Women and Equalities Committee
Wednesday 4th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 6 hours, 12 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And welcome to the Women and Equalities Select Committee. And today we are holding a session, a one off session on the equalities impacts of the government's proposed reforms, reforms to routes to settlement, as well as the asylum changes more broadly. And we're really pleased to be able to hear this afternoon from a really expert panel of witnesses. Doctor Hanan Siddiqui, head of policy campaigns and research at Southall Black Sisters. Anita Hurrell, head of policy and change at Coram Children's Legal Centre. Sabrina Galella, director of policy and advocacy at the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and Andrea Alles, chair at Immigration Lawyers Practitioners Association.
Thank you all very much indeed for coming. It is a very useful time to be having this evidence session today, following the government's announcements on settlement on Monday, and I think we now have a kind of more complete picture of what the government intends to do in terms of changes on asylum and immigration. And I just thought by way of introduction at the start, what we're going to do with this session is we're going to go through different areas and different potential impacts on women, on children, for example. We're going to go through those thematically.
But just at the outset, I wondered if you each might just give me an overview of now we've got the full package, your perspective on it and the potential impact that you think it might have broadly on different equalities groups. But bearing in mind that we're going to go into detail on each as we go through the session today, does that sound okay? Would you like to start?
Thank you all very much indeed for coming. It is a very useful time to be having this evidence session today, following the government's announcements on settlement on Monday, and I think we now have a kind of more complete picture of what the government intends to do in terms of changes on asylum and immigration. And I just thought by way of introduction at the start, what we're going to do with this session is we're going to go through different areas and different potential impacts on women, on children, for example. We're going to go through those thematically.
But just at the outset, I wondered if you each might just give me an overview of now we've got the full package, your perspective on it and the potential impact that you think it might have broadly on different equalities groups. But bearing in mind that we're going to go into detail on each as we go through the session today, does that sound okay? Would you like to start?
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. It was a while ago. Thank you for that. That's all right, I think from Southall Black Sisters. We have the support of the violence against women and girls sector, particularly hibiscus, Latin American Women's Rights Service and the N Violence Women's Coalition. And we've done a joint letter to the new prime minister calling for the total withdrawal of these proposals on settlement and for them not to be seen introduced retrospectively. I think what they do is they promote intersectional discrimination based on race, class and sex. We deal with migrant women who've gone through gender based violence, and they cover all of those characteristics.
And we think that for equalities implication, it's totally unfair. It also doesn't really promote social cohesion or integration is what's one of the justifications for it. I think it will create a Windrush effect, which means a lot of people are going to feel alienated from British society. It's going to create division. It'll create, you know, those who are deserving of of citizenship or rights to settlement and those who are not deserving. The only way you can create social integration is to have fairness and equality. And I think that that in itself is what will create a more cohesive society.
This paper does not do that. I think it creates this thing about the notion of there is a privileged to have settlement rights in this country rather than a right in its in its own right. I think it panders to the far right and to reform UK, who have called for this type of, you know, wanting to abolish indefinite leave to remain altogether. So I think this is the government is trying to. Unfortunately , promote and make the hostile environment even worse , because they are pandering to the right, particularly the far right. I think that if we deal with women, migrant women and children, about 60% of our service users are migrant, the Home Secretary have said in Parliament that that they are going through the domestic abuse route, then they would be exempted from this.
But unfortunately, we want more clarity, clarity on this because not every woman that only applies to those in spousal visas, so that women who are here on other visas, Non-spousal visas, who've overstayed their right to stay in this country or come through the wrong visas because they're perpetrators, are weaponised their status in order to control them. And that also has an impact on children. And I do do want to sort of just say that Angela Rayner, Angela Rayner said that this proposals are un-british and we're saying they're uncivilised, they're brutal, they're unfair and they're divisive.
Thank you.
And we think that for equalities implication, it's totally unfair. It also doesn't really promote social cohesion or integration is what's one of the justifications for it. I think it will create a Windrush effect, which means a lot of people are going to feel alienated from British society. It's going to create division. It'll create, you know, those who are deserving of of citizenship or rights to settlement and those who are not deserving. The only way you can create social integration is to have fairness and equality. And I think that that in itself is what will create a more cohesive society.
This paper does not do that. I think it creates this thing about the notion of there is a privileged to have settlement rights in this country rather than a right in its in its own right. I think it panders to the far right and to reform UK, who have called for this type of, you know, wanting to abolish indefinite leave to remain altogether. So I think this is the government is trying to. Unfortunately , promote and make the hostile environment even worse , because they are pandering to the right, particularly the far right. I think that if we deal with women, migrant women and children, about 60% of our service users are migrant, the Home Secretary have said in Parliament that that they are going through the domestic abuse route, then they would be exempted from this.
But unfortunately, we want more clarity, clarity on this because not every woman that only applies to those in spousal visas, so that women who are here on other visas, Non-spousal visas, who've overstayed their right to stay in this country or come through the wrong visas because they're perpetrators, are weaponised their status in order to control them. And that also has an impact on children. And I do do want to sort of just say that Angela Rayner, Angela Rayner said that this proposals are un-british and we're saying they're uncivilised, they're brutal, they're unfair and they're divisive.
Thank you.
14:54
14:54
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thanks so much. My name is Anita. I work at Quorum Children's Legal Centre and part of the quorum Group of children's charities. So at Quorum Children's Legal Centre, we work with lots of children, young people and families, and our position has long been that long routes are not good for children, that they're not in children's best interests. We were pleased to see recognition of children, both in the original November consultation and now with the response to the consultation, we've seen kind of three ways which I can go into later, which are good for children around the five year pathway for children and young people growing up in the UK, families with British children, recognition there, and for unaccompanied children.
So all of those groups may be with a five year pathway, but we're still incredibly concerned that there'll be many, many children in thousands, hundreds of thousands of families who will be on a very long route under the new system, and particularly in relevant for this committee, families where parents will never settle at all. So we welcome that. There's some recognition that children need bespoke routes, but children depend on their parents. Indeed, the state depends on parents to look after their children. And we're especially worried about children of single parents in the measures that came out this week.
So overall, what I would say is, you know, what we see in the in the system is that there are, you know, sort of tiers in society envisaged by these proposals as British citizens, those on kind of vaguely viable visa routes. But what this proposal is going to create is, firstly, a greater number of undocumented people, including children and families, but also a whole group of people who are in limbo and barred from ever settling. And I think that has real equalities implications. Thinking through who those might be, thinking about, what that means for our hospitals, our schools, our mental health wards, our prisons, what's the government going to do with a group of people, some of whom are very vulnerable and many of whom may have protected characteristics, who are going to potentially never settle at all.
So I think that's something that we look forward to talking about with the committee today, Andrea.
So all of those groups may be with a five year pathway, but we're still incredibly concerned that there'll be many, many children in thousands, hundreds of thousands of families who will be on a very long route under the new system, and particularly in relevant for this committee, families where parents will never settle at all. So we welcome that. There's some recognition that children need bespoke routes, but children depend on their parents. Indeed, the state depends on parents to look after their children. And we're especially worried about children of single parents in the measures that came out this week.
So overall, what I would say is, you know, what we see in the in the system is that there are, you know, sort of tiers in society envisaged by these proposals as British citizens, those on kind of vaguely viable visa routes. But what this proposal is going to create is, firstly, a greater number of undocumented people, including children and families, but also a whole group of people who are in limbo and barred from ever settling. And I think that has real equalities implications. Thinking through who those might be, thinking about, what that means for our hospitals, our schools, our mental health wards, our prisons, what's the government going to do with a group of people, some of whom are very vulnerable and many of whom may have protected characteristics, who are going to potentially never settle at all.
So I think that's something that we look forward to talking about with the committee today, Andrea.
14:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So I want to cover the impact with the individual, a business perspective, the impact globally and also regionally. So I'll just run through those points, but happy to go into them in lots more detail should you wish. So I want to talk about the jams, the just about managing group. So those individuals who will fall under the £50,271, who will now be required to to achieve ten years before they're able to settle. Now, those individuals, they're already financially vulnerable. They're already trying to, you know, make it as much as they possibly can, and they're finding it hard to save.
And I can go into the costs of it later. But the the main thing there is that we're focusing on people who are net fiscally positive to the UK. Another point I wanted to make is around the business perspective. In my day job, I am an immigration solicitor dealing with corporate dealing with corporate clients. And just this morning I spoke with a client who is an engineering client. They have 120 skilled workers in order for them to then extend those skilled workers by five years, because they're all in the jam section, it's going to cost them approximately £1.7 million to extend them by five years, because each five year application is £14,000, 14,165, to be precise.
And then another point that I wanted to make was about essentially the perception of the UK globally. And I think that perception is quite problematic. And we're always talking about attracting the brightest and the best, and we're always talking about the fact that we. Doctor Siddiqui's point about, you know, being being British and playing by the rules, all of those things. I see those in real, real life consequences. Since the announcement on Monday, I've had discussions about with, you know, with clients about where are they going to place their graduate programs and things like that because of the uncertainty.
And then the last point I wanted to make very quickly is about the regional point. So in just I think it was yesterday, Migration Policy Scotland, they produced a report that was that is entitled migration in the Scottish Labour Workforce. And they were talking about the fact that 12% of their workforce is born outside the UK, and they're going to be impacted quite significantly because of the regional salaries. So that's a whistle stop tour. I've spoken relatively quickly that I'm happy to go into detail.
And I can go into the costs of it later. But the the main thing there is that we're focusing on people who are net fiscally positive to the UK. Another point I wanted to make is around the business perspective. In my day job, I am an immigration solicitor dealing with corporate dealing with corporate clients. And just this morning I spoke with a client who is an engineering client. They have 120 skilled workers in order for them to then extend those skilled workers by five years, because they're all in the jam section, it's going to cost them approximately £1.7 million to extend them by five years, because each five year application is £14,000, 14,165, to be precise.
And then another point that I wanted to make was about essentially the perception of the UK globally. And I think that perception is quite problematic. And we're always talking about attracting the brightest and the best, and we're always talking about the fact that we. Doctor Siddiqui's point about, you know, being being British and playing by the rules, all of those things. I see those in real, real life consequences. Since the announcement on Monday, I've had discussions about with, you know, with clients about where are they going to place their graduate programs and things like that because of the uncertainty.
And then the last point I wanted to make very quickly is about the regional point. So in just I think it was yesterday, Migration Policy Scotland, they produced a report that was that is entitled migration in the Scottish Labour Workforce. And they were talking about the fact that 12% of their workforce is born outside the UK, and they're going to be impacted quite significantly because of the regional salaries. So that's a whistle stop tour. I've spoken relatively quickly that I'm happy to go into detail.
14:58
14:58
14:58
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Fantastic. First of all, thank you so much for having this session, which is quite timely today. And also thank you for my colleagues for highlighting also some points that I was going to make, which I won't repeat. And as Andrea has said, just going through a whistle tour, we've talked about the impact on women and skilled workers and children. And I think there's also the point here about refugees that are going to be moved into court protection if they do not come through a resettlement scheme. And that is a standard 20 year route to settlement.
And I think we can go into more details if there's time to talk about refugee specifically. But there's just two things to highlight here. First is that there is no way to claim asylum from outside the UK, so there is no visa, which allows people to enter the UK in order to claim asylum. So that means that most people have no choice but enter through dangerous journeys, which include small boats. And second, what are we talking here in the UN settlement reforms is about recognised refugees. So people that have been recognised as in needing of protection, who are now going to face 20 years at the default and then 30 years in case of penalties.
And then, of course, on top of that, we'll go into more details about criminal record government debt, including NHS debt. And as Anita has highlighted, there are some concessions which we are happy about, but they don't also reflect the responses to the consultation. As you will have seen in the analysis, over 200,000 people have responded and the majority of people disagreed with the proposed changes. That's 84% of individuals and 79% of organisations. And even among British citizens who responded, 77% disagreed. And just very quickly, I also wanted to mention where this has started, because the case for settlement was built on on care workers, and the Home Secretary pointed to fraud, alleged fraud of the care visa, and then the 10 billion cost that was involved.
But now most of that group is rightly so protected. But the system remains in place for for everyone else. And the core model is is unchanged. And so it brings issues of equality as its core, because the scheme is measured through almost entirely through earnings. And earnings are not really neutral per se. They carried a gender pay gap, part time and caring work, disability and racial inequality that we see in the labour market. And they're just going to be reflected into this new scheme. And as Anita has highlighted, there is massive issues also around children.
And the scale of this is quite significant. According to the Home Office figures published on Monday, we're talking about half a million people that are now going to have to settle later. And that is really just a flaw rather than a ceiling, because there's quite a lot of people that haven't been captured by this number. And I also just wanted to highlight that it will be a very costly and complex system. The government promised to have something a bit easier to navigate, and instead we're ending up with routes for three, five, ten, 20 and 30 years with quite a lot of tests and things that need to be assessed along the way.
So there's going to be more cost for applicants, but also for the Home Office. And we haven't seen an impact assessment on this yet. So perhaps the first thing to highlight to the people around the committee is to push the government to have one before the rules are laid later this year.
And I think we can go into more details if there's time to talk about refugee specifically. But there's just two things to highlight here. First is that there is no way to claim asylum from outside the UK, so there is no visa, which allows people to enter the UK in order to claim asylum. So that means that most people have no choice but enter through dangerous journeys, which include small boats. And second, what are we talking here in the UN settlement reforms is about recognised refugees. So people that have been recognised as in needing of protection, who are now going to face 20 years at the default and then 30 years in case of penalties.
And then, of course, on top of that, we'll go into more details about criminal record government debt, including NHS debt. And as Anita has highlighted, there are some concessions which we are happy about, but they don't also reflect the responses to the consultation. As you will have seen in the analysis, over 200,000 people have responded and the majority of people disagreed with the proposed changes. That's 84% of individuals and 79% of organisations. And even among British citizens who responded, 77% disagreed. And just very quickly, I also wanted to mention where this has started, because the case for settlement was built on on care workers, and the Home Secretary pointed to fraud, alleged fraud of the care visa, and then the 10 billion cost that was involved.
But now most of that group is rightly so protected. But the system remains in place for for everyone else. And the core model is is unchanged. And so it brings issues of equality as its core, because the scheme is measured through almost entirely through earnings. And earnings are not really neutral per se. They carried a gender pay gap, part time and caring work, disability and racial inequality that we see in the labour market. And they're just going to be reflected into this new scheme. And as Anita has highlighted, there is massive issues also around children.
And the scale of this is quite significant. According to the Home Office figures published on Monday, we're talking about half a million people that are now going to have to settle later. And that is really just a flaw rather than a ceiling, because there's quite a lot of people that haven't been captured by this number. And I also just wanted to highlight that it will be a very costly and complex system. The government promised to have something a bit easier to navigate, and instead we're ending up with routes for three, five, ten, 20 and 30 years with quite a lot of tests and things that need to be assessed along the way.
So there's going to be more cost for applicants, but also for the Home Office. And we haven't seen an impact assessment on this yet. So perhaps the first thing to highlight to the people around the committee is to push the government to have one before the rules are laid later this year.
15:02
15:02
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
Thank you very much. So to to start off, really, I'd like to ask perhaps I could could start with with Andrea and Sabrina and ask you really what you understand to be the objectives that the government is trying to achieve with the, you know, with, with the changes to settlement? And to what extent do you think that the proposals will actually achieve those objectives?
15:03
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm happy to go first. A so with this reforms, we understand that the government set out about four aims so that the first was around really talking about settlement that should be earned and not automatic, that it should reward contribution. And now what we're seeing is that they're talking about fiscal contribution, that it should promote integration, and that it should reward compliance for people that play by the rules and in an effect that her regular entry, and that sits with the wider goal of reducing net migration. Now, as Andrea has highlighted, the government says that they want to attract the the brightest and the best, but also include public confidence in the system.
Now, I think that on all of this, a, a, a aims the evidence that we have so far points to a very different direction. So, first of all, I'd like to say that settlement really is not automatic. And the Home Secretary says settlement is granted near automatically. But when you look at their response, they can see that actually that is not the case. It says today that people have to apply after five years, subject to meeting the relevant route specific requirements. So, for example, a skilled worker must still earn over £41,000 or the going rate for the job.
If higher. A partner needs a specific family income, everyone must pass the life in the UK test meet the English requirement. Clear suitability checks on on criminality, the NHS debt and character and then there is expensive fees to apply and people also need to show continued residence. So this idea that settlement is automatic is not based on on facts and on terms of the savings that the Home Secretary and the government talked about. They would come mostly from delaying what lower paid workers can claim benefits. And so the Home Affairs Committee called this just a short term gain because it's just delaying people then having having access to benefits at a later stage.
And it also the Affairs Committee also accepts that people living could cost more than it actually saves. And then there's the additional cost that are not counting into this local authorities having to pick up the bill, especially when we talk about an increase on children's services, if there's going to be a risk for in homelessness services, these also have additional costs. And then also on integration. I think where the the Lord Committee, for example, look at longer routes, it quite simply said that it risks undermining integration because there is no security in terms of status.
So it becomes harder for people to be secure in their house, in their jobs, in their employment building routes. It becomes more difficult for children to access education because they don't have access to home fees. And so it leaves people in this precarious migration status, and it just works against integration. And I think also a point about moving the goalposts, except for a few sort of exemptions in in the paper, there's no general transition protection. So there's people who came here and really build their lives on the promise that on five years they will be entering settlement, having secure status, but now they're going to face ten, 20 or more.
And as I've said, we're talking about over half a million people. And the, the the Lords committee, when they've looked at their proposals, they said that changing the goalposts and applying those changes retrospectively is manifestly unfair. And again, it is going to be incredibly expensive and it is going to be quite complex for everybody to to navigate for the applicants, but also for the Home Office. There's also going to be more applications to process. There's going to be more opportunities for errors to happen. So more people might fall out of status A and more people might be refused again, because there's just a higher percentage of having these errors along all of this extensive checks.
So if we look at refugees, they're going to have to go through at least nine renewals. And at every point there might be an error made, there may be a delay, there might be a missed appointment. And they all carry very heavy penalties for people. So we don't think that the the aims that the government has stated when this process has started are going to be met. But also we think that because they started to to tackle what the government thought were abuses or misuse of the care workers routes, those people are rightly so protected.
So there is no need to then having the same system applied to everybody else again, because as I've said, settlement is not automatic and we already have quite difficult thresholds people to to meet before they have earned settlement.
Now, I think that on all of this, a, a, a aims the evidence that we have so far points to a very different direction. So, first of all, I'd like to say that settlement really is not automatic. And the Home Secretary says settlement is granted near automatically. But when you look at their response, they can see that actually that is not the case. It says today that people have to apply after five years, subject to meeting the relevant route specific requirements. So, for example, a skilled worker must still earn over £41,000 or the going rate for the job.
If higher. A partner needs a specific family income, everyone must pass the life in the UK test meet the English requirement. Clear suitability checks on on criminality, the NHS debt and character and then there is expensive fees to apply and people also need to show continued residence. So this idea that settlement is automatic is not based on on facts and on terms of the savings that the Home Secretary and the government talked about. They would come mostly from delaying what lower paid workers can claim benefits. And so the Home Affairs Committee called this just a short term gain because it's just delaying people then having having access to benefits at a later stage.
And it also the Affairs Committee also accepts that people living could cost more than it actually saves. And then there's the additional cost that are not counting into this local authorities having to pick up the bill, especially when we talk about an increase on children's services, if there's going to be a risk for in homelessness services, these also have additional costs. And then also on integration. I think where the the Lord Committee, for example, look at longer routes, it quite simply said that it risks undermining integration because there is no security in terms of status.
So it becomes harder for people to be secure in their house, in their jobs, in their employment building routes. It becomes more difficult for children to access education because they don't have access to home fees. And so it leaves people in this precarious migration status, and it just works against integration. And I think also a point about moving the goalposts, except for a few sort of exemptions in in the paper, there's no general transition protection. So there's people who came here and really build their lives on the promise that on five years they will be entering settlement, having secure status, but now they're going to face ten, 20 or more.
And as I've said, we're talking about over half a million people. And the, the the Lords committee, when they've looked at their proposals, they said that changing the goalposts and applying those changes retrospectively is manifestly unfair. And again, it is going to be incredibly expensive and it is going to be quite complex for everybody to to navigate for the applicants, but also for the Home Office. There's also going to be more applications to process. There's going to be more opportunities for errors to happen. So more people might fall out of status A and more people might be refused again, because there's just a higher percentage of having these errors along all of this extensive checks.
So if we look at refugees, they're going to have to go through at least nine renewals. And at every point there might be an error made, there may be a delay, there might be a missed appointment. And they all carry very heavy penalties for people. So we don't think that the the aims that the government has stated when this process has started are going to be met. But also we think that because they started to to tackle what the government thought were abuses or misuse of the care workers routes, those people are rightly so protected.
So there is no need to then having the same system applied to everybody else again, because as I've said, settlement is not automatic and we already have quite difficult thresholds people to to meet before they have earned settlement.
15:09
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I had a very just one sentence, if I could just add one sentence, which is that I think that the government's aim as well was around compliance and making sure that there is going to be immigration compliance for all. But what they've done now is that they've they've essentially looked at those jams that I was speaking about before, which are the compliant people. And so that doesn't quite make sense. But I'll stop here because I can.
15:09
15:10
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So I think that there is a there's a there's a number that's out there at the moment from the government that is around 500,000, but actually the number is looking more like well over a million. And the, the, the types of roles that are being impacted can go anywhere from chefs engineering to defence. And it's kind of like butting against what we know that the government wants to achieve from their industrial strategy aims and, and, and also the, the sectors that they want to enhance and, you know, and, and grow. And we've also got with hospitality, retail, things like that, like those, those individuals who are who, who are just in that kind of jam position.
I just wanted to give an example because I think it's quite helpful to give, give a life example where you've got somebody who's come in as a new entrant, they might be coming in, they're probably 28, 27 or 28, and they're and they're a woman . If they wanted to essentially get settlement, they would be ready for settlement at 32. At that age, they'll be thinking to themselves, maybe I'll start a family now. That's not going to happen for them. What they're now going to be thinking is, let me I need to extend myself by another five years.
I know that the government has this sort of best years approach that they're looking at for people to be able to take maternity leave, but it's those sorts of things that are real life questions going on in women's minds at the moment, and it just feels that it really is a disproportionate impact on women . That doesn't necessarily need to be there, because we're talking about a very compliant group. And that's not to say that, you know, groups that are regarded as sort of non-compliant need to be come come down upon in a harder way. It's just to say that this group that is between that is between your, you know, your 25,050 thousand, they are being impacted in a way that it doesn't make sense.
There should be transitional arrangements. And I'll stop talking because I'm sure that other people will have things to.
I just wanted to give an example because I think it's quite helpful to give, give a life example where you've got somebody who's come in as a new entrant, they might be coming in, they're probably 28, 27 or 28, and they're and they're a woman . If they wanted to essentially get settlement, they would be ready for settlement at 32. At that age, they'll be thinking to themselves, maybe I'll start a family now. That's not going to happen for them. What they're now going to be thinking is, let me I need to extend myself by another five years.
I know that the government has this sort of best years approach that they're looking at for people to be able to take maternity leave, but it's those sorts of things that are real life questions going on in women's minds at the moment, and it just feels that it really is a disproportionate impact on women . That doesn't necessarily need to be there, because we're talking about a very compliant group. And that's not to say that, you know, groups that are regarded as sort of non-compliant need to be come come down upon in a harder way. It's just to say that this group that is between that is between your, you know, your 25,050 thousand, they are being impacted in a way that it doesn't make sense.
There should be transitional arrangements. And I'll stop talking because I'm sure that other people will have things to.
15:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
To say that migrant women and children are, are disproportionately impacted because they're more likely to be in the lower paid jobs. They are three times more likely to experience domestic abuse. And, you know, a lot of them, I said, are not really protected. Organisations like ourselves. The Southall Black Sisters are based in the charity sector, where are by and for service, so we work with them for black, minority and migrant women. So a lot of our workers will also be migrant, but we cannot afford to meet the thresholds. The public sector workers, even those with the care workers are not protected.
The public sector workers are not. So organisations like ourselves could not afford to hire women and meet the income thresholds as workers or migrant women. So therefore, we can't have women who have lived experience of abuse. We can't have women from overseas, even though they might have the relevant skill set that we need. And I think that the sector itself is going to be very badly impacted, the charity sector generally. And I think it's really important for for them to be exempted or the thresholds to be completely reduced.
The public sector workers are not. So organisations like ourselves could not afford to hire women and meet the income thresholds as workers or migrant women. So therefore, we can't have women who have lived experience of abuse. We can't have women from overseas, even though they might have the relevant skill set that we need. And I think that the sector itself is going to be very badly impacted, the charity sector generally. And I think it's really important for for them to be exempted or the thresholds to be completely reduced.
15:13
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
And if I could just push on the point of retrospective, which I know a number of you have already mentioned, and really to to ask you, you know, what you feel the implications are of having something retrospective. I think. I mean, you've talked about even global reputation, for example, and and, you know, the fact that pathways to settlement, the people who are currently on are actually being changed. Is there anyone who wants to make any any further comment on that retrospective issue?
15:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah, I can say something about Retrospectivity in relation to two groups. So as Andrea said, there's many, many thousands of people who are on skilled worker visas, including their families, who are not seeing any kind of concession or rollback on the policies. They're going to be on a ten year route. It's going to be very difficult for them. What we also have to remember is that this news that came this week comes on top of a year of uncertainty, even a year and a half since the May white paper, people have been living with absolutely profound levels of fear.
They don't know what to do. They don't know whether to have babies. They don't know whether to have IVF. They don't know whether to get a mortgage. Organizations like justice for carers. Thankfully, now many people are working in the care sector have got a bit more certainty. But it's hundreds of thousands of people across the country in our communities who basically have their life plans upended, including those who relied on the ten year lawful residence route. So retrospective effect has just really, you know, created chaos in a lot of people's life plans. And for us, you know, that really has had quite a serious impact on children.
Lots of people, when they migrate, they think about their children, they think about their children's education, what language their children grow up speaking. So we know that there have been a lot of concerns about potential educational disruption for children. So that's really on the kind of skilled worker route, the the sort of biggest retrospective bombshell that we got this week and Sabrina can speak to that, is that in a footnote, in a footnote in the government consultation, footnote number 14, suddenly we're having cord protection and a 20 or 30 year route to settlement applied retrospectively to refugees, including children in refugee families.
There are some estimates of the numbers in in the government's own paper, I think the Refugee Council believes it to potentially through this footnote, to affect maybe 200,000 people. So huge numbers of people, including people who have already got refugee status. So that's people who thought they had as claimed asylum. They'd got refugee status. They maybe know that things are changing in the asylum system, but they had even been told explicitly in black and white that if they claimed asylum before the 2nd of March 2026, they were on the old five year pathway, the one that we all know.
And now they're being told via a footnote that actually, retrospectively, they could be moved on to court protection in these incredibly long routes. So I think, you know, retrospectivity, it does huge damage to trust. It's really wreaked havoc over the past year, year and a half. The less that the proposals can be retrospective, the better. Lots of people can talk more eloquently than I can about legitimate expectation and potential legal challenges, but we have huge concerns on that point.
They don't know what to do. They don't know whether to have babies. They don't know whether to have IVF. They don't know whether to get a mortgage. Organizations like justice for carers. Thankfully, now many people are working in the care sector have got a bit more certainty. But it's hundreds of thousands of people across the country in our communities who basically have their life plans upended, including those who relied on the ten year lawful residence route. So retrospective effect has just really, you know, created chaos in a lot of people's life plans. And for us, you know, that really has had quite a serious impact on children.
Lots of people, when they migrate, they think about their children, they think about their children's education, what language their children grow up speaking. So we know that there have been a lot of concerns about potential educational disruption for children. So that's really on the kind of skilled worker route, the the sort of biggest retrospective bombshell that we got this week and Sabrina can speak to that, is that in a footnote, in a footnote in the government consultation, footnote number 14, suddenly we're having cord protection and a 20 or 30 year route to settlement applied retrospectively to refugees, including children in refugee families.
There are some estimates of the numbers in in the government's own paper, I think the Refugee Council believes it to potentially through this footnote, to affect maybe 200,000 people. So huge numbers of people, including people who have already got refugee status. So that's people who thought they had as claimed asylum. They'd got refugee status. They maybe know that things are changing in the asylum system, but they had even been told explicitly in black and white that if they claimed asylum before the 2nd of March 2026, they were on the old five year pathway, the one that we all know.
And now they're being told via a footnote that actually, retrospectively, they could be moved on to court protection in these incredibly long routes. So I think, you know, retrospectivity, it does huge damage to trust. It's really wreaked havoc over the past year, year and a half. The less that the proposals can be retrospective, the better. Lots of people can talk more eloquently than I can about legitimate expectation and potential legal challenges, but we have huge concerns on that point.
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yes. Happy to go first. And again, always double checking that you can hear me. Okay. Yes. Okay. So first, just a very quick whistle tour because as Anita has highlighted, there has been quite a lot of changes happening this year. And until March of this year, a refugee would receive five years leave and then could apply to settle. And now there's different tracks according to what has been published on Monday. So there is the resettlement route, which has just reopened. So refugees who come through a resettlement scheme can settle after five years. This is welcome news, but those are very limited in numbers.
And resettlement rules just apply through to refugees who are outside of their country of residence, and they are processed through the refugee agency of the United Nations. So people don't get to apply individually and they don't have a choice. So they're really quite limited in terms of scope and numbers. Then we have this new idea of court protection. So refugees who claim asylum, all of them would get now 13 months leave at a time used to be five years. And now that need for protection needs to be reassessed at every renewal. So every 30 months, people have to check whether they're still in need for them to be protected in this country.
And now is when they can settle only after 20 years. And again, we're talking about recognized refugees. And then there is this announced protection work and study route. We don't know how it will work in practice, but refugees who get into sustained work, education and training can move into this route. And then it would lead to settlement after ten years. Now, there is a bit of misunderstanding on the wording on what happens about whether the clock restarts to zero when they switch. So we're going to wait until we have a bit more clarity on that.
But what's the what's the impact? Well, on top of just genuine refugees having to now wait 20 years to settle, there is irregular entry. So anyone who arrived through a dangerous journeys, for example by small boat as ten years added , that makes 30 year on court protection almost a standard because quite the majority of people do have to come through dangerous journeys. I've highlighted in the sort of opening speech there is no other way to to claim asylum. People cannot apply for asylum from abroad, so they have to come here and ask for asylum at the border.
And for women experiencing gender based violence or victims of trafficking, they may have no control over the mode of travel to the UK. They may have traveled through irregular means out of desperation or coercion, so they
And resettlement rules just apply through to refugees who are outside of their country of residence, and they are processed through the refugee agency of the United Nations. So people don't get to apply individually and they don't have a choice. So they're really quite limited in terms of scope and numbers. Then we have this new idea of court protection. So refugees who claim asylum, all of them would get now 13 months leave at a time used to be five years. And now that need for protection needs to be reassessed at every renewal. So every 30 months, people have to check whether they're still in need for them to be protected in this country.
And now is when they can settle only after 20 years. And again, we're talking about recognized refugees. And then there is this announced protection work and study route. We don't know how it will work in practice, but refugees who get into sustained work, education and training can move into this route. And then it would lead to settlement after ten years. Now, there is a bit of misunderstanding on the wording on what happens about whether the clock restarts to zero when they switch. So we're going to wait until we have a bit more clarity on that.
But what's the what's the impact? Well, on top of just genuine refugees having to now wait 20 years to settle, there is irregular entry. So anyone who arrived through a dangerous journeys, for example by small boat as ten years added , that makes 30 year on court protection almost a standard because quite the majority of people do have to come through dangerous journeys. I've highlighted in the sort of opening speech there is no other way to to claim asylum. People cannot apply for asylum from abroad, so they have to come here and ask for asylum at the border.
And for women experiencing gender based violence or victims of trafficking, they may have no control over the mode of travel to the UK. They may have traveled through irregular means out of desperation or coercion, so they
15:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So they will be punished for this. Also, in terms of criminal record of any kind and no government debt, I think here is worth mentioning. Also what's happening with the wider. immigration and asylum bill that is going through Parliament at the specifically in relation to part four, which creates a charge, a tax for people who have sought.
15:20
15:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Where now they need to repay for the cost of. accommodation when they receive support. And again, I'm also going to say that people seeking asylum are banned from working, at least for the initial year. So it sounds like they will have to pay up for the cost of being put in state funded. accommodation through no fault of their own. Sometimes. Also because the lack of legal aid , compounded by very poor Home Office decision making, makes their. claims stay longer in the pipeline. So how does it work together now, if people have government debt, they won't be able to settle until that debt is cleared.
So for refugees, there is burden on top of burdens. And again, then there's the point about public funds. Anyone who has used public funds, and that applies to all groups of people, not just.
So for refugees, there is burden on top of burdens. And again, then there's the point about public funds. Anyone who has used public funds, and that applies to all groups of people, not just.
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They're now moved to court protection. That's a U-turn. But it's also, again, it's something that people were not expecting. And just in these three days, as I have been getting so many questions from people because there's so much. uncertainty and fear a again, because people were not expecting this. And as Anita has said, to see this in a footnote, it's also quite. disappointing and very concerning. So Ernst Settlement has to be read in conjunction with the bill and the wider changes that are going through, through through Parliament and the changes that have been made to Family Reunion, which also has been paused since.
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For having to take dangerous journeys because they have no other choice, and it will prolong the time in which they will be in integration limbo. They won't be able to find employment or access housing in the same way as other settled people will be a. It will be just harder also for their children to settle even access to same opportunities. In many cases, it will increase. dependence on.
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Especially for. For young people whose families haven't settled. And. In general, it would also push people away from seeking help. Over the last year, we've already seen evidence from our members that quite a lot of people aren't. accessing vital support simply because they fear having to pay a penalty for using public funds. And that was before. Now that this has been announced, we know that quite a lot of people who are in need of public funds because they are designed for people who are in need a one use them. So there's going to be more people, more refugees that are going to face.
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Expecting to see in the announcement on Monday. Maybe I just had like just three quick points on what it means for children and families on 20 or 30 year routes where there's refugee children. So the first one is that we've long maintained that children need permanence and they need a future horizon. So refugee children are asked a lot about their.
15:24
15:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
But they think a lot about their future. And we know that the government even. recognizes that young people who've come over as refugees, you know, they they often do want to kind of continue in education. They put in huge amounts of effort and really. inspiring degrees of effort. When you think what some of these children and young people have been through. So we're talking about the needs for permanence, the needs for recovery and. rehabilitation of children, of children who've experienced human rights.
15:25
15:25
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
You know, family disaster, bereavement, long journeys to the UK, exploitation. So children really need permanence. They need a future horizon. They need to be able to progress in education. And we think long these long routes will hinder that, hinder their development. That's the first point. The second point is the government wants. refugees to contribute. But actually these long routes make it really difficult. So when you've got a short term visa, getting a job is quite is harder because an employer has to. It's more onerous on them because they they're employing someone with a precarious immigration status.
They have to keep checking the date. Children are going to grow up in. households with lower incomes and less employment stability as a result. So there'll be big implications there. And actually, they're going to make it harder for refugee families to do what the government wants them to do, because they're going through this cycle every 30 months. And the third point relates to identity. So to to grow up, I mean, this, this is about the whole of urn settlement, but it relates to refugee children as well. You know, there is some recognition of children and young people in the response that we got this week.
But to put refugee families on 20 and 30 year roots really doesn't reckon with the importance of childhood and teenagerhood informing children's. identity and what it does to children and what it says to children when their families are put on those long routes in a different context. We belong would recommend. The committee refers to the research of We Belong, a youth. organisation working on these issues has referred to state sponsored, unwanted. So there were just lots of issues to do with children, young people's. identity to do with their. participation in education in the labour market.
We know we've got a big problem with NEETs. We've got big problems with alienation and radicalisation. What does it mean to kind of tell children and young people that they don't belong by putting their families on these long routes and, you know, young people in these kind of situations say things like, in your head, you're thinking, why do I have to go through all this bureaucracy? Because you feel like you belong. It has a way of changing how you see yourself. So just that kind of identity dimension. We wanted to highlight the work of organisations like We Belong, and just kind of highlight what it means for how children and young people grow up seeing themselves.
If I just ask a quick question, just for my own understanding, because you talk about the lack of security and permanence for children on refugee routes, how does that interact with the the seven year private life route and how, how does how do those two things interact? I haven't quite got it in my head. Could you just explain? Yeah, this is a question that was, to be completely honest with you, going round my head this morning. So I spoke to some colleagues about it. And I think it's it's sort of unclear. So I think we're really pleased that.
children children's need to be able to get status in their own right, has been recognised with the. protection of the private life rules. But whether children and family in refugee families will be able to avail themselves of those routes is still kind of unclear at the moment as they exist. We think that there was there was some, for example, if you've had an. inadmissible asylum claim, you wouldn't be able to apply under the private life rules as a child or young person. And I can write to the committee with more details. But at the moment, Sabrina might want to come in.
But at the moment we're we're not really sure. We hope that those rules would provide something for most children who are growing up in .
They have to keep checking the date. Children are going to grow up in. households with lower incomes and less employment stability as a result. So there'll be big implications there. And actually, they're going to make it harder for refugee families to do what the government wants them to do, because they're going through this cycle every 30 months. And the third point relates to identity. So to to grow up, I mean, this, this is about the whole of urn settlement, but it relates to refugee children as well. You know, there is some recognition of children and young people in the response that we got this week.
But to put refugee families on 20 and 30 year roots really doesn't reckon with the importance of childhood and teenagerhood informing children's. identity and what it does to children and what it says to children when their families are put on those long routes in a different context. We belong would recommend. The committee refers to the research of We Belong, a youth. organisation working on these issues has referred to state sponsored, unwanted. So there were just lots of issues to do with children, young people's. identity to do with their. participation in education in the labour market.
We know we've got a big problem with NEETs. We've got big problems with alienation and radicalisation. What does it mean to kind of tell children and young people that they don't belong by putting their families on these long routes and, you know, young people in these kind of situations say things like, in your head, you're thinking, why do I have to go through all this bureaucracy? Because you feel like you belong. It has a way of changing how you see yourself. So just that kind of identity dimension. We wanted to highlight the work of organisations like We Belong, and just kind of highlight what it means for how children and young people grow up seeing themselves.
If I just ask a quick question, just for my own understanding, because you talk about the lack of security and permanence for children on refugee routes, how does that interact with the the seven year private life route and how, how does how do those two things interact? I haven't quite got it in my head. Could you just explain? Yeah, this is a question that was, to be completely honest with you, going round my head this morning. So I spoke to some colleagues about it. And I think it's it's sort of unclear. So I think we're really pleased that.
children children's need to be able to get status in their own right, has been recognised with the. protection of the private life rules. But whether children and family in refugee families will be able to avail themselves of those routes is still kind of unclear at the moment as they exist. We think that there was there was some, for example, if you've had an. inadmissible asylum claim, you wouldn't be able to apply under the private life rules as a child or young person. And I can write to the committee with more details. But at the moment, Sabrina might want to come in.
But at the moment we're we're not really sure. We hope that those rules would provide something for most children who are growing up in .
15:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The UK, but we would need to talk to the Home Office a bit more about some of the details. And just a quick follow up. Sorry to divert us. It's really helpful, but those private life rules would be for the child but not for the parents. Is that right? So or or would it include the parents? So if you've got like a nine year .
15:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Old child who's been here since they were two or whatever, how does that how does that work? Yeah. So, so the rules as they are at the moment is that if you're born in the UK and you reach the age of seven, you can get ILR immediately. And then if you've been in the UK seven years as a child, or if you've spent half your life when you're.
15:29
15:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
You can settle in five years. Does that make sense? So there are these provisions that kind of give either immediate ILR for UK born children, or five year route for long resident children and long resident young people. What are the implications for parents? That's again, a kind of big question. And Sabrina might want to come in on this. There are. provisions for the parents of British children, and that's one of the biggest other questions in the paper. So some of those children. So if they get ILR at seven, they might get citizenship at age ten where their UK born.
What does that mean for parents. And I think that goes to the kind of one of the main concerns we have, if you provide some rules for. children to get onto routes to settlement that maybe are a bit shorter, does that mean much? If even a British child has a mother, single mum on a. 20 or 30 year route, and their benefits access is determined by their mum's immigration status? So these are really live questions.
I'm sorry if I can't answer all .
What does that mean for parents. And I think that goes to the kind of one of the main concerns we have, if you provide some rules for. children to get onto routes to settlement that maybe are a bit shorter, does that mean much? If even a British child has a mother, single mum on a. 20 or 30 year route, and their benefits access is determined by their mum's immigration status? So these are really live questions.
I'm sorry if I can't answer all .
15:30
15:30
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Definitively, but that's that's kind of the questions that are up in the air at the moment. Can I , can I also say that a lot of the women we assist are migrant women who've come into this country, not necessarily as asylum seekers, maybe on on partner visas. They often the only alternative, if they're not able to claim under under the spousal visa for the domestic settlement under the domestic abuse route is to use the asylum route, particularly article eight, and which is the right to private family life. And both of those things are being threatened at the moment.
So they're going to have to wait longer to be able to get asylum and a refugee status. They're not going to be able to pay for their bills, their.
So they're going to have to wait longer to be able to get asylum and a refugee status. They're not going to be able to pay for their bills, their.
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And they're going to be in a limbo for much longer. They're more vulnerable to. exploitation and harassment from their partners who could be stalking and harassing them, even if they've left them. They're vulnerable to be returning to an abusive partner. And also, we understand the article 8th May be narrowed down. So then a lot of the times women, you know, are the ones who are the main carers, they're not going to be able to use article article eight as much possibly in the. future to be able to stay in the country. So there are a whole range of.
implications around asylum. And migrant women .
implications around asylum. And migrant women .
15:31
15:31
15:31
Alex Brewer
-
-
Alex Brewer
Thank you Alex. Thank you. I want to just address the impact on women and people with a disability. And we've got a lot of questions. So I'm just going to say, if we can kind of keep answers as succinct as possible, everything you're saying is absolutely fascinating. I want to start with, does the government's decision allow households to combine their income to meet the. £25,142 threshold? Does that adequately.
address the concerns that women with caring. responsibilities might be less able to meet settlement requirements?
address the concerns that women with caring. responsibilities might be less able to meet settlement requirements?
15:32
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And I don't mind who goes first. I'm happy to take that one. I think that it it it addresses it to some extent. But you've still got the regional issues. I think that that's really problematic. In addition to that, I think that it's a welcome thing that they are taking on household income. Definitely. And I think there was a real worry about that. What's not been clear is whether or not it's going to be taxable or whether it's earnings. Like there's a whole different like around the detail of it. So I think that we're also quite concerned about that.
I think that any I think we all agree that any.
I think that any I think we all agree that any.
15:33
15:33
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Just that's purely based on, on an earnings amount is always going to be problematic. So it's like welcoming something. But equally, there are still there are still problems that remain, I think from. The other thing is, is that. individuals who are in bad. relationships that aren't that that can't avail themselves of the domestic violence. Essentially the.
15:33
15:33
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
They will stay in those relationships for a longer period to benefit from that 25,000. And I think that that's just dangerous in and of itself. It's about how do you get the silent women, really, the women who are putting up with things they shouldn't be putting up with and tying all of that into you, then being able to get a visa, it just kind of keeps you in that in that really difficult position. So whilst it's definitely welcome and I don't want to, you know, look, a gift horse or anything, you know, I don't want to do that.
Whilst it's definitely welcome, there are still some issues with that and we'd like to see some more. Essentially some more. leniency and some more nuance and. discretion brought in for individuals who are in very sticky. situations that they shouldn't have to stay in .
Whilst it's definitely welcome, there are still some issues with that and we'd like to see some more. Essentially some more. leniency and some more nuance and. discretion brought in for individuals who are in very sticky. situations that they shouldn't have to stay in .
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
She will still need to earn over. £12,000 a. And even the. Despite the fact that we have this best years. approach . , well rules. It only. allows two low earnings year in seven, for example. So if women have two children close together, or if someone is caring for a disabled relative, it become very easy to, to, to exceed that threshold.
So while that could be a positive news if it's read together with the rest of the the.
So while that could be a positive news if it's read together with the rest of the the.
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Protect women from being. disadvantaged in settlement decisions? I don't think it's enough. And the reason why is because it it doesn't allow for things to go horrendously. horrendously wrong like they do in life. It doesn't allow it. Let let's just take for me, for example, my dad's in a care home. It wouldn't allow me to then continue to, to, to be his, to be his carer as well as do other things as well and try and achieve settlement.
So I think that that's really quite problematic. Also, following similar changes in Denmark in.
So I think that that's really quite problematic. Also, following similar changes in Denmark in.
15:36
15:36
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The number of women who were granted permanent. residency almost halved by 2021. So whilst I appreciate that we're looking at Denmark as kind of like this is a really great system, I think if we look at the. underlying data on that and particularly in the way that it impacts women, it's really clear. It's not even like you have to dig for it very much. It's like it's super clear. So I think we really need to steer clear of that and make sure that we're seeing that that's an issue, knowing it's an .
15:37
15:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Do you want to just to add, you know, to what others have said, is that a system that's based so centrally on income is just one that's going to penalize women and doesn't really. recognize parenting and caregiving as a contribution, including caring for disabled children. And I mean, maybe I've got my calculations wrong, but if you're on a ten year route, I don't think you can have three children under the system that's proposed. You might be okay with two.
So it's quite . draconian .
So it's quite . draconian .
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
What I would be what I would be looking at is, is taking it really widely, which is that I think that the legal advice that's going to be required is going to be significant. At the moment, legal aid is really restricted. I think that the government will need to give some kind of. support to. providing immigration practitioners.
15:38
15:38
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Money, to be able to provide advice in these complex areas where there's so many different routes that you can go down because from from moving from a five year route, you can immediately move into a 20 year route. Like the. ramifications are so significant. So I would say that that's one thing. And the second thing I would talk about is cost. And I could talk about cost for days, but the cost in relation to the jams that I was mentioning before, it's. £3,226 for an indefinite leave to remain application. What then tends to happen is that the individual who is in that position, whereby they're earning.
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, I think those two things would be really helpful. Yeah, I think we the government has said there will be exemptions to some of these, including the kind of the disqualifying criteria. And I think we would say in families where there is somebody with a disability, there will need to be exemptions, both in relation to earnings and into the use of public funds. So the. consultation response refers to parent. temporarily working fewer hours. But what if what if a child has a long term health condition or disability? It doesn't really seem to be envisaged. We also have a fear, I think Sabrina might have mentioned this, that parents with disabled children might even be incentivised to come off benefits to have the five clear.
years of not accessing public funds. But what does that mean for actually meeting children's needs? What does that mean for safeguarding? What does that mean for local authority children's care teams? So we definitely think there should be. exemptions there. I think, you know, I think Islington Law Centre gave evidence previously to the Home Affairs Committee and talked about the kind of things that might happen where people on visas need to apply for public funds, mental health.
years of not accessing public funds. But what does that mean for actually meeting children's needs? What does that mean for safeguarding? What does that mean for local authority children's care teams? So we definitely think there should be. exemptions there. I think, you know, I think Islington Law Centre gave evidence previously to the Home Affairs Committee and talked about the kind of things that might happen where people on visas need to apply for public funds, mental health.
15:40
15:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So all of those things apply. Another organisation we work with called Together with Migrant Children, works with families where a child has received a cancer diagnosis. It's not clear that this type of. proposal really takes account of families in those kind of situations where either not working or needing to rely on the state will just be .
15:40
15:40
15:41
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
For disabled migrants? Andrea, I don't know if you have anything on that. I think it is a really a difficult one because what the what the government have announced is that there are going to be some exceptions. And they are looking at that. And I know that they want more feedback from groups to look at that. So I think that that's one that will need to park until we're able to give more detail to the Home Office and see exactly where they end up, because what we wouldn't want is for people to be either not claiming the funds, sorry, claiming public funds that they ought to claim in order to place them in a better position.
We wouldn't want that to happen. But in addition to that, there's also the knock on, knock on impact of if you can't work, then it can increase.
We wouldn't want that to happen. But in addition to that, there's also the knock on, knock on impact of if you can't work, then it can increase.
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
Nadia Whittome
-
-
Nadia Whittome
Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Nadia thank you chair. My excuse me. My questions are for Doctor Siddiqi, but I just wanted to thank all of you on the panel for the really important work that you're doing in increasingly difficult. circumstances because of decisions that are made here. Doctor Siddiqi, I know that Southall black sisters, along with the End Violence Against Women. Coalition and other.
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Women's. vulnerability to domestic abuse? Thank you. As I said earlier, the Home Secretary have said, and we welcome this, that there would be an exemption for those who are applying for settlement under the domestic abuse route, but there are a lot of women who are vulnerable, women and children who are not covered because they're not on a spousal visa route, and there could be on a Non-spousal visa as a dependent of a work permit holder, for example, or a student visa holder.
They could have become. overstay because their.
They could have become. overstay because their.
15:43
15:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
You know, brought them in on the wrong visa or didn't renew their visa when they should have done so. I mean, in one example of a woman that we've assisted is someone who came in as a. dependent or should have come in on a spousal visa. But the husband, who's an immigration lawyer, did not apply for her to come on that he brought her in as a dependent on a work permit holder and did not. He managed to obtain settlement rights, but he didn't give. He didn't do the same for for her or for their two.
15:44
15:44
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Which means they became vulnerable to. deportation and to destitution because they have no recourse to public funds. She was forced to leave him because of his abusive behaviour against herself and the children. She was basically wandering the streets, didn't know what to do for help, was a frightened of going to the police because she was worried that they would share her information with the Home Office and she may well be deported. And she eventually managed to get help through a friend who managed to get her to Southall Black Sisters. Now we did apply to for her to stay in the country as a victim of domestic abuse, but we were told that she wasn't under the route of domestic abuse.
So even though they accepted that she was a victim of domestic abuse, they didn't actually give her the right to stay in the country, even though they could have used their discretion. So really, this shows how women who may be on other visas through no fault of their own, because that's part of the. weaponization of their status by their. perpetrator who use it against them. She couldn't stay in this country for a long time. And eventually, I mean, for many years, her and her children suffered. The children couldn't go to college. They couldn't. They were all mentally affected by what was going on.
They were all.
So even though they accepted that she was a victim of domestic abuse, they didn't actually give her the right to stay in the country, even though they could have used their discretion. So really, this shows how women who may be on other visas through no fault of their own, because that's part of the. weaponization of their status by their. perpetrator who use it against them. She couldn't stay in this country for a long time. And eventually, I mean, for many years, her and her children suffered. The children couldn't go to college. They couldn't. They were all mentally affected by what was going on.
They were all.
15:45
15:45
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Although we found some temporary. accommodation for them. We don't have the resources to pay for people's accommodation. We had some money. We do have some money from the Home Office under the support for. Victim Scheme for victims of domestic abuse , to give them. limited pay. limited amounts towards their. accommodation for a short period of time. But she was homeless for a much, much longer and we had to find our own.
15:45
15:45
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Whatever we could find to keep them in accommodation. But normally a lot of women don't have those. provisions and they're often. destitute and maybe street homeless. The other thing is that a lot of women with. children can go to social services. But we've noticed that social services have an. inconsistent response. Sometimes they don't give them the support they need, and often actually they don't give them the support they need or adequate support. They often want to send the children back to an abusive parent because they said their. responsibility is only towards the children or they, you know, they, they are the one to send them back or they want to put them in care rather than keeping the mother and the children together, which actually would be cheaper for them to do that.
They. So therefore, women can't always get help from social services. And the concern is that women in those. situations are even those who are on spousal visas, who may not get the help that they need, but particularly but also those who are non spousal visas, those who may be overstayers but also trafficked women would not be covered by this. Women who are facing different forms of abuse, like trafficking, won't be covered under domestic abuse route.
And also women who may be facing honour based abuse that is often not. recognised as domestic abuse by many.
They. So therefore, women can't always get help from social services. And the concern is that women in those. situations are even those who are on spousal visas, who may not get the help that they need, but particularly but also those who are non spousal visas, those who may be overstayers but also trafficked women would not be covered by this. Women who are facing different forms of abuse, like trafficking, won't be covered under domestic abuse route.
And also women who may be facing honour based abuse that is often not. recognised as domestic abuse by many.
15:47
15:47
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And they may also be not covered. So there's a concern that the forms of abuse may not all be included, but different types of visas are not included. And these women also would be. destitute because they have no recourse to public funds. They will also have greater chance of being in debt. They're incurring debt because often there's economic abuse from their partners and they don't have resources of their own, and therefore they will fall foul of some of the. conditions under the UN settlement that they've gone into debt, they may be forced to claim public funds where they might be able to get that.
They may also be subject to the other test around criminal.
They may also be subject to the other test around criminal.
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And they may also not get settlement as a, as a, as a, as a, you know, as a consequence. So I think that. overall there are, you know, the government has this, you know, strategy on violence against women and girls, which we support and welcome. But it doesn't really cover. There's a total. contradiction between that. strategy and this settlement.
15:49
15:49
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Because it doesn't really exempt all women who are facing gender based violence to, to be exempted from, from these. proposals and to protect them. And which has then had does create this two tier system, the women who deserve or get right of access to be protected under the Violence against women strategy and those who are migrant women who don't get that right to be protected, and therefore they're facing discrimination. And that .
15:49
15:50
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Government's mission to halve violence against women and girls? In other words, absolutely not, because I think that, like I said, it creates a two tier system if they want to protect all women from violence against women and girls, then they need to exclude this group. The whole group, out of this earned earned settlement. proposals and a lot of other hostile environment and immigration and asylum policies too. And also we would say that they should also exclude other vulnerable. groups like, you know, children who may be on their own, you know. disabled people who you know, or those who are looking after the disabled.
So there's a whole range of things that they really need to look at.
So there's a whole range of things that they really need to look at.
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:51
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And could you explain what the what the limitations are? So the domestic the domestic well indefinite leave to remain under migrant victims domestic abuse. concession are only for those on spousal visas. And the. concession is really for to to to enable them to access public funds for a period of three months so they can regularise their status. The, the, the concession has also been extended to. dependents of work permit holders.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And student visa holders, but they don't have the right to settlement. So this created two two routes, one that has a for victims of domestic abuse, those on spousal visas have a route to settlement, and those who may be able to obtain public funds for a short period of time, but then have no route to settlement afterwards, which then has.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Or they're forced into abusive relationships. And by leaving the abuser in the first place, they undermine their current rights to remain in this country, which is going to be hard to kind of. regain if you go back as well. But the main problem is their extreme risk that going back is extreme risk for women and children. And staying homeless and.
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And and your ability to provide services? Yeah. Well, I think the problem is we're underfunded organisations. We don't have sufficient. resources to be able to support women who are insecure, immigration status or women generally, because it's just, you know, the costs are not always covered in our funding. And I think that with these.
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Not just for the by and for services who will take the brunt of it, but also for the whole violence against women and girls sector. And it really means that we're not going to be able to provide the kind of services that we would like to protect women from abuse, and it would leave women and children extremely vulnerable. So I think the service itself is going to be suffering. And also, we're not going to be able to bring in the the. workforce that we would need in order to support women. One. because the organisation is underfunded anyway.
You will then have to bring in more workers if you can, in order to to support the extra demand. If you can, then also you can't hire migrant. workers because they don't meet the thresholds. I mean, really the sector is poorly paid.
You will then have to bring in more workers if you can, in order to to support the extra demand. If you can, then also you can't hire migrant. workers because they don't meet the thresholds. I mean, really the sector is poorly paid.
15:54
15:54
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And they're not covered under any exemptions. So they are going to be then not we can't really employ them in the roles that we need to employ them. And a lot of women who are migrant women in for. services are women with lived experience. And they're not going to be we're not gonna be able to give them a job because they don't have the skill set that they we would need to give them the higher salaries to begin with anyway. And if with overseas workers as well, they may have the skill sets that we need, but we still can't afford the higher salaries.
And in fact, a lot of people who are working in the sector now may well lose their job because they could be they may not be able to, you know, they want, you know, settlement in this country. So they're not going to have them meet the thresholds they need in order to continue with that job. They may try to find other.
And in fact, a lot of people who are working in the sector now may well lose their job because they could be they may not be able to, you know, they want, you know, settlement in this country. So they're not going to have them meet the thresholds they need in order to continue with that job. They may try to find other.
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
A serious concern. Yeah. Can I just add a quick point to what to what you just said, which is around I've mentioned it earlier around the support for immigration. practitioners because there is this sharp and and. unsustainable increase in demand for this complex legal advice that people require, as well as legal aid being severely constrained. That is something that I would really like you to take away from, from, from today. But in addition to that, the safety of immigration.
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
Alex Brewer
-
-
Alex Brewer
Be really welcomed, really important. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Megan, I just want to have a couple of questions around care workers. And I know we've covered quite a lot of this already, but I just wondered, Andrew and Sabrina, if I can come to you first, how does the prolonged temporary status affect workers. ability to. challenge things like poor treatment.
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Yeah, you can go first if you want. So I think that with, with the, the, the changes that have been announced on Monday, they go some way to dealing with that. I think that the devil really is going to be in the detail as to whether or not they've gone far enough. But at the moment, what they're suggesting is that there are certain care workers that are covered and the ones that aren't covered, they're going to be given a longer period to find roles. They're going to be given a longer period to even, it says, support from the government to, to find a to find a sponsor and to find a, a decent sponsor.
What that actually looks like, we just we don't know. But so I think the devil is going to be in the detail and we won't be able to really comment until that time because had you asked us on Friday, we would have had a completely different answer. But now that it's come out .
What that actually looks like, we just we don't know. But so I think the devil is going to be in the detail and we won't be able to really comment until that time because had you asked us on Friday, we would have had a completely different answer. But now that it's come out .
15:58
15:58
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
See that would help to mitigate this? The risks, I think that there would be quite good safeguards in pushing forward, having their their not being tied to one sponsor. I think that that's a really helpful thing to have, not to be tied to one sponsor. I think that there's that from the other side of things. And from the compliance side, I think the Home Office is doing quite a lot to make sure that they are looking into sponsors and doing compliance audits and things like that.
So, so, so not touching upon that side.
So, so, so not touching upon that side.
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
As I said earlier, my dad's in a care home. I think that the work they do is just amazing. I think they should be paid more than me. And so I think that everyone has that experience, don't they, when they go into a care home, when you can see them looking after your parents, you're a bit like, well, hold on a minute, I feel like I just pushed paperclips and write things down and in an A4 pad. Do you see what I mean? So I just think that what would be really helpful is making sure that there is that real look at the wages and the salaries and the way in which people can, you know, obtain shifts and things like that.
15:59
15:59
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
What will happen is that there is still a. significant dearth of care workers that still exists. And there's a, there's a that they call it like the pub effect, which is that most of the resident labour market don't particularly want to work in care homes because they don't want to say it when they go down the pub. There's like all of this research that that's gone into this. So I think that, you know.
16:00
16:00
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
What it means to be a care worker so that it meets the requirements of the pub for the resident labour market, I think would be really helpful looking at apprenticeships as well. A an example is that my, my parents were as happy that my, my, my cousin in Barbados became a carer as they were that I became a lawyer. Whereas I don't think we have that necessarily in the UK. And that's something that does need to be looked at. So it's a much. wider issue. But I do think that, as I say, a lot of the things that we were going .
16:00
16:00
16:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Didn't look like you were. No, that's all right, Doris. I just wanted to make a very quick point. A as Andrea said, there's a lot of the details that we don't know yet. So perhaps in due course we can continue having this conversation. But I think also what would be useful for everybody who's impacted by urban settlement is if we try and go back to a different place in relation to language on how we talk about migrants and. migration and people who contribute, and people who don't. contribute and people who come through illegal routes. I think the.
conversation for anyone who works in the refugee sector, the the harmful rhetoric has always been very, quite present. But now that also has been expanded to the rest of migrants, and it gets discussed as an issue that needs to be solved, rather than a group of people that bring skills, lives. expertise and and everything else with them to the country. A so my plea everywhere I go is always we can always. reframe the problem, and we don't need to agree with the premise that this is a problem that needs to be solved. Of course it needs to be.
conversation for anyone who works in the refugee sector, the the harmful rhetoric has always been very, quite present. But now that also has been expanded to the rest of migrants, and it gets discussed as an issue that needs to be solved, rather than a group of people that bring skills, lives. expertise and and everything else with them to the country. A so my plea everywhere I go is always we can always. reframe the problem, and we don't need to agree with the premise that this is a problem that needs to be solved. Of course it needs to be.
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Over a third of babies born in England and Wales, I believe, were born to a foreign born mother. So we know that immigration policy is just going to affect a lot of children. And in that situation, what we would like to see, and something that I believe the chair of this committee raised very helpfully in the debate this week, was the need to undertake a child rights impact assessment. So we have been pleased that the government has talked about its commitment to the UN convention on the rights of the child in this policy arena, but what's happening at the moment is that they don't want to.
The Home Office doesn't want to undertake explicitly what we call a child rights impact assessment, which comes out of the UN committee process. And instead they're doing something kind of bespoke to the Home Office, which is a children's impact assessment. And we would just really. encourage a full child rights impact assessment and particularly. publication of that, because we don't really know how the Home Office has thought about the impact on children, including child poverty. And I believe that the Home Affairs Committee specifically recommended that the Home Office undertake a assessment of its own on what the potential impact on child poverty might be.
I think, you know, most of it we've said about missing out what long roots can do to children in young people. I think one thing is just the way that a system so which so centrally is designed around income, the way it entrenches inequalities and what that means for what the government wants to do to tackle educational inequalities. So if you have we've have these separate roots we've talked about for children in their own right, but where we have children settling as a dependent of their.
The Home Office doesn't want to undertake explicitly what we call a child rights impact assessment, which comes out of the UN committee process. And instead they're doing something kind of bespoke to the Home Office, which is a children's impact assessment. And we would just really. encourage a full child rights impact assessment and particularly. publication of that, because we don't really know how the Home Office has thought about the impact on children, including child poverty. And I believe that the Home Affairs Committee specifically recommended that the Home Office undertake a assessment of its own on what the potential impact on child poverty might be.
I think, you know, most of it we've said about missing out what long roots can do to children in young people. I think one thing is just the way that a system so which so centrally is designed around income, the way it entrenches inequalities and what that means for what the government wants to do to tackle educational inequalities. So if you have we've have these separate roots we've talked about for children in their own right, but where we have children settling as a dependent of their.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We have a child of a banker settling at three years, and then we have a child of a skilled worker in the category that Andreas talked about so powerfully settling now at ten, it's not it's not obvious how that goes together with an agenda where we're trying in the classroom, we're trying in a GP surgery to kind of. equalize and. improve outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable children, and also look at homelessness, rough sleeping, all all of these other ambitions that we have for children. So I think I think there's a thing about entrenching inequalities.
I think just really just the way that long routes to. settlement mean that children miss out on opportunities. So there's all sorts of things we don't necessarily think about. Lots of people talked about university wanting to go to university, but there's also things like NHS.
I think just really just the way that long routes to. settlement mean that children miss out on opportunities. So there's all sorts of things we don't necessarily think about. Lots of people talked about university wanting to go to university, but there's also things like NHS.
16:05
16:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Delaying your ability to vote, delaying your ability to stand for public office. Some parts of the civil service, the army, the police require you to be settled. There are just ways in which delayed settlement will impact the whole of children and young people's lives as they as they kind of build their lives. It will also, you know, if you're settled later, you become British later, but you have a child earlier, they won't automatically be British.
They're just huge.
They're just huge.
16:05
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
Ramifications for for children and young people's lives of delaying settlement. The general objective of being a child is not to stay a child, it's to become an adult. What's the and on that one, actually, you raised university. I mean, how do you envisage that? Is that a good example of how this might. impact .
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
About their concerns about whether their children would be able to access home fees and student finance. It's actually, at the moment, still a little bit unclear. There are some. provisions in relation to in England, home fees and student finance, where the long. residence rules, if you meet sort of. parallel residence requirements, you could get home fees and student finance. But in general, overall being settled is really important and there's a category to get to access that, which is about being the child of a settled parent. So obviously far fewer children will be in that category.
So we have real concerns. Another is a really kind of practical. concern that the that the. regulations in that area take a long time to catch up with home office change and change of, of, of leave. So we're worried that there'll be a lot of confusion. There's always a lot of. hesitancy and fear on the part of universities. So where there's confusion, universities are likely to be scared. There's just likely to be a lot of uncertainty. And that also applies for refugees, like where the refugees will be able to study whether universities will feel confident about that.
So there's some real big question marks.
So we have real concerns. Another is a really kind of practical. concern that the that the. regulations in that area take a long time to catch up with home office change and change of, of, of leave. So we're worried that there'll be a lot of confusion. There's always a lot of. hesitancy and fear on the part of universities. So where there's confusion, universities are likely to be scared. There's just likely to be a lot of uncertainty. And that also applies for refugees, like where the refugees will be able to study whether universities will feel confident about that.
So there's some real big question marks.
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:07
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
People will be able to realise their ambitions to go to university. Thank you. And I think I mean, that outlines a lot of the problems and this obviously, to you and anyone else who wants to chip in. Really, what do you think the government steps should the government take to improve or mitigate those problems, still meeting its aims, particularly around contribution, which I guess for children is a harder one to to engage with while they're children, but not when they become an adult.
So, so what steps .
So, so what steps .
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:08
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And they were the, the, the keeping the sort of five year pathway for long resident children and young people. recognising the families of British children potentially having five year pathways, potentially some of them, and unaccompanied children having a five year pathway. So those are three good things. The steps we would like to see some of these get a bit technical, but there are some things that we think are really important that we would like to see. So one of the things, one of the things that is really important is that children who are settling as.
16:08
16:08
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Settle only when they have both parents. The home Office only wants them to settle when they have both parents settling. And what we would like to see is that the child settles with their first settling parent. To give the example of what this would mean is that you might have even somebody, a high earner with a child, and that high earners on a three year route, but their partner might have a conditional caution now that would bar them from ever settling. Does that mean that that child doesn't settle until both their parents settle? That's really unclear.
So that's one quite clear thing. We think that the Home Office could move on. Don't make a child. dependent settle only with both of their parents settling. That's one thing . We've got some. concerns about the. 2425 cut off. So making children, making young people at.
So that's one quite clear thing. We think that the Home Office could move on. Don't make a child. dependent settle only with both of their parents settling. That's one thing . We've got some. concerns about the. 2425 cut off. So making children, making young people at.
16:09
16:09
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Then suddenly in their own right, have to show independence in the current youth labour market. What does it mean for them to have to show earnings just as they're transitioning, building their adult life? They might have actually even not wanted to. They might have even chosen career paths. That would mean that they didn't use public funds so that they won't fall foul of that. And that might have affected how they make decisions about what they're going to pursue in their life.
So something about the.
So something about the.
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
One thing that got better with the response to the original consultation is this recognition of, of, of a British connection. So what we, what the Home Office has suggested that means is that there are already existing routes in the rules where you can apply as the partner of a British child or the parent of a British child, parent of a British child is quite a small group who would be eligible. But another way of. understanding that, and potentially an open door, is to think it's not holding leave as the parent of a British child, but having a British child that could put you on a five year route.
Now, this might be very.
Now, this might be very.
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Rather than having a British child with a single mum on a 20, 30 or indefinite route, can the fact of the British child mean that the Home Office immigration system recognises that, and that the. proportionality of such a long route is considered, and maybe they are also on a five year route? I don't know how .
16:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Likelihood likely that is, but that's kind of a third avenue that we would be keen to explore. And can I just ask on that? Sorry, Kevin. And so that would when am I correct in saying that that would help in the situation where you've got a child who's come on a as a refugee who has been in the country for seven years, whose parent is on a 30 year route, and in this circumstance where the child could become get indefinite leave to remain. You were saying maybe the parent could then go on a shorter route in order to .
16:11
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Enable that parent and child not to be separated. Is that broadly the intent at the moment? Yeah. The way that the the government response is written is really about kind of having a British connection. So where that child might then be able to become British, then maybe there would be, you know, but, but basically the fear is absolutely, as you've articulated, that what we're worried about is settled. And British. children with parents on very long or indefinite routes. And what do we do about that? So even if we do something for the children, what do we do for their parents?
The only final thing, and this is a kind of general plea, is that the committee, as others have said, really considers the very, very.
The only final thing, and this is a kind of general plea, is that the committee, as others have said, really considers the very, very.
16:12
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And how they'll impact on children, but also on young people. So just to give an example, you might have a care leaver who's a refugee. He's at university. He had some transport fine issue. And when he was already 18 and. Maybe this came about at quite a difficult time in his life and he wasn't getting the right support from the local authority. He's got this criminal. record and then he'll never settle, never, ever settle.
So I think we really need to think about the ways that.
So I think we really need to think about the ways that.
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Harshness of that rule will have incredibly serious consequences. So I would I would like to see that for the women that we work with, which are migrant women and children, who for the domestic abuse route to be extended to to all migrant women and children who may be facing abuse and gender based violence. And that will I think that's more likely to. protect children as well as women. from from a removal from the country, from destitution. And I think that that for us is, is the extension of the domestic abuse route to settlement. It would be more effective in protecting all.
victims .
victims .
16:13
16:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Current situation. I just want to add one point on the disproportionate impact on black and brown women. And it's been shown, I think Iwpr have got a report out that that explains that those. individuals are going to have the ten year and longer routes, whereas individuals who are white will have the shorter routes. Now, typically what's happened is that we would look at tackling sort of race and class and integration at schools. But what's happening now is that because of the current proposals in the way that they are, you could have the child of a banker beside the child of a jam sitting together and on two completely different, two completely different pathways, and it's going to become more fractious and more.
exacerbated because the child of the jam is saying, well, hold on a minute, you can't go on to the after school Lego club or whatever. I don't know whether there is that, but but you can't go. You can't go to those sorts of things. And there's a British Future report that's called Race and Fairness. In Fractious Times, the Public priorities for racial equality. And it's all about that integration in the way in which we achieve integration. And I think that the proposals, as they stand, can cause that issue to happen at a very young age.
When you know what it's like when you're a birthday party and someone gets a gift and you haven't got that gift, it's just like those things that are being. exacerbated and mushroomed. And so I just wanted to make that point, but also the psychological safety for mothers who are raising their. children and having to say to their children all the time, well, no, you can't have this. I know that you know, Anita, you as an example, you're the child of a banker. But yeah, Anita can have these things. But actually, you know, Andrea, you can't have these things.
And I think that that kind of like slow drip of inequality and unfairness that takes place. I think that's really that is really problematic. And my last point I just wanted to make ever so quickly is around the trust in the UK. So the UK has always been held out as kind of like this bastion of like trust. What we say is what we mean and all of that kind of stuff. Whereas now, you know, I work in a, in a, in a global corporate and the conversations I'm having with my colleagues across the pond are very much like, is this the start of how we deal with laws now that, you know, a law might be made on tax or anything, is it that we're going to .
exacerbated because the child of the jam is saying, well, hold on a minute, you can't go on to the after school Lego club or whatever. I don't know whether there is that, but but you can't go. You can't go to those sorts of things. And there's a British Future report that's called Race and Fairness. In Fractious Times, the Public priorities for racial equality. And it's all about that integration in the way in which we achieve integration. And I think that the proposals, as they stand, can cause that issue to happen at a very young age.
When you know what it's like when you're a birthday party and someone gets a gift and you haven't got that gift, it's just like those things that are being. exacerbated and mushroomed. And so I just wanted to make that point, but also the psychological safety for mothers who are raising their. children and having to say to their children all the time, well, no, you can't have this. I know that you know, Anita, you as an example, you're the child of a banker. But yeah, Anita can have these things. But actually, you know, Andrea, you can't have these things.
And I think that that kind of like slow drip of inequality and unfairness that takes place. I think that's really that is really problematic. And my last point I just wanted to make ever so quickly is around the trust in the UK. So the UK has always been held out as kind of like this bastion of like trust. What we say is what we mean and all of that kind of stuff. Whereas now, you know, I work in a, in a, in a global corporate and the conversations I'm having with my colleagues across the pond are very much like, is this the start of how we deal with laws now that, you know, a law might be made on tax or anything, is it that we're going to .
16:16
16:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Back and saying, actually, retrospectively, this might be this might be changed, and we're saying it to to skilled workers who are paying. £68,000 on a ten year route. life chances, tutors, trips and everything. More like putting a mortgage on a house, settling down, all of these things. The money that families have to save is so huge .
16:16
16:16
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Shapes their life decisions, and it will shape the chances of those children. Thank you, thank you. I have just two final, very brief questions, and I'm afraid they're specific questions for Anita, but others are welcome to, to, to jump in. This is just a question about the government's commitment on clear pathways for children in care to achieve settled status. Anita, this is something a commitment that was made a couple of years ago. Is that something that you're still hoping to see the government has not done, and what would you like to see in that? And if you just very briefly want to outline for us the problem that .
16:17
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Anything different or they are saying that this is indeed the pathway. Yeah. I think we would like there to be at minimum sort of the. codification of the of the policy that they operate. Yeah. And maybe something specifically on nationality as well. Sometimes for children in care, where their future clearly lies. In the UK, an immigration pathway isn't appropriate. It's .
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
To care leavers who may have been trafficked, for example, until they reach the age of 25? Yes. I think the answer to this is yes and yes, and we can certainly further send further written information to the committee on these. including citing the evidence that both Barnardo's and UK have put forward during the passage of the Bill so far. You know, there are some positives in the bill for for children who are victims of modern slavery. But the most significant concern is that several provisions are. inconsistent with what safeguarding professionals know about how children. disclose abuse.
And I can point to kind of three, but maybe we'll follow up in writing. So the credibility provisions are causing huge concern. Children who are victims of modern slavery. It kind of requires decision makers to start from a place of questioning, trust and, and, and credibility rather than considering it. So we're kind of we're really worried about the way that it affects how children are believed or disbelieved. And we would suggest that maybe the bill.
And I can point to kind of three, but maybe we'll follow up in writing. So the credibility provisions are causing huge concern. Children who are victims of modern slavery. It kind of requires decision makers to start from a place of questioning, trust and, and, and credibility rather than considering it. So we're kind of we're really worried about the way that it affects how children are believed or disbelieved. And we would suggest that maybe the bill.
16:21
16:21
16:21
16:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And specialist support we have concerns about and then about temporary. protection to stay leave. So I might follow up in writing with the committee, if that's okay, on the the potential to extend the duration of an independent. child trafficking guardian. We know that there have been pilots and studies that have really shown the. benefit when. evaluating what these guardians have done of having this kind of trusted, independent adult who can navigate complex systems. And actually, we really think, and I know there's important evidence from Barnardos who operates this scheme and from others working in the anti-trafficking sector, that those needs just don't disappear when a young person turns 18.
And in fact, the transition to adulthood can be. extremely risky for young people around homelessness, immigration status, exploitation, mental health, and potential disengagement from services potentially .
And in fact, the transition to adulthood can be. extremely risky for young people around homelessness, immigration status, exploitation, mental health, and potential disengagement from services potentially .
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:22
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Grateful to you all. But that concludes the questions that we. One point. Of course you can. I just want to come back to this point of trust. Trust and how Britain should be seen as a trustworthy. country so that if you migrate here under certain rules and you comply with them, that you would be able to stay in the country.
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And therefore it will be fair and it will be just. And this is not really fair. And just at the moment, it it can show its fairness. But obviously by scrapping this. proposals or exempting vulnerable groups like women who are facing abuse, it needs to align with this violence against women and girls. strategy in order to show that it's really serious about that strategy and protecting all women and children of abuse. It needs to remove the. reservation it has on the Istanbul. Convention on Migrant Women, which at the moment is preventing them from. providing ILR for.
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24