to the EU settlement scheme must be extended and a comprehensive plan implemented to protect, as many others have said, all children in care and care leavers to whom this provision is applicable. Furthermore, a child has the right to citizenship in UK nationality law and they should not be charged more than £1,000 to make it a reality. The current citizenship fee for children should be scrapped. I shall also support the amendments on refugee children that will be tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I share all the criticisms made by my noble friends but I shall focus on the potentially hugely detrimental impact on the higher education, cultural and tech sectors of the ending of EEA freedom of movement and on how government needs to take the necessary action required by those sectors so that the impact can be at least partially mitigated.
International students and academic staff contribute hugely to our universities and the UK as a whole. We have recently lost ground as a destination, and the new points-based system and Covid-19 are extremely likely to further damage recruitment. The creative and culture sector makes a major contribution to our lives and economy, but highly talented individuals in this sector are often paid salaries lower than the UK median. As regards the important tech sector, 13% of the UK’s digital tech workforce is international. The UK faces a chronic digital skills gap, and access to talent is the number one issue in the sector.
Given the issues faced by those sectors, will the Government take these steps? Will they extend the current, or make special, arrangements for EU students for the calendar year 2021? Will they confirm and ensure better promotion of the rules for the new two-year post-study work visa? Under the new minimum salary requirements, only 27% of current international academic staff will be eligible, and the figure is even lower in the creative sector. For each sector, will the Government therefore explore a further reduction in the current income threshold and provide greater flexibility for eligibility? For the creative sector, will they extend the permitted paid engagement scheme, allowing multiple visits and permit-free festival arrangements for EU citizens? Will they also seek a reciprocal touring visa with the EU to enable creators and performers to travel temporarily and take their equipment with them tax free?
The new system will place significant burdens on SMEs in particular. Will the Government give businesses and individuals time, guidance and support to adapt to the new system and provide a much more streamlined system for processing visas? Will they bring costs in line with other countries? The total costs are high. In addition to salary costs, they include the cost of a sponsor licence and a visa, the immigration skills charge and an immigration health surcharge, all of which make recruiting workers internationally much more challenging.
In just these three sectors, despite the huge detriment potentially caused by the new system, a number of crucial mitigating steps could be taken if there is the political will. I hope that the Minister can respond accordingly.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the way in which she introduced this debate. However, I echo the concerns expressed around the House about the Henry VIII powers in Clauses 4 and 5, which seem to deny parliamentarians the right to a say over the new Immigration Rules in the future. I fear that that is not the kind of “taking back control” that fits with our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty.
The Bill is silent on how the changes that it makes in relation to Irish citizens will affect the rights of Northern Irish citizens under the Good Friday agreement. However, I want to focus my brief remarks on the issue raised by many others across the House: the implications for the social care workforce and the elderly, disabled or frail individuals who rely on them for their basic quality of daily life.
I support the desire for employers to focus on investing in their staff, providing training and increasing the prestige of the care workforce, thus making it an attractive profession, but that will take a long time. Even in 2018, the National Audit Office highlighted the lack of any updated DHSC strategy for the adult social care workforce. Nearly 20% of that workforce is from overseas but, despite that, there are more than 120,000 vacancies and staff turnover is around one-third each year. The new points-based system will not include those workers.
I support the aim of attracting the very best migrants from around the world but, unlike in the Australian and New Zealand points systems, our limit of £25,000 a year suggests that those working in social care are not considered to be skilled or valuable enough to be worthy of British residence. However, low pay does not mean low value. What will happen if the domestic workforce cannot be trained? We cannot ask these frail, vulnerable individuals to just wait until the training programme works out. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, powerfully explained, this is not about care homes alone; it is about those who live in their own homes and who rely on some immigrants to help look after them.
The domestic workforce is unlikely to respond quickly or positively to work in the care sector—a sector that is underfunded and where workers are underpaid relative to the NHS. Unless we have the Government’s long-term plan for social care, for which we are still waiting a year after it was supposed to be oven-ready, we cannot seriously expect the social care workforce to be filled domestically. I urge my noble friend to listen to the words of my noble friend Lord Naseby and others and introduce a transitional scheme that will help encourage immigration for social care.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Before I start, I wish to say that I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
I shall focus my remarks on how immigration reform will affect science and innovation and the health and care sector. The Government have often said that they want the UK to be a science superpower. Apart from funding and international collaboration, which are crucial, this sector relies heavily on our ability to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent. Thirty-one per cent of UK Nobel prize winners in science where born outside the UK, and 50% of CRUK-supported PhD students are from outside the UK, rising to 70% of post- doctoral researchers. In part, the Government have recognised this by introducing the global talent visa, but serious concerns remain about the rest of the system.
I will focus on two issues. First, I want to talk about the significant cost of the system for employers and researchers, early-stage researchers and technicians, who will be punished by the new rules. Even researchers gaining a Global Talent visa will face costs of over £2,500. This is 10 times the comparable cost in Germany, the US and Australia, and seven times that in France. The UK will be the most expensive scientific destination in the world. Much of this cost is also associated with health costs. The impact is even greater for those not included in the Global Talent visa due to heavy visa costs, which can be as much as £8,500, and that does not include the costs related to family, which will be above that. The points-based system further disadvantages those whose salary level does not reach £25,000, such as lab technicians—a workforce crucial to science and innovation.
Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the effect that the Bill will have on health and social care workers. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications has played a vital role in enabling EU doctors to work in the UK. The legislation would remove that recognition, which applies also to other countries, and would have a significant effect on recruitment, and not just of EU doctors.
My final comment relates to the lack of any migratory route for unregistered care staff—a point already mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross, Lady Kennedy and Lady Altmann. The sector is already in crisis, with an estimated 110,000 nursing vacancies in social care alone. As has already been said, the classification of social care workers as low skilled devalues their contribution and their skills.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments and the opportunity to explore these matters further in Committee.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has withdrawn from the speakers’ list. The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
When this Bill emerges, it will define our place and reputation. Will we be proud to have been here? As the verse at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty says:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
Is that what we want to be remembered for? Or will it be: bring me those who earn between £25,000 and £30,000 per year? Or, bring me those we think of as being best for us? Is it not better to welcome those who are most in need in the world? About 200 or 300 members of staff at the House of Lords earn less than that minimum income that is required to come to the UK—those wonderful people. Need, not greed, should define us, so that people come to us because we want to welcome them. We are trying to build a world which is fit for children to live in, yet we are far, far away from that.
I suggest we look at what will happen with income in Committee, and say that we have to mend this. We have to make this an Immigration Bill with a human face. Thinking of those detained in our immigration centres, we know we are the only country in Europe that has indefinite detention. When the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited some of those detention centres in May this year, it was found that one person had been detained for three years, while another 12 had been detained for 12 months. There is something so wrong with what we are doing with our immigrants. This Bill gives us a chance, so that history will say we took a step that was humane, kindly and concerned. Let us take it.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, someone needs to say it. Those countries of Europe closest to us, our neighbours, are the ones we have most in common with. We should not be contemplating this Bill—I deeply regret it and find it totally depressing that we are considering it.
The first question I want to ask is of the Labour Party. There is a majority in the House, if Labour supports it, for this Bill to be improved. We saw in the Business and Planning Bill that Labour did not support any amendments, because it wanted it to get through without a Third Reading debate. My first challenge is to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, when he winds up for the Labour Party. I am not asking for specifics, but are we going to see the same again, or will Labour support reasonable amendments to this Bill?
My second point is that 1.2 million British citizens live in Europe. They have genuine concerns. They want three amendments to this Bill. The first would prevent the removal of the existing right of UK citizens who moved to the EEA to return with the families they have made there. The second and third would prevent the Bill’s regulation-making powers being used to breach the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Is the Minister prepared to meet representatives of Britain in Europe to discuss their concerns?
My next set of points is from Unison, the union that represents many of the low-paid workers who have been spoken about by noble Lords today. Many of these workers uphold our services, which would not exist without them. There are a number of areas where improvements are needed, not only in the £25,600 threshold, but also in other areas to help low-paid workers. I hope that the Minister will be significantly sympathetic to the need to draft provisions in this area.
Finally, we seem to have privatised the immigration system, with one great notable exception. We have all these difficulties: we need to sort people out and reduce migration— apart from 3 million people from Hong Kong, who, somehow, we can fit in with no problem at all.
This is not a very logical Bill, and I hope we can improve it as it goes through the House. If we can, we can at least make a depressing Bill just about adequate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this Bill brings me great sadness. It embeds and promotes a Brexit that has all the hallmarks of a disaster for the people of the United Kingdom, which, I will remind the House, the people of Northern Ireland did not vote for. This legislation ends the free movement of citizens of the EU, the EEA and Switzerland into the UK. At a stroke, that diminishes the UK, breaks family ties, damages our economy, creates huge obstacles for employers and degrades international research, co-operation and understanding. Frankly, it is a powerful demonstration of how common sense within the British Government has finally slipped its moorings. It makes aliens of European citizens, with whom we have shared common bonds for many years. For me, that is a tragedy, and I do not believe it is what people voted for in the referendum of 2016.
I have particular concerns about specific parts of this Bill that go beyond the obvious risk of creating another Windrush disaster. That would once again show that there are times when the UK’s callousness is matched only by its incompetence. The ending of freedom of movement will cause severe disruption to UK citizens living in the EU, an issue that has already been referred to by other noble Lords. It will also make European nationals coming here potentially subject to the full force of our harsh and often disproportionate immigration detention procedures. I would like the Minister to outline how the Government intend to address these deficiencies.
I note that the opportunity to regularise the position of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, who do not also hold UK nationality, has not been taken in this Bill, despite the safeguards of the common travel area. This potentially leads these citizens open to deportation. The Good Friday agreement guarantees their rights under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is time for the Government to fulfil their obligations here. I call on the Minister to address this particular issue and how the Government intend to remedy this gap in the common travel area provisions.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, without the economic and cultural benefits of the immigrant community to this country over the decades—15% of our population is black, Asian and minority ethnic—this country, with 1% of the world’s population, would not be the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
This week is the Joint Economic and Trade Committee meeting between the UK and India. As chancellor of the University of Birmingham, president of the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) and co-chairman of the APPG for International Students, I welcome the recent Government support for international students through the reintroduction of the two-year post-graduation work visa—I helped to spearhead this in this House in 2007, it came into place in 2008, was taken away in 2012, and has now come back—and the three-year visa for PhD students. Will the Minister say whether the Government will consider the graduate route as part of an international graduate employability strategy, to be developed in collaboration with the education sector and employers, that provides clear guidance for UK employers on how to employ students via the graduate route?
I ask the UK Government please to exclude students from the net migration statistics. Many of us have requested that for years; all our competitor nations do it. Including them is very misleading, as research has shown that more than 95% of international students return after their studies for postgraduate work. For example, when people enter, they say that they are coming to study, but when they are asked on the way out, anybody who worked afterwards says that they were working. This creates an illusion of illegally overstaying international students. The lag between arriving and leaving also means that growing numbers of international students exporting UK education shows an increase in net migration.
Can the Government include India in the list of the 25 preferred countries for the UK tier 4 visa rules being relaxed? For example, China is now included in that list. Furthermore, international students generate business and tourist visas. Can the UK Government also reduce the visa fees for a two-year multiple entry business or tourist visa for Indians to the same level as that for the Chinese? Four years ago, this was reduced for China to £85, whereas it is still more than four times that for Indians. This reduction would help to increase the number of business and tourist visitors from India in general, of course.
In April 2015, we introduced exit checks at our borders. Are the Government using those checks to work out their immigration figures or do they still rely on the International Passenger Survey figures? The noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about data. In August last year, Iain Bell, the Deputy National Statistician at the Office for National Statistics, said that
“the weaknesses in the data were due partly to the International Passenger Survey—a poll of travellers at ports and airports around the UK, which is used to extrapolate wider migration patterns.”
The Financial Times stated:
“The UK’s official statistics agency has announced it is downgrading its estimate of the country’s net migration to the status of ‘experimental’ data after discovering ‘limitations’ in the way the figures are calculated”
using the IPS. Can the Minister address this?
Finally, many noble Lords have mentioned that coronavirus has placed a spotlight on social care and that it is often treated poorly compared to the NHS in terms of support. It is important that the sector is also not an afterthought when it comes to immigration. Social care should be treated as equal to the NHS regarding visa exceptions.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to talk about unaccompanied migrant children. These children, and teenagers, are alone. They have fled war zones and famine. Many of them have been abused, sexually abused and assaulted. They are trapped in camps in Greece and northern France, but have family members in the UK who could look after them. As a country, we need to demonstrate our commitment to these children.
Under the current EU procedures, their rights are enshrined in a network of obligations reinforced by international agreement. When we leave the European Union at the end of December, those protections will fall away. The political declaration of 17 October 2019 between the European Union and the UK set out the framework of what can be negotiated in the future agreement. On the basis of that declaration, the Commission was given a negotiation mandate, but there is no mention in it of asylum, refugees or unaccompanied children. The Commission has competency in this area so, as I understand it, there is no question of negotiating with individual member states after we leave in December.
Therefore, to continue to offer a safe route for these children to join family members in the UK, we must have clear Immigration Rules. We need to amend this immigration Bill to ensure that, in taking back control, as the Government say repeatedly, unaccompanied children are not forgotten. We are talking about children and teenagers who are alone, frightened, isolated, vulnerable and desperate. Without safe legal routes to sanctuary, they will be easy prey for trafficking and smuggling gangs.
The Government’s position is to weaken these children’s rights. Their current proposals are discretionary, not mandatory, with no objective criteria on which to base an application and no rights of appeal, leaving a child in danger and in limbo. Time is running out for these children. We have to do better. Many improvements need to be made to the Bill. In particular, protecting the rights of these children is paramount. Are we a country that values, respects and protects children, or are we not? Will we fail in our duty to help these children and young people? I hope not.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am one of the people who finds this Bill to end free movement a sad and shameful moment in your Lordships’ House. I was proud to sit on these Benches when I listened to the inspiring and outstanding speech that opened this debate, from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I was encouraged by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, from the Labour Front Bench; I thought it sensible and liberal with a small “l”, if I may say so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I hope that the Labour Party can maintain that view as the Bill progresses.
It occurred to me that, over the last 50 years, a large number of families have become pan-European families. I was quite surprised when I worked it out to discover something I simply had not noticed: over half of my own family—a household of three—and our extended family, including cousins, aunties, grandchildren and so on, possess European Union passports. There is a large number of such families in Europe and here, including British families, all of whom will find life increasingly difficult as their families branch out and become more complex as time goes on.
I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is one that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked. What guarantees are the Government giving to people who did not achieve their settled status by the end of June? This is a serious matter.
Secondly, what will happen to people with pre-settled status if they do not convert? Will they simply continue their pre-settled status for ever, or do they have a guarantee that serious things will not start happening to them?
Thirdly, the Minister will know that 10% of the most recent applications were refused; there was a minor spike in refusals in the last lot. Can she tell us why that took place and what the reasons for refusal are?
Finally, the Law Commission suggested that the Immigration Rules need a thorough rewrite. In the spring, the Government issued a paper saying that they were preparing to do that in early 2021. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made and whether that deadline will be met? If it will, will this House have a chance to discuss the Immigration Rules thoroughly at draft stage, because they are so important?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, another important Bill with a potentially detrimental and permanent impact is being rushed through. Concerns are widespread, both in this House and among organisations that represent NHS front-line staff, the care sector and students, and business organisations that represent SMEs and the hospitality sector, including the Bangladesh Caterers Association.
These proposals shut the door on many of the people whom we clapped as heroes, yet the Government say that they will consolidate immigration law and the migrant’s voice. Immigration law experts are disturbed by the extortionate fees, which will penalise families and leave them impoverished. I share the disquiet expressed by many noble Lords at the Minister’s power to amend primary and secondary legislation without sufficient parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
As an officer of the APPG for International Students, I wish to refer to proposals to repeal free movement for EU students. Aside from those in our universities and private schools, 550,000 students come to the UK every year to learn English, contributing over £1.4 billion to our economy yearly. Over 60% of these students and over 59% of international staff in the HE sector come from EU countries.
The Bill would treat these students, who consider Britain an extension of their home country, on a par with other international students, removing their access to loan support. This would compromise our citizens in the EU in many respects. Will the Government consider some reciprocal arrangement to retain these EU students, to mitigate the many postponing commencing their courses as a result of the Covid crisis?
What expert advice are the Government receiving to ensure that the new points-based system will continue to welcome EU students as our neighbours without penalising them? To avoid any Windrush-like scandals, will all EU citizens, and non-EU family members eligible for the EU settlement scheme be provided with physical documentation as proof of their settled status? Without these, students will find it challenging to obtain jobs and accommodation in the future, and it will cause families to continue to exist on tenterhooks.
The Bill introduces a salary threshold detrimental to many NHS nurses and which definitely excludes care home workers, 100,000 of which are currently needed, as well as 93,000 people in the hospitality sector, including those in the curry industry. The Home Secretary made hyped-up promises of support to these people, who are excluded from the proposed list, during the Brexit campaign.
Finally, women make up more than two-thirds of the low-paid earners in this country who face financial uncertainty as a result of Covid-19 and the Bill. Have the Government considered what impact this policy will have on vulnerable women who have fled violence and are now working in this country?
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I join others in welcoming the Bill; it has been a long time coming. Though I have seen and acknowledge the benefits of freedom of movement, clearly the world is different today from what it was 10 or 20 years ago, for better or worse. It is a more volatile and unstable place and there is a lot more economic migration. Therefore, it is only right that we design and shift to a system which is sovereign and based on skills—that is what this country needs.
I hope that, as we make this transition over the coming 12 months or so, we send a message to the world that we are still open to migrants and that we are not closing the shop or raising the drawbridge. In fact, I hope we can see migrants—such as me and my own family, who came here from Hong Kong in my father’s generation—as people who want to come and contribute to Britain, be a bridge to the rest of the world once they are here and be part of helping to level up the country, which I know is a government priority.
I will not dwell on the Henry VIII clauses, because it is important that the Government have the flexibility they need over the coming months. However, it is important that Parliament is involved in this process and in the evolution of our immigration system, and that the Government do not create policy on the fly, which there is a risk of given the scope of the powers the Bill might give.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, while this is clearly not a regional matter, certain regions could benefit as well as suffer if this policy is implemented poorly. For example, areas that are already wealthy may get some of the more skilled, talented and wealthier migrants, whereas there are parts of the country which really need an influx of talent from overseas. Do the Government have plans, particularly around free ports, that are envisaged to encourage that kind of shift?
Secondly, I am worried about capacity: what preparations have been made in the Home Office and the Border Force to cope with the change and the demand that may come? If we can get our act together, I am excited about the potential to harness technologies such as blockchain. Estonia, for example, even has e-citizens who cannot come to the country on a long-term basis but can make use of its law, business and the ability to set up shop in Estonia. Is reform coming to the Home Office to enable it to handle this demand, given that is has such a backlog of regular passports to process currently?
Could we one day shift to a system where we can match the demand from different industries in closer to real time? There is such a delay between knowing where the skills are needed and whether you can match them through local skills coming through the pipeline, or if you need to import labour from overseas. Technology such as blockchain and internet technologies may be able to facilitate better matching than we currently have.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have mentioned the medical profession, I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I reflect on the irony that, as we seem to be curtailing the migration of doctors from the EU to our country, we are repeating history, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, and returning to the developing world big time to recruit doctors for the NHS. It is also ironic that the new health and care visa excludes a great majority of care workers, who will not meet either the income or the skills threshold.
In the Minister’s opening remarks, there was surely a sense of irony too when she said how much the Government value social care. I do not think the Bill shows much appreciation of that profession. Ministers point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which said that the problems in the care sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions. I do not think we need reminding of how important skilled care worker jobs are, and we certainly want more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage.
However, as UNISON said in its evidence, it is disingenuous of the Government to call for better wages and conditions in the sector when the Government are so influential on the financial health of care services. The rate paid by local authorities to care homes for people whose income is below the means-test threshold is highly dependent on grants from central government, which has been going down just as demand as has been going up. These rates have been tightly squeezed in the last decade and, as a result, self-funders pay exorbitant fees, which are in effect a subsidy for council-funded places. These self-funders get no support at all from the state and can see their assets run down considerably.
It is a Catch-22 situation. Essentially, the Home Office says that the care sector should recruit staff from people living in this country and pay them more, but the Department of Health, by its actions, is ensuring that there is no funding to enable this to happen. The Government have now had 10 years to sort this out. They had the Dilnot commission, they legislated for it and then would not put it into place. We had Mrs May’s promise in the 2017 election, which she withdrew. We keep hearing from the Government about a plan that will be brought forward—let us see it.
The thought that this plan, at a stroke, will deal with the immediate issues of the care sector is just blowing in the wind. We have 100,000 vacancies in England alone and, though I do not know in how many months it will be, at some point soon the Home Office will be forced to change this ridiculous policy. I hope the House will help the Home Office do that.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, during the protracted passage of the Agriculture Bill, I spoke about the links between it and the trade, environment and immigration Bills. These all have inextricable links and clauses in each affect the others. I will speak solely to the issue of migrant workers.
The agriculture business relies very heavily on migrant workers. The farm close to me is award-winning, milks huge herds three times a day and is totally reliant on migrant workers. In Cornwall and other arable counties, crops are sown, tended, matured and picked when they are ready to be harvested. This work is done almost exclusively by migrant workers.
At the start of the lockdown, television adverts appealed for those laid off to go and pick crops. The initial response was good, but the work was back-breaking, the hours long, the pay minimal and the accommodation inferior to what was expected. After three weeks, the British workforce melted away. No matter how hard the Government try to sell this as a means of making a living, most of our population is no longer willing to do this work.
The horticulture and agriculture sectors are heavily dependent on migrant workers. It is estimated that over the course of a year, 17,000 migrant workers will be required to fulfil the needs of ensuring that the crops grown are picked and make their way to the farm shops, supermarkets and farmers’ markets, and from there on to our tables.
I have read the points-based system document. The people picking crops are not going to earn anything like the salary threshold proposed. A good grasp of English is not necessary to cut flowers or cabbages; they are not skilled workers as the Government define “skill”. They are never going to accumulate the necessary 70 points, despite falling into the category of a specific shortage occupation.
The Government require businesses to adapt to manage without lower-skilled migrant workers. The development of robotics can help with both the tending and the harvesting of some crops. However, this requires heavy capital investment. While I support the extension of robotics into cropping in agriculture, some crops are not suitable for such methods—strawberries spring to mind.
During the Covid-19 crisis, we have seen in sharp focus how important it is to have a ready supply of healthy, locally grown food. I urge the Government to think again on this Bill and ensure that the workers our land needs are there to assist those running farming and horticulture businesses, so that their crops and produce do not go to waste and rot in the fields.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. This Bill, with its overhaul of the immigration system, presents a major opportunity to address issues of modern slavery and prevent the abuse and exploitation of migrant workers. It could be a crucial tool in the fight against modern slavery. Modern slavery is a hidden crime, and I hope that our borders will be more resilient to infiltration by the evil traders in human beings. I would like to ask the Minister what improvements the Bill provides to ensure that those slavers are denied entry to the UK.
There are some other measures I would like the Minister to consider. Will she look at introducing measures into the Bill to provide safe routes and safe working environments for low-paid workers? We should recognise the importance of labour market enforcement and protection for workers as part of any new such policy. As the Bill stands, I believe it lacks safeguards that would ensure migrant workers are able to come to the UK safely and with appropriate protection from vulnerability. We must create a system that does not encourage or exacerbate modern slavery risks.
We could embed labour protections into the design of any new temporary migration programme proposed, by making specific requirements of employers who wish to hire migrant workers on any temporary migration programme. Perhaps the Government could also include the provision of a safe route for regular labour migration, with decent rights and protections to reduce the risk of increasing the size of the UK’s undocumented workforce. I am sure there will be a high demand for workers in some sectors, which could combine to lead to a rise in undocumented workers and therefore the spread of exploitation. I hope the Government will commit to providing pre-departure and on-arrival information about working conditions and rights for all migrant workers to help identify and seek remedy for cases of abuse.
With our borders better controlled post Brexit, I hope, why not repeal the illegal working offence—a tool used by traffickers to threaten victims—at the very least for employees, if not employers, to enable them to co-operate with labour inspection and report labour abuses? This would also prevent the targeted recruitment of irregular migrants for exploitative purposes and ensure that employers perpetrating abusive or exploitative behaviours can be brought to justice.
I would like the Bill to be amended to establish a new safeguard to ensure that no personal information about workers that is processed or held by a labour inspectorate or the police is passed to the Home Office for the purposes of immigration enforcement. I believe that such mechanisms already exist in the Netherlands, the USA, Brazil and other jurisdictions. This would ensure that our future migration system does not undermine decent work conservation and anti-slavery objectives.
I suggest that we repeal Section 24B of the Immigration Act, which criminalises the act of working without required documentation in the UK, as it is proven to increase the risk of exploitation. Let us not waste this golden opportunity to further our fight against this appalling crime.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, many laws come before the House of Lords that I disagree with but few deserve the label “tragedy”—but the Bill now before us does. In introducing the Bill, the Minister set it out plainly:
“The heart of the Bill is that it ends free movement.”
She said it. The Bill deliberately and bluntly ends something deeply precious that had been available to hundreds of millions of people for decades—a freedom and an opportunity for a wider life. It is a tragedy that we are today, in a stroke, preparing to reduce the freedoms and opportunities of 450 million European citizens and the chances for them to come to the UK and contribute their skills, knowledge and energy to our life.
I will focus on the far greater reverse loss for 66 million Britons, and particularly our young people. Denying free movement from the EU to the UK also means the reverse. We lose freedom of movement in the EU in more than a score of countries spread across a good part of a continent.
Lots of this debate has focused on economics, as far too much of our debate assumes that people exist to serve the economy and not the reverse, but I will focus on people’s lives, hopes, loves and, yes, even whims; the chance to up sticks and move, to stop in your travels, to experiment and to change—an opportunity that this Bill wipes out for Britons.
Movement is integral to the nature of our species—indeed, the nature of our genus, when you look at how far even our ancestor Homo erectus spread around this planet. With this Bill we are choosing to deny it to ourselves. It is traditional in your Lordships’ House to declare interests, although I know that as soon as I open my mouth it is evident that I grew up in one place, which I did not much like, and decided to see what was on the other side of the world, being lucky enough to have that opportunity open to me.
Huge numbers of people in the world move not by choice but by force of war and civil conflict, climate emergency and nature crisis. We should be working towards a world where no one has to move, but we should want a world in which everyone can move and make choices. That option is always available to the rich; there are always ways. Losing freedom of movement is profoundly an issue of inequality. It is those without the cash, connections and languages who will be stuck while the few wander the globe at will.
Many noble Lords have outlined how we might make this Bill slightly less disastrous, prevent children being torn away from their parents and couples from each other, protect child refugees and stop Henry VIII powers, and in Committee I will join in that work. Today I ask your Lordships to consider taking a bold, brave step, stop a tragedy and stand up for a deeply precious right: freedom of movement.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will concentrate on an amendment which I hope will be tabled in this House, even though it was defeated in the other place, proposing new Clause 7. This would limit the time that may be spent in immigration detention to 28 days. It was moved by David Davis, shadow Home Secretary when the noble Lord, Lord Reid, then Home Secretary, famously said that his border force was not fit for purpose.
Last week, a number of us attended a briefing by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who exposed a situation that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, would find depressingly familiar. It is no use saying that under Brexit we have regained control of our borders when our fragile immigration system is in such dire need of direction and organisation. The situation in detention is reportedly even worse than it was when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons and responsible for inspecting it. All the important case work on which everything depends is chaotic. The “hostile environment” should never have been created and the culture of disbelief in the Home Office can be eliminated only by firm and consistent leadership.
As allegedly a civilised nation, we should be ashamed that what purports to be our immigration system is regarded as the most draconian in Europe. In 2019, it was found that a person had been detained for 1,002 days, and the cash-strapped Home Office can ill afford the £21 million that it had to pay out in compensation to 850 people—a shameful number—whom it had wrongfully detained. The Home Affairs Committee in the other place and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have both recommended that no immigrant should spend more than 28 days in detention, with judicial oversight after 96 hours. I shall be tabling an amendment to end the use of segregation during detention, unique in Europe. People describe the locking up of prisoners who have broken the law for 23 hours a day as inhuman treatment. How much worse is the use of similar treatment on innocent immigrants?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, when the electorate across the United Kingdom were given the democratic opportunity to choose whether to stay within the European Union or leave, they decided to leave. There were a number of contributing factors that energised the electorate to come out in their millions to cast their vote, and one was immigration. As one who voted leave, I support the general principle undergirding this Bill.
In the other place, the Home Secretary stated that she was endeavouring to end EU freedom of movement, get ready for a new global immigration system and help restore public confidence in the integrity of our borders. She contended that her aim was to have a fairer, firmer and simpler system that would attract the people we need to drive our country forward, attract the very best talent from around the globe, tighten security and keep criminals out, et cetera. These are laudable objectives, but how to achieve them will no doubt command varying opinions.
In recent years the United Kingdom has struggled with uncontrolled and undemocratic mass immigration that has caused unrest within our society. In my humble opinion, the previous system was untenable and caused increasing pressure on schools, health and hospital services that had to be rectified. We must pay tribute to those from across the world who have worked tirelessly in our health and social care sector, providing an excellent level of service to the community during the most difficult of times. The Government must ensure that these workers do not fall foul of any skills and income-threshold rule that would leave our elderly vulnerable.
Will this legislation exclude some health and care workers from entering the United Kingdom, primarily social care staff? What are the implications for the staffing of health and social care services, quality of care and patient safety in the foreseeable future? I appreciate that we must have an immigration system that is efficient, transparent and able to act against those who frequently break our rules, abuse our health and social services systems and commit serious crime, but we need to permit adequate personnel to come to the United Kingdom, not only to protect the healthcare needs of our community but to have a system that fully meets the needs of our businesses and our economy. During the Covid crisis we owe a great debt of gratitude to agricultural workers and food production workers, who were not only key to the survival of our local economy in Northern Ireland but essential to keeping fresh fruit on our table.
The United Kingdom must be open to receiving the brightest and best talents, wherever they are from, including those with the skills necessary to keep the wheels of industry moving, protect our hospitality sector and, I hope, rebuild our manufacturing base. I must stress that while I welcome the principle of ending uncontrolled immigration, it must be done in a manner that preserves the best of British decency and compassion. We must therefore have an open approach to refugees from communities affected by terrorism, war or persecution.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will leave to others the substantive policy consequences of the choices in the Bill and will leave aside my own views on the wisdom of the Brexit that prompted it—that is now a done deal. My points are focused on the ways in which the Bill will generate bad law, which is damaging in itself and as a precedent. I want briefly to mention two aspects of the Bill that seriously concern not just me but many legal experts.
First, picking up on the comments from many colleagues, especially those of my noble friend Lord Rosser, I will mention the provisions for delegated powers in Clause 4. The scope of secondary legislative power given to Ministers is absolutely astonishing. Clause 4(1) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make by statutory instrument such regulations as she
“considers appropriate in consequence of, or”—
in the famous phrase—
“in connection with, any provision of”
the part of the Bill concerned with ending free movement. This power may, among many other things, modify
“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act.
Noble colleagues have heard how the House’s Delegated Powers Committee has made its views on this aspect of the Bill crystal clear. It was disturbed by the phrase “in connection with” Part 1 because, as it said:
“This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”.
In short, this enables a Minister to decide whatever they want, as long as they can draw some vague connection.
This extraordinary problem is compounded further by a conspicuous lack of clarity in Clause 1 about which aspects of free movement law actually remain in place. With an extraordinary wide discretion to do something very vague, all this adds up to bad law, trouble down the line and a terrible precedent. This is no way to make immigration law, nor law in general. At the very least, Clause 4 delegation powers should be subject to a sunset clause for six months. Will the Minister consider that?
The second issue is the power to charge fees. Clause 4 provides that this charging power extends to making regulations in relation to
“fees or charges … made by or under”
any prior primary legislation. But there is no need for this power to amend fees or charges provisions, as statutory powers to make an order for an immigration health surcharge and related charges are found variously in Sections 38, 64 and 74 of the Immigration Act 2014. The provision should therefore just be removed.
Whether or not we support the removal of free movement, it is what was voted for and the Government are entitled to legislate for it. But that is no excuse for law that is open-ended, vague and inconsistent. Flexibility for Ministers is one thing, but sidestepping issues that should be the domain of primary legislation is quite another.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is much to say and to agree to, but today I will confine myself to four points. First, I very much hope that with the help of this Bill, government policy on immigration will in future pay better attention to the serious public concern around this subject, as displayed in the Brexit referendum. The fact is that all the polling found that the desire for an independent immigration policy was among the biggest motivators for leaving the EU. Such concerns are held especially strongly among the have-nots in society; they have held government policy on immigration to be far too lax for many decades. The haves, particularly the liberal professional classes, have not in general reacted sympathetically to these concerns. Rather, they have too often responded with smug references to their own virtue. But of course the downsides of immigration—the effects on public services and wages, and the creation of depressed areas—are borne disproportionately by the less fortunate in society.
My second point is that the scale of immigration must be reflected in planning within the public sector, a point made clear by my noble friend Lord Hodgson in his startling figures, which are on top of the 3.7 million EU citizens who have applied for the EU SS scheme. Given the number of people who are arriving on our small islands, this needs to be reflected in schools, hospitals, doctors and transport infrastructure, as well as in housing, as was rightly emphasised by my noble friend Lord Lilley. The Blair Government failed in this elementary task and we do not want that failure to be repeated. It is chilling that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has warned in such stark terms about the risk of much larger numbers if the operation of the rules is left with employers. We need a proper answer to this.
Thirdly, it is exasperating to see how often Government policies on immigration, supported by large majorities at the ballot box, are upset by decisions of the judiciary, allegedly on the grounds of human rights. The case of the young lady who travelled to Syria of her own volition is the most recent egregious example. Can the Government draft legislation in order to avoid this risk?
Fourthly and finally, noble Lords will know that I am always concerned about the practical side of laws. The only means of enforcing immigration law aside from tightening border controls is deporting those without a right to remain in the country, yet the Government’s ability to do this is embarrassingly weak. One reason for this is the complexity, expense and riskiness of arranging charter flights. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that to improve enforcement, the Government should purchase or convert some planes for this express purpose?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, on 15 July, the Minister told me that the Home Office is unable to state how many applications from asylum seekers for refugee status are currently being assessed or how long it takes on average to resolve each application. Data collection and the adequate staffing of care homes have both been mentioned during this debate by other noble Lords. Those are questions to which, along with others, I hope to return at later stages. At this point, I want briefly to ask about trafficking, exploitation, family visas, child refugees and indefinite detention.
I am a trustee of the Arise Foundation, which combats human trafficking and modern slavery. Alongside the new points-based system, the Government are considering an extension of their pilot scheme for strict six-month visas for seasonal agricultural workers. The system gives people limited opportunities to change their employer or to challenge abusive practices, and it is therefore essential to ensure that proper safeguards against exploitation are in place.
More widely, we know that traffickers will seek every chance to abuse new immigration policies. We also know that fear of prosecution currently deters many people from escaping abusive employment practices or presenting themselves to the police. Repealing the offence of illegal working so that no victim is at risk of being punished would be an important step towards protecting people from exploitation. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do that.
Under any new or extended scheme for seasonal agricultural workers, what steps will the Government take to inspect recruiters, working practices and living conditions, as well as ensuring that seasonal agricultural workers are aware of their rights and know how to challenge exploitation?
For those who are here legally but who miss the June 2021 deadline for the settlement scheme, what steps will the Government take to ensure that access to healthcare, housing or employment is not lost? Have they made any assessment of older and more vulnerable people who may not yet have applied to the settlement scheme and therefore will be at risk of losing their rights?
The UK remains the only European country without a time limit on detention. Last year, the longest detention stood at a shocking 1,002 days. Covid-19 has led to speedier and more humane decisions. Will the Government build on that and end indefinite immigration detention by replacing it with a 28-day time limit and robust judicial oversight, and amend the Bill to introduce a time limit on such detention? Simultaneously, it would be humane to examine the family visa system to prevent prolonged separations that are detrimental to family life, and to help families to stay together by reforming the minimum income threshold for family visas.
Can the Minister say what steps will be taken under the new rules to ensure that child refugees have access to family reunion with relatives in the UK? More than 1,600 unaccompanied refugee children are stranded on islands in the Aegean. Surely in the context of this Bill, we can do more to help people like them.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I find a certain paradox about what we are considering. We are favouring a policy that encourages those who are most needed for the development of their own society—highly qualified people who are desperately needed in their own parts of the world. We are encouraging them to come here, favouring them as compared with those who do not have prospects of a good future but have proved that they have become valiant parts of our public services and health service.
I want to put on record, however, my appreciation for the progress that has been made in rooting out the hostile environment. This was a disgraceful period in our history and totally contrary to everything we claim as our values. It was particularly damaging to those who had been through sad, traumatic experiences—sometimes hell, with torture. It required political leadership, and I think we should pay our respects to those who have been prepared to provide that political leadership, as compared with others who like to flirt with popularism. There is a difference between firmness and insensitive, harsh policies. We may need firmness, but we must always remember that people are people, and they must always, all the time, whatever the frustrations, be treated with respect and dignity.
We need to safeguard the position of European Union and EEA citizens, and we need to re-examine the right to work, which seems to me a logical development. We must look at the implications of the legislation for trafficking, and we need to be sure that there is real access to legal aid for those who most need it. We really must look at ending, or moving towards ending, detention; we certainly should be imposing a 28-day limit. We need vigilance about all the powers that are being delegated to the Secretary of State.
My final point is this: we all constantly emphasise the importance of family in terms of social stability and the well-being of society, so why is it that, in our immigration policy, we discourage family? We need to look at children and parents and at the part to be played very often by siblings. There is a lot to be examined and scrutinised in the legislation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot disguise my despair when I watch the ineptitude of this Government: their handling of the pandemic and the abysmal complacency and incompetence that we saw there; their blind pursuit of a hard Brexit, even though we are facing a serious economic recession and imagined contracts may be in short supply; the arrogant abuse of power, of which the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are but a searing example; the ugly rewarding of contracts to friends; the never resigning despite bad behaviour; their sweeping under the carpet of inconvenient truths, like the interference by Russia in the referendum; and other aspects of our polity being interfered with too.
This Bill, I am afraid, fits into that list of inadequate governance. It boasts that it is a short, simple Bill. Well, that is one of its failures, because in being so short it fails children, it fails trafficked people—men, women and children—and it fails migrant workers and asylum seekers. There is no mention of their need to be able to work to survive and no mention of detention without limit, referred to by the last two speakers. It fails families, particularly European families who are of mixed European heritage—they might have a parent who is British and a parent who is German or Italian—and the implications of that in keeping families together. It fails students and universities; it fails our elderly, who will be deprived of social care; it fails our farmers and our agri-food businesses: the list is endless.
I want to ask the Minister—I make no criticism of her, because I hold her in high regard—what are we going to do about EEA nationals, so that they are able to prove that they are in the UK lawfully? We were told that the statutory instruments that are promised should be published alongside this Bill, but will they be? Why cannot there be physical proof of settled status? We know that one of the great threats to our security comes from cyberattacks, so we all understand why people want to have a piece of plastic, like the membership card that we all have for museums, to prove their status in this country.
I also want to raise the position of people who settled in other parts of Europe when we were part of the EU, who married and have children but who may want to resettle back here. Will their partners be included in this points system? Will they face insurmountable financial criteria when wanting to come back here if their partner is a German, an Italian, or whoever? Will the Government honour the rights those people thought they had? What will happen about health coverage?
Finally, I want to raise the issues that have also been raised about indefinite detention—we really have to stop that, because it is so cruel and inhumane—and about our deportation regime. We are sending people back to countries they left when they were three or five years of age. There is something inhumane in doing that. There are many questions I seek answers to, but I am afraid that the Bill is a searing indictment of an opportunity that could have been quite different.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for her remarks, particularly in relation to those UK citizens living on the continent. The UK has embarked on a journey and, given the course the country is taking, I see a degree of fait accompli. A caveat would be to allow for flexibility should the need arise.
I had expected to deliver a diatribe this afternoon addressing the uncompassionate manner in which the immigration authorities deliver their services. However, I have taken note that the Secretary of State has underlined the desire to ensure that compassion will become the mantra. I am taking her at her word. This would be highly welcome, but she needs to be kept to account. We need to be able to say to the world—I borrow the Minister’s words, although said in a different context—“This country needs the reputation of being firm, fair and fit as a nation.”
Taking those words in context, we all know of horror stories, and I have first-hand experience whereby a family member undeniably fits those criteria. She was scholarship material at university and is considered to be world-class in her field, yet she was turned down for entry to the UK for a summer vacation to stay with my sister and son—no right of appeal, no nothing. An incorrect assumption was made by an official. I know because I filled in her form and, of course, I know the person concerned. We were eventually informed that her biometrics should be done, and a round-trip drive of 700 kilometres was undertaken, but then, quite extraordinarily, her application was rejected. The system assessed this totally incorrectly. If I were not a Member of your Lordships’ House, I would have made more of a song and dance of it. The report card for the Home Office on that occasion was a resounding F for fail, with a possible flaw in farmed-out services—in this case, a team that had been parachuted in from eastern Europe.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. I support the Bill, but I have a number of concerns I wish to raise with regard to migrant labour involved in the agricultural, horticultural and fishing industries, together with the food processing industry.
All these industries rely heavily on migrant labour. We have seen the reported problems caused by the lack of immigrant labour for fruit and vegetable harvesting over the past couple of months, caused by the lack of movement due to coronavirus. These problems have been severe, and recruitment of labour from home-grown resources has not been a resounding success. The work is tough, often in inclement weather conditions, and not everybody is suited to it.
Under the Government’s new immigration policy, there will be a rigid set of criteria which must be fulfilled prior to the application for a visa. EU and non-EU citizens will need 70 points to enable their application to go ahead, including: first, to have a job offer from an approved sponsor; secondly, to have a job offer which is at a required skilled level; and, thirdly, to be able to speak English to a certain level. I have absolutely no problem with any of those requirements. However, those workers are low paid, which is one of the reasons why we in this country cannot gear up enthusiasm for these jobs, and why we rely heavily on migrant labour.
Many migrant workers will also upskill while they are working here, and that needs to be taken into account. While great strides are being made to automate a wide range of jobs in these industries, there are still very many requirements which simply cannot be carried out by machine. Therefore, I believe that the Government must keep a watchful eye on the migrant labour situation as it unfolds, as the industries which I mentioned earlier might well be disadvantaged, and that would have a considerable effect on the consumer and on food supply.
Finally, I very much welcome the Government’s plan to exclude Irish citizens from migrant restrictions. The Irish are great friends of ours, and they are a major force in the horseracing industry throughout the UK. To restrict their movement would cause serious problems for that industry.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, many of your Lordships have made very valuable points, including the noble Earl who just spoke, so I shall keep my comments short.
I agree that there should be an independent review of the Bill’s impact on the health and social care workforce and the adequacy of public funding for those sectors. The Bill will see an end to free movement, but I am afraid that that is an inevitable consequence of both the Brexit referendum and the incompetence of the EU in the run-up to the referendum, which showed virtually no flexibility on this vital matter. The vote reflected the fact that the British public’s concerns about immigration were ignored by the EU and mishandled by David Cameron, who woke up to the danger of his reckless and opportunistic referendum gamble too late.
Her Majesty’s Government will introduce a points-based immigration system from 2021, as we have heard, but will not introduce a general low-skilled or temporary work route. The fact is that 180,000 EU nationals work in the NHS and care sector, but 69% of EU migrants would not be eligible for a visa if the Government’s immigration system applied to them. I welcome the fact that the Government will introduce a new health and social care visa and fast-track entry, but can the Minister explain further how this would work in practice?
Once the UK starts doing international trade deals, a number of countries will demand visa-free entry to the country as part of the package—India is one example of a country that has asked for that. Can the Minister explain how this fits in with the points-based immigration system?
Finally, will Her Majesty’s Government revisit the idea of ID cards, which are an accepted way of controlling illegal immigration and cracking down on crime elsewhere across the world?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, not only does the Bill do nothing to dismantle the institutional architecture of the hostile/compliant environment, directed by its predecessors, but it extends it to thousands of EU citizens, and with it, vulnerability to detention. So I, like others, hope that we will build on the efforts of Conservative MPs to introduce a time limit. Following the Home Secretary’s very welcome announcement that she has accepted Wendy Williams’ recommendations of a full review of the confined environment, can the Minister assure us that the review has the power to question its basic tenets and institutions?
Also at risk are thousands of children of EU and EEA nationals, particularly looked-after children and care leavers. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that these children receive permanent immigration status before June 2021? What procedures will there be to protect children’s best interests, including by ensuring that their right to British citizenship is not impeded by lack of information or the exorbitant £1,000-plus fee? Will the Minister also undertake to review the no recourse to public funds rule, recently ruled to be in breach of children’s human rights, as many more could now be affected by it? Could she give a categorical assurance that there will be no diminution in the rights of unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking children?
The Bill does nothing to address the existing immigration system’s many flaws, including those affecting asylum seekers. Yet it gives the Government carte blanche, particularly on social security with, as already noted, a clause described by the Delegated Powers Committee as “even thinner than skeletal”, raising serious questions on social security posed by some noble Lords that I hope will be answered.
What we do know is that a points-based system will be introduced through Immigration Rules which Parliament cannot amend. Far from being fair, as noted by other noble Lords, it confuses pay with skill and contribution, to the detriment of those recognised and applauded as key workers during the pandemic but now cast aside as lacking necessary skills. The Home Secretary herself conceded in February that caring is not a “low-skilled occupation”. Why is it being treated as one now?
Overall, the equality impact assessment acknowledges the adverse impact of a pay-based points system on women—as has the Minister. The Cavendish Coalition of 37 health and care organisations has warned the Prime Minister that we are heading swiftly towards an alarming destination with no obvious solution for the care sector and that it would be unwise to believe that domestic recruitment will solve all social care’s immediate problems. With adequate funding, domestic recruitment may well offer a long-term solution, but it is irresponsible to pretend it can do so from next year.
I plead with the Government to think again and, as other noble Lords have pressed, at the very least provide for a transition period during which the promised, much-delayed new care strategy can make provision for rewarding carers adequately in recognition of their essential contribution during the pandemic, which the Minister herself lauded.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I first thank the Government Whips for facilitating my substitution for my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is regrettably ill today. I send her my best wishes. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, she will participate during scrutiny of this Bill.
We have heard reference to “take back control” today, but I do not think the Minister had in mind the image presented by the noble Lord, Lord Green, of an uncontrolled car doomed to crash. If we are taking back control, as she has said, some Members have not given it the warmest of welcomes. But the fact that the Liberal Democrat Benches are among those who have not given it a warm welcome is a lower-order issue. What is most unwelcome is that millions of EU citizens continue to endure great uncertainty, bureaucracy and cost. This is scant reward for the great contribution to our country that these people have made—to our economy, our health and care systems, our culture, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones indicated, and our urban and rural economy alike, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell indicated.
The Minister referred to this Bill as simple. However, a great number of uncertainties arise from it, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who gave a characteristically forensic but humane response to the Minister’s speech. Some of those uncertainties have been outlined clearly in this debate, such as the very appropriate questions from my noble friend Lord Greaves on the legal position across Great Britain if a legislative consent Motion from Scotland is not forthcoming. Will a system come into place, as promised in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, of a
“fully digital end to end customer journey, requiring everyone … to seek permission in advance of travel”?
Or, as the Minister and the White Paper have been silent on numbers, if the Government disagree with the prognosis of the noble Lord, Lord Green and, as page 20 of the 2019 Conservative manifesto said,
“overall numbers will come down”,
to what level and over what timeframe? How will we know if this is a success and how will we be able to hold the Government to account for it?
What will be the limits on the order-making powers in Clauses 4 and 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, asked? The Minister referred to possible reciprocity with regard to UK citizens across the European Union— I stress “possible”. If it is possible that agreement will not be reached, there must surely be contingency arrangements. Will the Government publish those now? People need to know whether they will be enjoying the rights of UK citizens six months on.
The Minister also implied that Clause 2, on Irish citizens, is straightforward. As the Bill proceeds, we will scrutinise that further. We know that those who come from Ireland, processing through Northern Ireland from 1 January next year, are a distinct case. The Government say that the UK has left the single market, but while Great Britain has, the UK in its entirety has not—one whole nation remains. In the words of Boris Johnson to UK citizens there:
“You keep free movement; you keep access to the single market”.
With a common travel area with no immigration processes for people also living under the EU single market, or for those under the free movement of people rule set by the European Union going forward from next January, how will we know when they travel to Great Britain and what will the processes be? It may not be that a border point will be required in my home town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated, but what are the internal United Kingdom immigration processes to be? These are unprecedented and likely to be very unwelcome.
Turning to most of those who move from Northern Ireland to GB, or accompanying goods and for trades and services, this leads on to the issue raised with regard to trade. Another of the Minister’s comments that weakens when there is greater scrutiny was that we will have a single system with no privilege for particular nationalities. However, that is not the case, as the UK trade agreement with the Swiss Confederation illustrates. We know that Australia and New Zealand have asked for differential visa arrangements and that this is also part of the discussions with the European Union. The Government themselves have asked for preferential treatment for those working in banking and the City of London. Perhaps that is what the difference is when my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked who the best are. If they have money, we will want them, but if they have not, they will have to struggle.
Finally, “the brightest and best” will, I think, gradually be seen, along with “global Britain” as a toom tabard, as we in Scotland would say—an empty coat. The time for sloganising has gone; the campaigns for referenda or elections are finished. We now face the hard task of legislating and we need to make the Bill better. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated, it needs to be a more humane piece of legislation. Through those amendments that will be pioneered by my noble friend Lady Barker and others, we will give the Bill scrutiny. It is unwelcome, but we will try to make it better for all those people who are currently going to endure it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I start, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, by paying tribute to all the immigrants who have come to our country and worked in essential services and elsewhere. They have made a great contribution to the United Kingdom. They have made it richer, better, more diverse and a better place to live. Bills such as this are scant reward for that.
This has been an interesting debate, to say the least. It continues the path the Government have taken of inflicting harm on our country based on obsessive dogma rather than what is right. Dogma is the problem here. That is a tragedy and, working with colleagues across the House, I will work to improve the Bill and send it back to the other place in a better state than it arrived in here.
As we have heard, the Bill repeals retained EU law on free movement and brings nations which benefited from that status into a single immigration system. I suppose bringing things together in one system is probably the best thing you can do, but it is the Government’s attitude, and of the Home Office in particular, that concerns me when it comes to these matters. We have often heard the Government say that they have learned lessons and apologise for the latest scandal, but when you see a Bill such as this, you begin to ask yourself whether the lessons have really been learned.
We are in the middle of the biggest health emergency in our lifetime. We have clapped health workers, care workers and others who have kept the country going, including those who have picked our fruit and vegetables in the hot sun and worked in food processing and other essential jobs. Many are just the sort of people who in future will be materially affected by the proposals in the Bill. In turn, that puts our citizens at risk. The Bill creates a system which falls way short of meeting our needs in such sectors as health, social care, hospitality and food production. It imposes bureaucratic and financial barriers to recruiting skilled healthcare workers from the EEA. If they get past all the red tape, their rights and entitlements are diminished and, for the carers and other essential workers we have relied on during the pandemic, who have also put their lives on the line, there is no route to work in London or elsewhere because they will not meet the minimum income requirement.
The saying “shooting yourself in the foot” comes to mind. We need to look carefully at the powers of the Secretary of State to make immigration policy by way of the Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made an excellent speech. We have a serious problem which the Government must address. We must improve the position of workers coming from abroad to work in the health and social care sectors—they are vital to the proper functioning of our society and to ensure that people are looked after properly in old age and when they are ill—along with an affordable, simple, effective and clear route to residency and citizenship if they want to take that.
The Minister referred to the long-term plan for social care in her opening remarks. I was not aware that we had a long-term plan for social care. Perhaps she will outline it in her response to the House.
The other line I got from the Minister—and heard from many noble Lords today—was that the system has allowed wages in the care sector to be kept low, and that this new system will allow us to ensure that wages can increase. Of course, that is good to hear, but it is an interesting line from the Government. I have not heard it many times from the Benches opposite in the 10 years I have been in this House. It will be interesting to see campaigns from those Benches to ensure that wages for healthcare workers are increased, because we need to deal with the scandal of poverty pay. I cannot recall such a campaign, but I have contacts at the GMB, UNISON and the TUC. If any noble Lords opposite need them, I am sure we can get a campaign going for the Government to call on employers to ensure that they pay their workers better. But, of course, the Government have not used the powers they have now to do that. They have the powers to increase wages and so on, and they have chosen not to do so or to deal with these issues.
Many noble Lords have referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. It raised concerns about the previous version of the Bill, as did many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is important that we deal with this issue. I kept hearing “take back control”, but it never seemed to me to mean what we have now. It seems a very funny “take back control” where you do not like scrutiny by Parliament, engagement or challenge. That is what Parliament is here for. It is strange that the Executive seem to be shying away from those things. We need to remember that because what we have now is bad government. It is not good government; it does not get the balance right. This is a Government who do not like scrutiny, challenge or being accountable. They are a Government who will reap what they have sown. Their intolerance of scrutiny will leave us with all sorts of traps, which the Government will be dragged into. We shall sit here year after year, after all sorts of changes and moves backwards and forwards, because they would not listen and take part in that scrutiny. They will find difficulties in years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made some excellent points about the importance of proper, accurate data to make the decisions you need to make. I hope he gets a detailed response from the Minister on that.
A number of noble Lords referred to skills and the need to upskill our workforce. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. In his previous roles as leader of a major local authority, Education Secretary and Home Secretary, he has an impressive track record of improving the life chances of citizens, reducing class sizes, improving schools’ infrastructure, increasing literacy and numeracy and keeping us safe. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and thought he raised a number of important questions that need careful answering.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock raised concerns about the parts of the Bill that deal with social security entitlements. Can the Minister confirm how we will ensure that eligible residents take advantage of the settled status scheme? I have raised this before. The real risk, of course, is that people do not realise they need to take advantage of this scheme and potentially end up in our country illegally. That cannot be right.
As entitlements to benefits, healthcare and other services are denied or deferred here in the UK, how will that affect British citizens living in the European Union? A number of noble Lords made the point that they are our citizens living abroad and we need to ensure we protect them. If the EU sees its citizens having their rights denied or taken away here, there is a risk of changes to the rights of our citizens living abroad in Europe.
I support the calls of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, to support the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. It is a very good Bill, and I have supported him many times in the past. It would be good to bring the protection afforded to victims of modern slavery in England and Wales up to the same standards we have in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to address the issue of victims of modern slavery and why the Government are just not engaging with it. The loss of important EU protections is a risk to victims of modern slavery, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley asked a number of questions about the status of child EU citizens in care in the UK. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that these children’s immigration status is resolved properly and that the path to residency and citizenship is mapped out for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked me about our attitude to voting on Bills in this House. I am always happy to divide the House and defeat the Government on issues where I think they have not listened or are wrong and need to be given the opportunity to reconsider in the other place and come back. I think I have a reasonably good record of defeating the Government, but I am also happy to engage with them, work constructively and seek to persuade them of the need for change. I hope the Government would confirm that I am always constructive, as I am with all members of the governing party.
On the Business and Planning Bill I made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that I was prepared to divide the House if necessary. I was successful in winning a number of concessions, such as the 11 pm cut-off for off-sales, protections for pavement users and issues on which we felt the Government had unintentionally forgotten bodies such as the mayoral development corporations and TfL—for example, not allowing them to meet virtually. We raised those issues and the Government agreed. When considering the Business and Planning Bill or any other Bill, I have to weigh up what is right and get the right balance between further demands, important issues to be raised, engagement and when it is right to vote or accept the concession. Sometimes you can get that wrong, but I think I got it right this week. I am always happy to engage with noble Lords on that basis.
Moving on to other areas of the Bill, I warmly welcome the part that protects the rights of Irish citizens. There are historic links between Britain and Ireland, and that is to be welcomed. My parents came from the Republic of Ireland to work in London and then, some years ago, they retired back to the Republic. Like many others, I have a great love of both the UK and Ireland. We have many shared values and a shared history. My mum came to this country to work as a nurse in the NHS. Many years later she ended up working in the Members’ Tea Room in the House of Commons, and there will be many Members here who knew her when they were in the other place. The links between our two countries are to be treasured.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of immigration detention. We have heard some horrific stories of people being treated unfairly and unjustly, and that does nothing but bring shame to our country— we have to do better than that. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others raised concerns about this issue, and I agree with them.
In conclusion, this is a dreadful Bill and I hope that we will have made it a little better when we send it back to the other place. I will very happily join other noble Lords in dividing the House if necessary. I believe that the Government will reap what they sow with this Bill. I predict that over the next few years there will be many retreats, U-turns and changes, with the Government saying, “We didn’t really mean that”. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to the debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for all their contributions over the course of four or five hours, and I am sure that they will understand that I will not be able to answer every single question. We have covered a wide range of issues, and the fact that there has been either support for the Bill or comments such as “tragedy” and “squalid” shows that there is a wide range of views in this House. That demonstrates to me the importance attached to many immigration issues, and rightly so. I guess that there is a further irony, in that a first-generation Irish immigrant Front-Bencher is winding up the debate with a second-generation Irish immigrant; such is the importance that we attach to Irish immigrants.
My noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley reflected on the trends of the last couple of decades—which are very important in the context of immigration —and the consequences that immigration has had for those trends, whether they be in housing or infrastructure or indeed in attitudes among society. I was most intrigued that both the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Green of Deddington, who are probably on quite different parts of the spectrum on a number of matters, put down the marker of the importance of getting this system right—or else. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, outlined—quite openly, I thought—the problems and consequences of immigration in the early 2000s.
Many noble Lords expressed concern about the detailed policies proposed under the points-based immigration system and the immigration delegated power set out in the Bill. It is important to note at this point that the Bill is narrow. It is focused on ending the EU’s rule on freedom of movement now that we have left the EU. It is a short, technical Bill that does just that and it does not deal with wider immigration issues.
I must also make it clear that the delegated power in the Bill will not be used to make wide-ranging policy reforms; it will merely switch off the free movement rights that EU citizens currently enjoy so that we can align the immigration treatment for EU and non-EU citizens. The Immigration Rules will continue to be used to set out the detailed requirements that a person must meet in order to live, work and study in the UK under the new points-based immigration system.
The Immigration Rules are well established and their use is based on the powers in the Immigration Act 1971. That process is therefore nearly 50 years old, so it is not a novel concept in this Bill. The Immigration Rules are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and enable flexibility, so that policies can be adapted to respond to changing circumstances—for example, as we have done during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Bill does not legislate on the details of the points-based system, nor does it legislate on detention, asylum or compliant environment policies. These are important matters and I know that we will discuss them in Committee and on Report, whether they are in the Bill or not—I have been in this House long enough to know that. They are not part of the Bill, but I look forward to discussing them.
My final point in my introduction is that it is four years since the British people voted to leave the European Union. We must deliver on the will of the people, much as some people may not like it.
The topic that has probably been discussed most in this Second Reading debate is health and care workers. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked about the long-term social care plan. I am afraid that that is out of my powers. However, I know that down the other end of the Corridor, the various sides of the House are trying to come to some sort of consensus on the way forward. I should say that I got into local government more than 20 years ago, and it was a conundrum then and remains so to this day. All parties to the matter, whether from this House or that House, need to find a way forward on this. We should all be incredibly grateful for the work of health and care workers and for the lives that they have saved over the past few months in the fight against coronavirus. They should be valued more than they are.
The Home Secretary has introduced a free one-year automatic visa extension to approximately 3,000 key front-line health workers, including an exemption to the immigration health surcharge. The Home Secretary has also expanded the bereavement scheme to all NHS health and social care workers to include offering indefinite leave to remain for immediate family members and bereaved hospital support workers and social care workers.
On 29 April, we announced that we will extend the visas of NHS front-line workers and their families whose visas expire between 31 March and 1 October. We are working with all NHS trusts and the wider independent health and care sector across the whole of the UK to identify who will benefit. The extension to NHS visas will be automatic. There will be no fee attached and it will be exempt from the immigration health surcharge. We have extended this offer to more key front-line workers, including midwives, social workers and medical radiographers. Social care workers who are employed by NHS trusts, or independent health and care providers, and working in one of the defined occupations, will benefit from the automatic visa extensions offer where visas are due to expire between 31 March and 1 October 2020.
There has been much discussion about the ability of migrant workers to undercut UK workers. Much has been made of the idea that we cannot train people up between now and the end of the year. However, there is a challenge to employers across this country around the easy option of migrant labour, which has undercut our own home-grown workforce for far too long. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was who said that people in this country do not want to work in care, but I do not agree with that. Employers need to support this very worthwhile profession on which so many of us rely, both at the beginning of our lives and towards the end of our lives. That is a challenge for employers in this country.
I come next to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and family reunion. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, challenged me on this, as of course did the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I am sure he will continue to do so. I have said it before and I will say it again: the UK has a long and proud tradition of providing safety to those who claim asylum and it will not be affected by our exit from the EU. We will continue to provide protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations.
I have trotted out the statistics at this Dispatch Box time and again. Under national resettlement schemes we have resettled more people than any other state in the EU—we are incredibly generous to those who need our help. During the transition period, the UK will continue to reunite unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe with family members in the UK under the Dublin regulation. During the coronavirus pandemic, we brought over 52 people from the Greek islands, and I think we might be the only state in the EU that did that. We will continue to process all those transfer requests.
We have now presented a genuine and sincere offer to the EU on a new reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On 19 May, we published our draft legal text as a constructive contribution to negotiations. Additionally, children with immediate family members in the UK will still be able to join them under the refugee family reunion rules and part 8 and appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. These routes are unaffected by our departure from the EU. Finally, noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister’s pledge to resettle a further 5,000 vulnerable people seeking refuge, from not just Syria but anywhere in the world. That actually goes way beyond the asks that some of the NGOs have made of us. I am proud of the record that we have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, talked about children in care being denied EU settlement scheme status. Across government, we are working to ensure that all eligible children obtain the UK immigration status they are due. The Home Office has already spent £9 million funding third-party organisations across the country that support families and the hard-to-reach with the apps that they produce. In March, we announced a further £8 million to support this work. It is wrong to say that children will be subject to restrictive measures; they will not. Up to 31 March 2020, there have been almost half a million applications from under-18s. That is a really good figure. There is still plenty of time to apply before the June 2021 deadline.
In that vein, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked me about the EU settlement scheme grace period and reasonable grounds. We will publish the guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline; we intend to do so in early 2021. However, I will give her examples of what might be included. It will include children whose parent, guardian or local authority failed to apply on their behalf; people in abusive or controlling relationships who perhaps could not apply; and those who lack the physical or mental capacity to apply. I think that I might have talked to her about that earlier.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol talked about looked-after children. I think I am repeating myself, because I just mentioned that in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley. We are liaising very closely with local authorities.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, and my noble friend Lord Wei all asked about regional variation. Our new points-based system—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I think it was, supported this—will work for all parts of the United Kingdom. We will not establish different visa arrangements for different nations or regions of the UK. The MAC has repeatedly said that the economic situations in different parts of the UK are not sufficiently different to warrant different immigration arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to Northern Irish citizens and the Good Friday agreement. A person of Northern Ireland, as defined in the Belfast agreement, has the right to hold British and Irish citizenship, and the right to identify as British, Irish or both, as they may so choose. The Irish rights clause in the Bill is focused on protecting the rights of Irish citizens under existing CTA arrangements. Irish citizens in any part of the UK and British citizens in Ireland enjoy reciprocal rights. Maintaining these rights supports provisions in the Belfast agreement, specifically the right to identify as British, Irish or both.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others asked about fees—I think maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did as well. On the face of it they seem high, particularly when we are talking about children, but application fees for border, immigration and citizenship services play a vital role in our ability to run a sustainable system. The income helps to deliver the funding requirements to run the border, immigration and citizenship service and substantially reduces the burden on UK taxpayers. I am sure that noble Lords and members of the public rightly expect that. Any decisions regarding future fees payable or funding of the system should be taken in the round and outside the passage of this Bill.
Lots of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Dubs and Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others talked about a detention time limit. The main rationale put forward for a time limit is that, in the absence of one, individuals are detained indefinitely. Although I know that noble Lords have cited cases, it is not the case that the law actually permits indefinite detention. A time limit is not only unnecessary; it would severely limit our ability to use detention as an effective means of removal. A time limit would encourage those who seek to frustrate the removal process—and there are those who do—to run down the clock until the limit is reached and release is guaranteed.
Quite a few noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord McColl of Dulwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, spoke about modern slavery. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham also spoke to me yesterday about this. Modern slavery and human trafficking have no place in this society, and we are committed to fortifying our immigration system against these crimes while ensuring that victims are protected and offenders prosecuted. Decisions made through the national referral mechanism regarding whether someone is in fact a victim of modern slavery are not affected by their nationality or their immigration status. In fact, I might say that many victims of modern slavery are citizens of the United Kingdom. Support for suspected victims is provided through the NRM regardless of nationality and, although the UK has left the EU, our core international obligations to victims remain unchanged.
I had questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about specific sectors. The noble Lord asked about the creative industries and the noble Baroness asked about modern foreign language teachers. The shortage occupation lists are set on the advice of the independent MAC. It has considered the position of teachers in a specific report in 2017 and in a general view of the shortage occupation lists last year. Teachers of Mandarin are on the shortage occupation list, as I think the noble Baroness might have said, but the MAC did not consider that the case was made for MFL teachers. I can tell her and the noble Lord that the MAC is currently undertaking a further review of the lists and will keep them under regular review so, if they have concerns about this and the sector, I would encourage them to submit evidence to the MAC.
I turn now to another sector, that of ministers of religion, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked about. We greatly value the contribution that migrants make to faith communities in this country, and that is why there are two routes for religious workers within the current immigration system which will be continued under the future points-based system. When we made changes in 2019, the then Immigration Minister hosted a round table with representatives of all the major faiths, and just in the past week the current Immigration Minister hosted a further meeting with representatives of the Catholic church.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on data. This means that I now have a third friend in the House of Lords who is interested in this subject. On a much more serious point, however, the data that we collect on people coming into this country and going out again, along with noting the number who have applied for the EU settlement scheme—a figure that is much higher than we first thought—is absolutely crucial to some of the retrospective and future decisions that we make. We do not agree that Home Office data on immigration is poor. It may be criticised, but we publish some of the most comprehensive immigration statistics of any country and their quality is overseen by the UK Statistics Authority which has been clear that the data is good. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a point about exit checks. These are crucial to enhancing the robustness of our data and I believe that we have been collecting data on them since 2015.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, and a number of other noble Lords talked about physical proof of status. I smiled a little at that point because, just the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe were absolutely adamant about digital proof of status. We are developing a broader immigration system that, going forward, will be digital by default. As I told the noble Lord on a previous occasion, individuals will receive notification of their immigration status by email or letter. However, the one thing about digital status, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, is that you cannot lose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about the data for higher education and he noted that the vast majority of students return to their home countries after they have completed their studies. They do that and they are incredibly compliant. He quoted from published Home Office statistics. I agree that it is true for the current crop of students that the current sponsorship is working well. We do not want to return to the pre-sponsorship days, when there were significant concerns about the quality of some of our education establishments, particularly in the FE sector.
I have probably come to the end of my time. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I look forward to considering in Committee some of the issues that I know will be brought forward, whether they are in this Bill or not.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 7th September 2020
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberImmigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (7 Sep 2020)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Within six months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 are to be enforced.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister and her team for the briefing sessions arranged since Second Reading and the substantial package of materials circulated last week, including some illustrative statutory instruments, which I always find helpful in understanding how Bills will work. We will come on to those in later groups.
I know from all the legislation that I have made as a civil servant and as a Minister, and complied with as a businesswoman and a citizen, that how a new law is enforced and the resources devoted to it is almost as important as the law itself. Our amendment, the first in this group, is a probing one designed to elicit detailed information on enforcement ahead of Report. I note that there is very little in the Bill, no doubt because the enforcement provisions, penalties, powers of entry and enforcement officers responsible sit in existing legislation, but we need a road map. We need to know as much as possible now and, failing that, we need a public report to Parliament within six months, as stated in my amendment—the way the excellent Bill clerks thought that we could ensure the provision of adequate information.
As discussed at Second Reading, my general approach is that government policy should align itself more closely with the majority of public opinion, which has consistently held over many decades that more rigorous controls are needed and that the rules should be enforced fairly and firmly. This was shown unequivocally in the Brexit referendum.
There are a number of troubling issues with enforcement implications. The number of migrants seeking ever more novel ways to get into the UK illegally is growing. Last week, it was reported that a record 416 migrants exploited fine weather to make the crossing from France to England in one day, arriving on beaches all along the south coast. Immigration law can be enforced by tightening border controls or by deporting those without a right to remain in our country, yet we see repeated reports of the failure of government steps to remove migrants who have already sought asylum elsewhere or have no right to remain for other reasons. Last week, a charter flight took off for Spain that was meant to carry 20 such migrants; in the event, only 11 boarded the plane, after late legal challenges. The week before, the Government abandoned a similar flight with 23 migrants on board, after last-minute legal action. Many thousands are attracted to dangerous ways of entering the UK, because the authorities are known to be useless at enforcing the law.
We have passed many laws and regulations in recent years, including in 2014—when I had the pleasure of supporting the then Home Office Minister, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach—but enforcement has been weak. As a result, businesses, banks and landlords play a big part in policing the rules at very considerable cost to themselves—as I remember well from Tesco. Yet immigration continues to increase. There are large numbers here illegally, both putting pressure on our public services and housing and risking ill treatment and exploitation—for example, in modern slavery or in dangerous low-paid working environments.
The Bill focuses on the EEA and Switzerland, and migrants arriving from those countries are not exempt from the problems that I highlighted. There is never-ending pressure on the EU’s southern and eastern borders, and the growth of hotspots of deprivation in EU urban centres. This phenomenon, most shockingly shown by the queues across Europe a few years ago, helped to bring us Brexit. The Bill must provide the powers we need to tackle these issues properly or we will never be forgiven.
Against this background, I have some questions. First, where are the enforcement provisions that will apply to the Bill and regulations made under it? What are the fines and criminal sanctions that apply and to whom? Secondly, the Bill contains powers to amend primary legislation elsewhere. Can that include enforcement provisions and how would such powers be limited? Thirdly, what are the enforcement authorities—the Border Force, the police, local authorities, the Home Office or the DWP?
Fourthly, what resources are available for enforcement and how much will they be increased? For example, the UK points-based immigration system, set out in CP 258 and at the useful briefing arranged by my noble friend the Minister, requires a huge new administrative structure post Brexit and an ESTA-style system involving millions of individuals every week. According to the department’s interesting impact assessment—thank you to the Home Office for doing one, by the way—there were 142.8 million passenger arrivals in 2018. That included nearly 41 million from the EU and 20.5 million non-EEA citizens. That necessitates a lot of checking. Add to that the pressure on our authorities of the illegal attempts I described earlier, the complications of Covid and post-Brexit trade, and you have a case for much more resource.
Fifthly, what scope is there for the use of technology to ease the obvious pressures on our enforcement? Does that also have downsides too that have been anticipated?
Finally, will the Minister take another look at the economics of deportation flights? At Second Reading, I suggested the Government take advantage of the current market to buy some small planes for this purpose. Having some experience in this area, I was not happy with the response in the Minister’s letter. Given the failure rate and the apparent ability of lawyers to delay deportation on flimsy grounds, I am sure it would be cheaper, in the longer term, than charter flights. I am clear that, given media coverage and public concern, the public would not put up with the use of scheduled or mixed flights for that purpose. This approach would generate more confidence, and we need that. I urge the department to work with the Treasury if necessary to do a proper cost-benefit analysis, rather than applying some narrow procurement mantra.
In conclusion, I support Clause 1. However, we need to be clear about the rules for enforcement and entry. The other amendments in this group cover other aspects, and I look forward to colleagues making the case for these, although I must to admit to reservations about some of them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I agree with her that we need to tackle modern slavery and exploitation in the UK and that this is something the Government need to properly fund and prioritise, focusing on the exploiters, not the victims. I am, however, speaking in direct opposition to her statement as I am opposing Clause 1.
Today marks another step in the robbing of rights from millions of Britons that they were born with and the removal of rights for future generations. Clause 1 is a key step by which freedom of movement for Britons and to Britain ends. I believe we should not allow the destruction of rights and freedoms for Britons to pass unmarked, which is why I have put down my intention to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
As I did that, I was thinking back a couple of years to a rally in the centre of Brussels, held in ankle-deep snow, where I heard from lots of Britons who had come from across the continent to talk about how freedom of movement had changed and improved their lives. In particular, I think of a woman who, when young, had upped sticks when her life in the UK had not worked out, moved to several European countries over the years, built a couple of different careers and made a full, interesting, varied life for herself. She came from a very poor area of England and from a family with few financial resources. But she had bought a cheap coach ticket, shifted across a continent and found opportunities, interesting experiences and a comfortable place for herself in the world.
The wealthy have always been able to do this and, no doubt, will always be able to. Many an aristocrat set out on the Grand Tour and, by choice, never came home. Many a black sheep from a wealthy family snuck off to the continent and rebuilt their life away from scandal. The arrival of freedom of movement meant the chance for everybody to exercise that freedom to seek the opportunities, the experiences, the enhancements of life that change can bring and the chance to meet new and different people, learn a new language and find a different culture, environment and way of life.
Making that opportunity available to all was a huge step towards balancing inequality, and now it is being wiped out. All our lives are much poorer with the loss of freedom of movement. Of course, it has also been a safety net. British builders escaping the deprivations of 1970s Britain in Germany became a stereotype, but it was a fact. In our shock-ridden, insecure and unstable world, how vital might that right have been to many in the future?
As a noble and learned Lord pointed out to me when I was discussing my intention with him, I do not have the power to simply restore that movement right for Britons. That right is granted by other states under EU membership, which we have now lost, and all those rights will go when we end the transition period at the end of this year. These are rights, incidentally, that quite a number of Members of the House of Lords have availed themselves of. Freedom of movement exercised before the end of December will continue, unless by tearing up the withdrawal agreement signed just eight months ago, as was being threatened this morning, Boris Johnson puts into question the rights of the 1.3 million Britons who thought they were secure through their existing residence in the EU. What I am proposing would keep the rights of citizens from EU states in the UK. But the principle of reciprocation is strong, and we could, in accepting these rights, expect that reciprocation.
Moving countries is something that many people will never consider. My aim will always be for a world where no one is forced to leave their home by poverty, war, discrimination or environmental crises. But there are always people for whom this is an exciting idea: for some, the possibility of escape is attractive, and for others, the possibility of a fresh start they cannot find in their birthplace is essential.
We are also denying ourselves the talents, skills and energy of people from across the continent, who, without free movement, will not have the same opportunities their elders enjoyed. I am sorry about that too.
When young British people ask me what I did to keep their freedoms and opportunities, I will be able to say I did my best to defend them. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House: how would you answer that question? I am not going to ask Members to put their votes on the line today, but I intend to in the future.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, that was indeed a passionate speech.
When I was a first-year law student at Hertford College, Oxford, we learned that apparently the Roman Emperor Caligula ordered that laws should be displayed in small letters as high up as possible to make it difficult for people to know their legal rights and obligations. Amendment 3 focuses attention on an extraordinary provision in this Bill—paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1—which, if enacted, will make it impossible for people today to understand their legal rights and obligations.
Paragraph 4 is concerned with the EU regulation on free movement of workers. Paragraph 4(1) is a model of clarity; it says that Article 1 of the regulation “is omitted”. However, paragraph 4(2) displays the parliamentary draftsman at his or her most coy. It is so extraordinary that it must be read out:
“The other provisions of the Workers Regulation cease to apply so far as—
(a) they are inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts (including, and as amended by, this Act), or
(b) they are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
It is simply not acceptable that when people want to know whether a provision of an EU regulation continues to apply, they must ask themselves whether the provision is
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation"
of a provision of the immigration Acts. This is drafting so opaque that it puts a brick wall between the individual and the law which applies to him or her. It is drafting so lazy that it is comatose. The same woeful drafting technique also appears in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, a provision addressed in Amendments 4 and 5 in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I support. If the Government want to ensure that provisions of a regulation cease to apply, they should say so with clarity.
Amendment 3 is in my name, and in the names of two other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, our chair, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith. The Constitution Committee’s report, published last week, drew attention to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 as unacceptably vague and inevitably productive of legal uncertainty. We quoted the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Adrian Berry, the barrister chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. He said of this provision:
“You need to make better laws. Make it certain and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 9/6/20; col. 52.]
I agree. Basic standards of legislative drafting need to be upheld. Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 is way below what is acceptable. I can think of no precedent for such a provision.
I hope that the Minister says that she understands the objection to this provision and that she will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. I give due warning that if the Government do not address this concern, and if other noble Lords share my concern, I will return to this topic on Report.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment and the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I apologise if the Committee starts its debate on another report from the Constitution Committee before this section is concluded.
In many respects this is a skeleton Bill, and in this area it changes significant amounts of primary legislation into secondary legislation, therefore making it open to less effective parliamentary scrutiny when powers are used. If something needs to be changed because of inconsistency, then the face of the Bill is the place to put it, but here we are with the concept of inconsistency so subjective and vague that it is difficult to imagine how a court would interpret it. Is
“otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”
restricted to precluding the operation of the Act, or does it extend to casting doubt on provisions in this Act? What is it supposed to mean?
In our report on Brexit legislation, the Constitution Committee said that
“delegated powers should be sought only when their use can be clearly anticipated and defined”,
yet in this Bill we get terms such as “appropriate”, “in connection with” and the ones which I have just quoted. It is an unsatisfactory way of drafting, and I am bound to wonder what instructions were given to the parliamentary draftsmen when they worked on this section.
The Constitution Committee has had quite a bit of discussion over the last couple of years about the drafting of legislation and the circumstances in which parliamentary draftsmen should say, “No, this is not a way in which we write laws, this is not acceptable”, and if a dispute arises, then not only departmental Ministers but also law officers should be involved in defending the basic principles of law. Having looked at these provisions, which I hope the Government will find a way to remove, we concluded that
“they risk making a complex area of the law even more difficult to navigate and understand for practitioners and individuals alike”,
and that they threaten to
“frustrate essential ingredients of the rule of law.”
These seem to me to be compelling arguments for the Government to have more thought on this issue.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the proposed new clause in Amendment 60, which has cross-party support and is sponsored by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Garden of Frognal, and Lady Morris of Yardley, is largely self-explanatory. If accepted, it would continue allowing minors to travel from the European Union, other European Economic Area states and Switzerland to the UK on identity cards rather than passports beyond 31 December 2020.
Large numbers of junior nationals from these jurisdictions travel to the UK every year for school exchange visits, English language courses, adventure holidays and a range of sporting and cultural activities. Last year over 150,000 European Economic Area juniors travelled to the UK for English language courses alone, many of them travelling in groups for study programmes that lasted for less than two weeks. This is an invaluable cultural and educational exchange that builds friendships and fosters good will between the UK and other nations. Most of these students currently travel on identity cards. Many do not own passports but travel freely on identity cards throughout the EU and EEA states with no need for passports.
A survey last year by English UK, the trade association for English schools, showed that, in 2019, 90% of under-18 EU students who came to this country did so on an identity card to study at colleges accredited by the British Council, an organisation on which I served as a deputy chair for six years. The parents of these under-18s do not want to go through additional bureaucracy or incur the cost of getting a passport, having saved for the cost of the trip itself. Furthermore, if just one junior due to travel in a school exchange group is without a passport, the viability of the whole visit could be put in jeopardy. If this travel on identity cards ceases, the UK will lose out to other countries and its position as a popular destination could decline. This new clause would help to rectify the situation and sustain the UK’s position as a popular destination. I emphasise that the proposed extension of identity card-based entry for under-18s coming to the UK for a single stay of no longer than 30 days in any calendar year means that this concession would be available only to those presenting little or no border security issues or risk of abuse.
Some may object that allowing the continuation of ID card travel presents the UK with an unacceptable security risk. EU citizens with settled status will be allowed to continue to travel on ID cards, so why not children coming for short-stay trips, largely travelling in large managed groups?
Furthermore, the EU passed a regulation last year to increase the security of ID cards issued in EU states. The regulation requires that within two years of June 2019, all new ID cards need to be machine-readable biometric cards. Existing cards will be phased out by 2023 if they are not machine readable. This will bring the security features of ID cards into line with those of passports.
As this small exception would be a continuation of an existing procedure, I do not believe it will be very complex to administer. If the clause is accepted, it will be welcomed by our European partners as a significant gesture of good will. It is also worth noting that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland allow travel for EU nationals on an ID card, so I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
This is rather a mixed bag of amendments. I would like to return to Amendment 1, on enforcement; a very useful amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she so clearly described, enforcement has long been one of the weakest points in our immigration system. Indeed, enforced returns have been in steady decline for years. They fell from 16,000 in 2010 to just under 7,000 in 2020—that is more than half—and that was the lowest level since records began. Voluntary returns have also fallen since 2015. Partly as a result of these failures, we now have 90,000 immigration offenders living in the community; that is somewhat more than the size of the British Army. Furthermore, more than half of them—about 55,000—no longer even bother to report to the Home Office as they are supposed to do: they have simply disappeared.
I shall make three brief suggestions about how this could be tackled. First, we should adopt a much tougher approach towards those countries that take an unreasonable attitude to taking back their own citizens—India, Pakistan and Iran come to mind, but there are a number of others. As noble Lords will know, illegal immigrants frequently destroy their documents, and these countries usually refuse to accept the biometric identity documents that the British Government produce for them. I think that our willingness to issue visas for the UK should take this attitude into account.
Secondly, we also need to retain—indeed, restore—the detained fast-track system for asylum claims that are obviously very weak. It was very effective for some years, but was quietly dropped by the Government quite recently after several years in a legal morass. Thirdly, we should be much more effective in enforcing the laws on illegal working. It is clear that this is a major pull factor for illegal immigration.
Finally, a particular difficulty facing the new immigration system is that of preventing EU visitors and other non-visa nationals working while in this country. A report to Parliament on enforcement, as proposed in this amendment, would be a valuable first step.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much regret the end of free movement rights. This has often been presented as a one-way system, as if it applied only to nationals of other EEA countries inward to the UK, but it has of course been a two-way system, and something over 1 million UK citizens have taken advantage of their free movement rights to live, work and settle in other EU and EEA countries. When I was an MEP, I was proud to work on the 2004 citizens’ rights directive, which is often called the free movement directive. We did not get everything we wanted, as the European Parliament did not have quite the rights over legislation that it has today. However, it allowed lots of people who were not particularly well off to take advantage of EU rights to move, live and work abroad—it was democratised, if you like.
I fear that there could well be resentment in future, as divisions appear between those who retain a right to move around and those who do not. I also think that some British citizens who currently enjoy EU free movement rights may not fully have taken on board what is about to hit them. When I talk about divisions, for instance, there are those who will be able to get an Irish passport. I declare an interest here: apparently—I did not realise this until a few years ago—I am already an Irish citizen because my mother was born in Dublin. I have not yet got round to applying for the passport. I put it off partly in the hope that somehow Brexit would be averted, and also because I feel a little sheepish about my right to it. But I have not had to apply for Irish citizenship, as it has sort of fallen out of the sky, courtesy of my mother—or her mother, I should say.
There will also be people with means who will be able to move abroad. We know that it is possible to buy so-called golden passports in some EU countries. There are also investor visas. One way or another, it is not going to be the rich who will be affected by the grab of free movement rights.
This Bill is largely about the future of EU and EEA citizens in the UK and them coming under immigration control, but as the organisation British in Europe so splendidly details, we must remember the difficulties for UK citizens in EEA countries.
Reference has been made to Amendments 4 and 5, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee will probably talk about. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about Amendment 3. These amendments are similar in that they are objecting to wording about powers,
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision … under the Immigration Acts … or … capable of affecting the exercise of functions”.
The two committees that have very helpfully reported to us—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee—have pointed out the legal complexity of immigration law. It is a complicated policy area. I think it was the Constitution Committee that said,
“the complexity of law had developed to the point that it was a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently—not to mention raising rule-of-law concerns as to the ability of the general public to understand the law to which they are subject.”
This is the system into which we are catapulting EEA citizens who, up to now, have enjoyed the protection of EU law. I hope they continue to enjoy the complete protection of the withdrawal agreement, but noises off in the last 24 hours have not reassured people of the Government’s commitment to upholding all the provisions of the agreement.
This is a complex area. I know we are going to talk about the Immigration Rules on a later amendment but, as this Bill does not set out the domestic immigration framework that will apply to EEA citizens, there is understandable nervousness. One of the things that people are worried about is a retrospective demand to show private health insurance—the famous “comprehensive sickness insurance”. The Minister will know that it is interpreted by the European Commission—and was always understood when we were legislating on the citizens’ rights directive—that in a country such as the UK, which has a national health service, free at the point of delivery, the right to use the NHS is the comprehensive sickness insurance for people paying tax and national insurance. They should not be required to have private health insurance. There is a lot of worry that when people come to apply for citizenship the Government will say, “Show us that you had private health insurance all the time that you have been resident in the UK.” Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
Colleagues in my party and, indeed, people in other parties believe that there should be an automatic system instead of the EU settlement scheme, which is an application system. A letter went to the Prime Minister yesterday from representatives of five parties, including my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael MP, urging the Government, even at this stage, to replace the settled status process with an automatic right to stay for EU citizens, guaranteed in primary legislation, as a declaratory system. It is something that we have persistently asked for and will not stop asking for. I see that the Minister looks dismayed.
One group—I think it was Law Society of Scotland—raised an interesting question. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this. It asked whether Clause 1 is necessary in the light of powers in the EU withdrawal Act 2018 for Ministers to repeal retained EU law. I would be grateful for her guidance on that subject.
Finally, I thoroughly support Amendment 61 on EEA citizens having access to eGates, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will speak to.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 60 to which I have added my name, can I say, as a member of the Constitution Committee and a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I agree wholeheartedly with the searing criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith? I am appalled that we should start to have laws that are incomprehensible. It might be meat and drink for the satirist, but it should be no part of our arrangements.
By contrast, the amendment to which I have added my name, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is clear, straightforward and simple to understand. The noble Baroness gave a very good account of it and its intentions so I will not repeat them now for lack of time, but I want to make a serious point. If young people—minors—are not able to come to this country without a full passport, it is unlikely, when things return to normal, that many of them will come at all. They are far more likely to go to some other English-speaking country—one thinks immediately of the Republic of Ireland or even Malta. One might even think of the Netherlands, where it seems to me that they sometimes speak English better than we do.
Be that as it may, this is a very real worry. It is bad enough that young people have suddenly stopped coming over to schools and organisations as a result of Covid-19. Such organisations are in dire straits and we do not want to put some ghastly obstacle in their way as things gradually return to normal. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look carefully at this to see if we can simply have the identity cards, which are used at the present time and are simple and easy to use. They would be using only those that are properly instituted by the various countries of the EEA and Switzerland.
There is a further problem, looking forward. Many people first come to this country as a youngster on an exchange. Very often they will return, perhaps for higher or further education. We do not want to cut that off at the beginning. That would be extremely short-sighted.
Some areas of the country have a number of language schools. I am thinking of where I live in East Sussex where, within quite a small area of Hastings, St Leonards and around, there are three notable language schools. The same could be said of the constituency in Plymouth of which I had the honour to be the MP. If one looks round at some of the seaside resorts, one will find a good many more there too.
This is a useful, small part of the major issues of which this Bill is party, but I believe it is very important and I hope that my noble friend will be inclined to accept the amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I support Amendment 60, which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke to so ably. It is a good thing for young people to come over to learn English here or to have adventure holidays or to do an exchange. We can all remember it if we had that opportunity. Those, who like me who were teachers, knew the benefit for children, and the children and grandchildren of many of us have taken this opportunity.
I cannot think of one reason why we would want to make it more difficult for these things to continue. It is one of those things that we can all agree on—it is what we would want for young people, whether they are our own children or somebody else’s. It is not just meeting people and learning the language, there is something about it that, perhaps, you only realise as you get older. The seeds that you sow in those early years, culturally and in terms of understanding, stay with you for life. Even if you do not come back to university in the United Kingdom in a few years’ time, in your heart you remain friends with somewhere you have been as a young person. I had an opportunity to be an exchange student in America when I was doing my teacher training. It has had a huge effect on me throughout my life. There is an affection, a loyalty and an understanding that I have never lost. Why would we want to make it difficult in the future for more children to have an opportunity like that?
There is a problem with the Bill. I do not think it is intentional, but an unintended consequence of the rules and regulations. It is not just a few young people who would be affected; most young people in this group travel with identity cards rather than passports, and that certainly makes it easier for the group organisers. If a card is lost, it is easier to replace it when you are abroad than it is to replace a passport. Quite simply, it is an extra cost, and parents will have choices—there are English-speaking nations other than ours that their children could visit. Therefore, it will make a difference. Schools are already trying to recruit for next year and they will be put at a disadvantage because we are now putting a further barrier in the way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, outlined the solution very clearly. Along with people who are here with European Union settlement status, for the next few years—at least, while we think this through—there should be the opportunity for people to make this kind of journey, restricted to 30 days once a year and very often to language schools approved by the British Council, with an identity card, rather than putting a barrier in their way and making them have a passport if they make such a journey.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, having been reprieved from the Woolsack, I rise to speak on Amendment 60, to which I have added my name and which was so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Morris, have also spoken persuasively.
In the post-Brexit landscape, preserving good relations with our EU neighbours is of the utmost importance. Of course, freedom of movement is ending but that does not mean that we need to create unnecessary barriers to cultural exchange and destroy all the good will and soft power benefits created by school exchange visits, English language study programmes, sports, culture, leisure holidays and the like.
As someone who has covered, among other policy areas, education, rural affairs and tourism, either from the Opposition Front Bench or as a coalition Minister and Whip—we were multitalented in coalition—I can certainly attest to the important educational role played by school exchanges and the opportunities they afford our children to experience other cultures, as well as the economic contribution that the English language teaching sector makes to, for instance, rural and seaside communities here in the UK. Equally, the sector plays an important export role, as evidenced by its membership of the Education Sector Advisory Group, run out of the Department for International Trade.
As a linguist who studied French and Spanish at university before going on to teach both languages here and in Germany, I know the value of spending time in the country of the language being learned—it really is the best way to do so. I was a child in France and a student in Spain, and I lived in Germany with my RAF husband, where, as a French and Spanish speaker, I managed to get a job teaching in a German school, so I learned quite a lot of German as well. I fully agree with some of the other arguments that have been made in support of this proposed new clause. They are also familiar to me as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group and a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
As has been mentioned, many Europeans under the age of 18 do not own passports and their parents will find it expensive, cumbersome and unnecessary, in the ordinary run of things, to obtain them. If these trips do not go ahead because one or more of the children in a group does not possess a passport, that means that UK teenagers are likely to miss out too. School exchanges are just that—reciprocal exchanges. If schoolchildren from Europe cannot travel here for lack of a passport, ours are unlikely to be hosted by their counterparts in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain or other countries.
Currently, nearly 40% of UK children in our secondary schools take part in at least one international exchange visit during their school careers. This rises to nearly 80% of teenagers at independent schools in the UK. Therefore, while privately educated children from the independent sector may go on exchanges to wealthier parts of Europe, where parents may have less financial difficulty in obtaining a passport for their children to come to the UK, pupils in state schools could be very badly affected by this.
The stated aim of the Government is to boost these sorts of trips for all British schoolchildren, given the life-changing experiences and academic opportunities that they can afford them. However, the Government can hardly be said to be promoting this if one of their first acts is to place barriers in the way of under-18s from the European mainland coming here. A simple amendment to the Bill, in the form of this proposed new clause, allowing these children to continue to come to the UK on their national identity cards for short visits, would resolve this issue. As a former member of the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs in this place, I too look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. This amendment will do the Government no harm and will generate a great deal of international good will.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I associate myself with comments made during this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I would like to ask a couple of questions in this regard.
If the purpose of the Bill is to repeal EU law on the free movement of people and if the provisions are not already enshrined in retained EU law elsewhere, can my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to explain why, as has already been mentioned, Clause 1 is required? Like others, I would like to say how much I benefited from the free movement provisions—which have been in place since 1973—as a student and then as a stagiaire in the European Commission. I went on to practise European Union law before becoming an adviser to, and eventually being elected to, the European Parliament.
I come to my main concern with Clause 1. Can my noble friend put my mind at rest that, in repealing EU law on the free movement of workers from the EEA and Switzerland, we will still have access to a constant supply of labour in essential services such as health and social care? I would also like to add food production, farming, and vegetable and fruit growing. I know that the amendments failed in the other place, but I hope that my noble friend will look very carefully at this with fresh eyes.
It is also extremely important to ensure that those whom we welcome from the EEA and Switzerland after 1 January 2021 are made to feel welcome and are employed and given access on exactly the same basis as UK nationals. In this regard, will my noble friend confirm that migrants will continue to be employed on the same basis as UK nationals? Will the principle that has existed to date of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality still apply, so that no employer can discriminate between a UK national and an EEA or Swiss national who might find employment in this regard?
I am conscious that there have already been a couple of very unfortunate cases of Covid-19 outbreaks in food processing plants, partly due to the fact that the working environment is very cold but also partly because, by necessity, the employees probably sit very close to each other. We will obviously need to revisit many of these conditions going forward, but will the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality still apply to the Bill and other provisions?
Given my background, I have some sympathy with those who have put their names to and supported Amendment 60, and I will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in replying to that debate.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who spoke to his amendment. I regret the lack of transparency and what appears to be very poor drafting, and, again, will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in summing up on that. However, as regards this amendment, those are the questions I would like to put to my noble friend at this stage.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support what was said so authoritatively about Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. We need to hear what our Constitution Committee has said, and I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government will do this.
My purpose is to say a few brief words on Amendment 61 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before I do so, I want to say a quick word on the wider context. Admirable though the quality of this debate is, I cannot help feeling that we are fiddling while Rome burns. In Downing Street, it seems that the Government are planning to take powers in the internal market Bill to override certain provisions of the withdrawal agreement—in particular, Articles 5 and 10 of the Irish protocol. Tearing up ratified treaties is what rogue states do; sanctions usually follow. If such a proposal were put to us, I would expect us to examine it particularly stringently. I cannot recall any precedent in UK diplomatic history. What we are doing today is important, but what we might have to do then would be historic.
Turning to Amendment 61, it seems to me that it is either completely unnecessary or absolutely essential. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that it is unnecessary because the Government have no intention of making our closest neighbours stand in a queue at the frontier. If she cannot make this assurance, we must surely ask the Government to think again.
It seems highly likely that, for the next few years, the relationship with the EU will become damagingly rebarbative. That would, of course, become a racing certainty if we tore up the withdrawal agreement, but even if we do not, the disruption, the economic damage and the inevitable frontier friction—deal or no deal—is likely to drip poison into the relationship for some time to come. So we should be careful about choosing to add insult to injury. We have left the EU, but we do not need to leave Europe. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right to detect a risk, we would be right to support her Amendment 61.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 61 in this group, and I am grateful for the support that it is receiving. Clearly, the Government say that EU citizens will be allowed to continue to use e-passport gates at airports after the end of the transition period, but that is the problem. From what I can see, as a result of leaving the European Union, far from ending free movement of people, the Government are effectively opening it up to the citizens of more countries outside of the European Union, the EEA and Switzerland.
I must make it clear that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, I am in favour of free movement. The point I am making is that lack of enforcement means that, in practice, free movement will not end at the end of the transition period.
EU, EEA and Swiss nationals have been able to use the e-passport gates at UK airports because, under European Union freedom of movement rules, they have been entitled to come to the UK without restriction. With the UK’s imminent departure from the EU, and the Government’s commitment to ending preferential immigration from the EU, the Government were faced with turmoil at the UK border if EU, EEA and Swiss nationals were not able to use the e-passport gates but had to be manually checked by Border Force staff; the queues for non-EU passport holders were already verging on the unacceptably long. Rather than remove the ability of EU citizens to use e-passport gates, the Government extended their use to citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America, thereby delivering on their promise not to give EU citizens preferential immigration rights, as these are now shared with the citizens of some non-EU countries.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has raised pertinent points on which we look forward to hearing from the Minister. Like so many of the groups when we are in Committee, this is a massive catch-all group, and I sympathise with the Minister for having to cover so many bases at the end.
I completely sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in not wanting Clause 1, but we are a revising Chamber and have to take for granted that this broad power is going to be taken because it is consequential on us leaving the EU. The issue for us is what its specific and defined consequences will be. All the issues raised so far seem to be valid ones that we would wish to return to on Report if the Minister cannot give us sufficient assurance. On Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Morris said: it is vital we do not do anything to imperil the free exchange of students and young people in and out of the country. I cannot believe it is in the mind of the Government for that to happen. If this simple change in Amendment 60 can safeguard that, we should surely make that possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have spoken powerfully about Amendment 61. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the legal abuse involved in Schedule 1 were also very well made. Could I ask the Minister more about the consequences for British citizens when seeking to exercise their existing EU rights on the continent? One of the problems of legislating on this issue in real time is that it is not always clear to the House what we know and what we do not, and that will be important when we come to Report.
The big issue when we leave the EU is that the rights we take away from EU citizens are liable to be taken away from British citizens in respect of travel, work and study on the continent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, these are essentially reciprocal rights. It is hard to think that if we take the rights away from fellow EU citizens, they will not be taken away from us. The question is, what exactly are we taking away? The single biggest source of the exercise of these rights by UK citizens is those who want to travel as tourists and those who want to study, live or work on the continent. On the biggest group—those who travel—I want to ask the Minister if my understanding is correct because it will have some bearing on where we go on Report. My understanding at present is that for travel from 1 January 2021 no visa, or visa equivalents such as an ESTA, will be required for what are defined as short trips to the EU. Short trips are defined as 90 days in any 180-day period. I assume that that would be reciprocal. However, I quote from the Government website on changes from 1 January:
“You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.”
Therefore, under the current withdrawal agreement—that said, almost everyone is concerned that this could all be thrown up in the air—is there agreement that visas will not be imposed on EU citizens coming here, or vice versa for short, tourist-related trips, but it is entirely open as to what will happen about visas or permits required for longer stays or for work, study or business travel? If I have got that right, what is the regime likely to be for working longer periods and business travel, which is of huge consequence to us?
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we are legislating in the dark for the withdrawal of many rights of EU citizens coming here, it is also true that we are legislating in the dark for the rights that we are going to be taking away from UK citizens that they can currently exercise in respect of their travel and legitimate business on the continent. That is not sufficiently appreciated. Could the Minister confirm the situation? What is definitely agreed? My understanding is that short trips will definitely not be covered by visas or ESTAs. Also, what is the situation for other forms of travel, work and study, including business travel?
It may seem an unlikely alliance but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the integrity of the immigration system. There cannot be any doubt that one of the things that causes most public concern about extending the rights of people to come here is the fear that those rights will be abused. In principle, their concern about the implementation of Clause 1 is well-founded, and it does not apply to policing and monitoring of the immigration system just for EU countries, but for other countries. This amendment, which is just a probing amendment, asks for a report after 90 days on what progress Government are making and their policy on security.
As our legislative stages are a process of mutual learning, I wonder whether I could put the debate back to the noble Broness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green—particularly to the noble Lord, who is probably one of the greatest experts in the country on the detailed working of the immigration system. I can see the Minister is smiling; the noble Lord creates a great deal of work for her and others. I do not begrudge that: it is the job of people in this House and in interest groups and policy groups to see that we are well-informed. It would be useful for us to know, if they want to retable this amendment on Report, what specific changes and improvement to the policing of the immigration system they think Parliament should be considering. The noble Lord referred to recent changes to the policing and detaining of asylum seekers and illegal migrants. It would be useful for us to know what they would wish to do and see the Government report on within 90 days. That might get a more fine-grained debate on Report on what further steps we should take to police the immigration system.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches—I am on them virtually—make no bones about how much we oppose the ending of free movement. That includes both welcoming EEA citizens—the collective term which includes the Swiss for this purpose—and their families to live and work in the UK, and the equal and opposite right for British citizens in the EU. For myself, it offends my politics, my emotions, my values, my logic and, you might say, my whole outlook on life. However, I will endeavour to keep my remarks within the scope of the Bill and not to seek to reopen what has irreversibly been decided—although “irreversible” may have gained a new definition overnight—nor do I want to make a Second Reading speech.
What is relevant is that the Bill does not set out what will be in place of the current arrangements. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the importance of the integrity of the system. We might want different systems, but what we have should be robust.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord spoke in terms of enforcement—a term used in the amendment. I prefer to talk in more inclusive rather than exclusive terms. She talked about so many of the issues that we are addressing now, or failing to address. One must use the opportunity to say that the best way to address them is to create safe and legal routes to the UK. I do not want to divert on to the wider question of those who seek sanctuary, but I have to disagree with her approach and some of the language that she used.
By no means all of the new, much-heralded immigration system which will apply to EU citizens is yet in the public domain. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to UK citizens in the EU; he may see that Amendment 23, which we will come to later, may give us more of an opportunity to discuss their position. When the system is in the public domain, however, we will not be able to rely on it in the same way as we can rely on primary legislation because of the flexibility—would that be a polite word?—provided by the Bill. So much of our system is contained in rules which Parliament cannot realistically amend, and indeed often it takes an awful lot of background knowledge and experience, application and concentration to understand those rules. It is no wonder that the Government had some years ago to require a particular level of expertise to advise on immigration. The rules are difficult for most of us—other noble Lords may say that they waltz through them with no difficulty; I do not—and they are often impenetrable to those directly affected. I have too often heard Ministers say, “It is on GOV.UK.” That is not everyone’s bedtime reading. Indeed, however detailed the rules and however much they flesh out the Bill, it remains a skeleton.
My noble friend Lady Ludford and I have three amendments in this group, all to Schedule 1. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the coy but comatose draftsman—I may use that term on other occasions—and my noble friend Lord Beith asked an important question about what instructions had been given to the draftsmen and draftswomen. After all, the responsibility lies with Ministers.
Amendments 4 and 5 take out some of the most offensive words in Schedule 1, which I do not think I need to read into the record again, as others have referred to them. They are wide and imprecise; there are references to “application or operation of” provisions, and
“otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
If any of your Lordships on Opposition Benches were to produce amendments using that sort of terminology, we would quite rapidly be shot down, and rightly so, by the Government Front Bench.
A lot of functions are connected with immigration, and we will come on later to employment, renting property —the rest of the hostile environment. There are also all sorts of functions which I would accept are necessary but which I would not want brought within the repeal of
“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures”,
to which Section 1 applies.
Amendment 6 in our names would add words to the schedule by not applying it to rights which do not arise under an EU directive. Directives which do not relate to immigration include, in our view: the protection for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive—there is an amendment specifically on that—the protection for asylum seekers in the reception conditions directive 2013/33, and the protection for victims of crime in the EU victims’ rights directive 2012/29. We do not suggest that we believe that these protections are at risk, but we do not know. If the Bill remains as it is when it becomes an Act, the only way to know for certain is to test the matter in the courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was critical in the context of removals from this country of applications to the courts. However, that is what they are there for, and they are applying law that has been made by Parliament, or by Ministers subject to the rather inadequate scrutiny that parliamentarians are able to give them.
On Amendment 6—this is something that has been identified by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned the comments on the Bill by its chair, Adrian Berry—the protections are potentially at risk as what the association describes as “collateral damage”. We hope that they do not fall within the scope of the Bill, but I think it is a matter for the Government to explain what the position is. This is all about the lack of clarity, the bad rule-making, to which other noble Lords have referred, all offensive to the rule of law.
To return to the first amendment in this group, I welcome reports to Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. I am hesitant to criticise or comment on the wording of the clause, having learned from the noble Baroness that the clerks were involved in crafting it, but I am not sure that the provisions of Schedule 1 are correctly described as enforceable. A provision within six months would take us beyond the end of the year. However, I should not carp about that sort of detail because, whatever the language, I understand that the supporters of Amendment 1 are seeking to ensure that free movement ends and that Parliament is told how. We have made our views about the first part of that very clear.
Before I finish, I want to mention the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I thought the points made by noble Lords were very telling regarding the reference to soft power. I was reminded of listening to the European Union Youth Orchestra a couple of years ago in Edinburgh. That was a very special experience and it rather goes to why we are so distressed by what we are having to go along with in the Bill.
I think I have said enough not to have to refer specifically to our opposition to Amendment 1.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to address the issue of the lack of clarity in the Bill, not least in Schedule 1. I am sure we have reached the stage now where noble Lords want to hear the Government’s response. I wish to comment briefly on three of the amendments in this group, although all of them raise issues of significance, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has said. That has become clear from noble Lords’ contributions, even though noble Lords have not all been coming from the same direction.
Three days ago, we were sent a letter from the Government sharing illustrative drafts of regulations that they propose to make under the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill. One wonders why at least some of the terms of these draft regulations could not now be or already have been incorporated in the Bill and thus be open to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Schedule 1 revokes Article 1 of the EU workers regulation, which provides freedom-of-movement rights. Paragraph 4(2) of that schedule provides that other parts of the workers regulation cease to apply so far as they are
“inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”
or
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”.
This is a very broad drafting. Amendment 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke with his usual considerable authority, would remove paragraph 4(2), as it is so broad and lacks clarity. We share the concern that that amendment seeks to address.
No doubt the Minister, in giving the Government’s reply, will be giving a pretty comprehensive list of examples of how and why, in the Government’s view, other parts of the workers regulation might credibly become, first, inconsistent with provisions made by the Immigration Acts and, secondly, capable of affecting provisions made by or under the Immigration Acts.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for her thoughtful amendment. I understand noble Lords’ concern about the repeal of EU law relating to free movement set out in Schedule 1 and how that will be enforced. Before I address that, I want to pick up a question from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who wanted confirmation that the Bill was non-discriminatory. The whole point of this immigration Bill is that the whole world is treated the same, so I can confirm that.
Schedule 1 sets out a list of measures to be repealed in relation to ending free movement for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens, with the intention that both EEA citizens and their family members will fall within the scope of the Immigration Act 1971 and become subject to the UK’s immigration control—for ease of reference, I will refer to this group as “EEA citizens” during the committee debates. This will create a level playing field for EEA and non-EEA citizens. Those EEA citizens and their family members who arrive here after the end of the transition period from January 2021 must have leave to enter or remain. The Government want EEA citizens who are resident in the UK before that date, and who wish to do so, to stay, and our focus has been on helping them to apply for that status. They can apply online for the EU settlement scheme free of charge. As of 31 July, we have received 3.8 million applications, with plenty of time until the deadline of 30 June 2021.
In order to protect those living in the UK before the end of the transition period, we propose to use the power under Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to save free movement rights otherwise repealed by Clause 1 of the Bill and Schedule 1 so that those EEA citizens and their eligible family members resident by the end of 2020 but who have not yet applied to the settlement scheme will continue to be treated the same until 30 June next year. This will ensure that they are able to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline and retain their existing rights in the meantime. This includes pending the decision on their application after that deadline and pending the outcome of an appeal against any decision to refuse status under the EU settlement scheme.
During this grace period, immigration officers who encounter EEA citizens who are still able to apply under the EU settlement scheme will not take any enforcement action but may encourage them to apply by the deadline. Furthermore, we have always been clear that where EEA citizens and their family members have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We will take a flexible and pragmatic approach to this, and those who need it will be supported through the application process.
Ultimately, however, we are aiming to reach the position where EEA citizens who do not qualify for leave are treated in the same way as non-EEA citizens. As such, if they require leave to enter or remain in the UK but do not have that leave, they will be liable to the same sanctions and enforcement measures. These enforcement provisions are set out in the Immigration Acts and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has mentioned that those cover the rights of access to work, renting property and banking services. It would take a long time for me to list all the relevant provisions here, but I would be happy to write to my noble friend to set those out.
In response to my noble friend’s question on whether this Bill can be used to amend the legislation, I do not think this is the right Bill in which to make any changes to enforcement provisions, which would need to cover both EEA and non-EEA citizens because it is limited to immigration changes as a result of EU exit. However, we are actively exploring legislative options to ensure that key elements of our immigration system, including around enforcement, can be tightened up. This work is at an early stage.
My noble friend also asked me about who the enforcement authorities are. They are primarily those of the Home Office Border Force and immigration enforcement, working in partnership with the police and other government departments, including the DWP, HMRC and the Ministry of Justice.
With regard to my noble friend’s question about available resources for enforcement using technology and the economics of charter flights, which she was right to ask, planning is under way to factor in the requirements of the new points-based system and ensure that all aspects of operational resourcing, recruitment and training are fully delivered. These plans include the redeployment and/or recruitment of new staff where appropriate to deal with applications from EEA citizens. Part of our long-term vision has always been to make better use of digital technology and greater automation to improve the passenger experience while maintaining security at the border.
In terms of staffing, we will always ensure that the Border Force has the resources and the workforce needed to keep the border secure. We will also introduce electronic travel authorisations—or ETAs—for visitors and passengers transiting through the UK who do not currently need a visa for short stays or who do not already have an immigration status prior to travelling. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This will allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions to be taken on information obtained at an earlier stage as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK. Therefore, the ETA scheme will add an additional security measure while also providing individuals with more assurance at an earlier point in their time about their ability to travel. The noble Lord also asked about longer-term visit visas for EU citizens, and he is right. Arrangements for longer visas will be set out in the Immigration Rules for people coming to the UK.
On my noble friend’s question about charter flights, the majority of returns take place on commercially scheduled flights. Where a chartered flight is required, the Home Office procures the use of chartered aircraft through a broker to ensure competitive pricing and access to different aircraft and contractors depending on the requirements of the operation. We think that this blended approach provides the best value for money for the taxpayer. However, I will take her point back and ensure that it is made. I also assure noble Lords that the Home Office will be updating its published enforcement policy with regards to EEA citizens at the end of the transition period.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pressed that point about enforcing laws on illegal working, as did my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The overarching ambition of the illegal working strategy to tackle illegal working is to work with businesses to deny access to the labour market and encourage and ensure compliance. The illegal working strategy is intelligence-led and it focuses on three main areas: deterring illegal migration, safeguarding the vulnerable and protecting the UK economy,
The further report this amendment requires is unnecessary because policy guidance on enforcement is already published on the GOV.UK website. I can hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, virtually moaning from behind the screen on referring her to the website. However, I am sure noble Lords will join me in encouraging all those who are eligible to apply before the deadline expires next June. On that note, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in total to Clause 1. The clause introduces the first schedule to the Bill, which contains a list of measures to be repealed in relation to the end of free movement and related issues. Noble Lords have asked whether it is needed at all. It fulfils a purely mechanistic function to introduce the schedule. Without Clause 1, we cannot deliver on the will of the people in the 2016 referendum result; we cannot end free movement without repealing Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988.
In line with long-established practice, the detail of this future system will be set out in the Immigration Rules rather than in this Bill and it will be in place from January 2021. It is of paramount importance that, as an independent sovereign state, the UK must have the ability to forge its own immigration policy and depart from EU law. The people of the UK gave us the mandate to end free movement when they voted to leave the EU and the Government gave a commitment in their manifesto to deliver on that mandate. The people are now expecting us to uphold that commitment; Clause 1 is essential to doing so and this House should not stand in the way of delivering what is a priority for the people of this country. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, withdraws her opposition to Clause 1.
I turn now to Amendments 3 to 6. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to their amendments. Their purpose is to retain rights derived directly from EU law after the end of the transition period. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, unlike Caligula, I am not going to put the law up at a height and in small writing so that people cannot read it.
However, I know that the noble Lord has an issue with paragraph 4(2) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies directly effective provisions of the Workers Regulation where they are capable of altering the interpretation, application or operation of any part of the Immigration Acts. His amendment seeks to remove this paragraph, meaning that provisions within the Workers Regulation, which may be inconsistent with those in the Immigration Acts, will continue to apply.