Senior Courts of England and Wales

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Those matters are in the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, but I would certainly be happy to pass on to the Northern Ireland Justice Minister the lessons that we are learning from the jurisdiction in England and Wales, and I would of course encourage them to follow the same path that we are treading if they wished to do so.

On the question of safeguards, the key safeguard in all this is the control that the judge exercises in how a case is conducted. It is still a matter for judicial discretion whether any individual case can be streamed and broadcast. As I said in my opening remarks, we would expect judges not to livestream cases where a litigant in person was present or if there was witness testimony where the identity of the witness might be a matter of sensitivity. We are, as we often do, entrusting to the judge the sensible and safe management of any individual case. With that, I commend this order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I consider that there is no need to suspend the House on this occasion, as I observe that everyone who is intending to leave has now left, and everyone who is intending to be present is now present. So we will proceed immediately to motion No. 3 on Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation).

Public Order

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It seems to me that there might be too many Members in places in the House where they are not properly distanced. Could they please not be there? Thank you. We now come to the statement by the Home Secretary. I call Priti Patel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her work on this matter with the Home Affairs Committee. I will absolutely provide the Committee with the information she asks for. I look forward to working with her to outline the practical steps and measures, particularly around fixed penalty notices and enforcement issues throughout the coronavirus crisis, and to address many policing issues 20 years on since the Macpherson report. I know from all the conversations I have had with the Met police commissioner —not only over recent days but over several months now—that when it comes to diversifying London’s police force and all our police forces, we must make sure that we do everything within our power to address cultural issues, improve training and do more when it comes to recruitment. We must also ensure that all officers, across the country and in London, understand that they serve the communities in which they police and understand the communities of which they are members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The House is grateful to the Home Secretary for taking the trouble to answer in great detail all the questions that have so far have been asked, but now that quite a few questions have been asked, we will have to speed up a bit, to try to get everyone in. I make no criticism—these are sensitive matters and need to be dealt with in full—but perhaps now we can go rather faster.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I am pleased to say that in north Wales the protests passed off peacefully over the weekend. Does the Home Secretary agree that we have a tradition of effective, peaceful protest in this country, and can she reassure us that those who perpetrated acts of violence or criminal damage over the weekend will be brought to justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Fortunately, my constituency has had a low infection rate from covid, but in recent weeks people have been anxious about an influx of visitors to the resort. You can imagine, Home Secretary, that they are doubly anxious this coming week—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am trying not to interrupt people, because we do not have much time, but we must adhere to the standards of this place. The hon. Gentleman knows—a previous hon. Gentleman got this wrong too—that you cannot address the Home Secretary as “Home Secretary”; you must address the Chair. There are still new Members who do not quite know how to do this. There are good reasons for it that we do not have time to go into now, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

[Martin Vickers]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that my residents are doubly anxious because a Black Lives Matters protest meeting is planned for this Saturday. Could she assure my constituents that not only will property and people be defended but social distancing will be enforced to maintain the low infection rate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

First, when it comes to policing, our police continue to operate by consent. They command the respect and co-operation of the British people by acting with integrity and accountability, and they do that in an outstanding way. When it comes to addressing social injustices and inequalities, as I have said repeatedly this afternoon, it is right that we come together as a Government and, in fact, as a House, because all right hon. and hon. Members have a duty to their own communities to be part of the solution in addressing the injustices. That is something that we can all collectively work to achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I must implore Members: a lot of people have bothered to come here this afternoon and they are not all going to get to ask a question because most Members have not asked questions but have made statements and told stories. From now on we will have to have short questions, and that means one question. The Home Secretary will then be able to give short answers to single questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Black Lives Matter protests have been held throughout Wales and I, too, stand against the injustice and violence faced by black people here and elsewhere. The vast majority of protesters respected social distancing or made innovative use of communications technology. Will the Home Secretary give due credit to the peaceful majority? For example, school student—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not need examples. The question has been asked. [Interruption.] Order. The question has been asked.

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Lady is right that we should absolutely reflect on the majority who have protested peacefully, and I commend the young people in particular. Online protests are much safer when it comes to the health epidemic that we are enduring right now. Importantly, the voices of those who protested peacefully have in effect been subverted through the violence that we saw this weekend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Throughout the pandemic, our police officers have put themselves in danger to uphold the rule of law, save lives and serve our communities. Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of violent agitators over the weekend? Not only have they put our brave police officers at risk, but their actions have taken away from the reasonable, careful and important voice of lawful demonstrators.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before the Home Secretary answers that question, could everyone who is still to speak please just take their pen through their introductory remarks and ask a question? It is not really very difficult—just cut out the first bit.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadia Whittome]

All lives can’t matter until black lives matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Priti Patel]

One of the important facts about stop and search, which I have experienced myself when meeting the parents of young black men who have been murdered on the streets of London, is its significance in taking weaponry off our streets. That is important for all Members of this House to recognise. When I have seen those parents, sat with them and heard their stories, they have called for more stop and search in order to stop more young black lives being killed, and to prevent more criminal and violent activities on the streets of our cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate many of the peaceful protesters and the police and authorities that have helped to facilitate those protests, while acknowledging that the UK is still a racist country for many people. The Home Secretary is eager to comment on operational matters, but stays quiet, of course, when the Prime Minister encouraged lots of sunbathers, predominantly white, to mass-gather on the beaches of Brighton. Is it only black protesters who are the problem and not white sunbathers? Will she ensure that messages are coherent on this issue, and will she speak out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Home Secretary.

[Priti Patel]

The Government’s position on coronavirus could not be any clearer—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Incoherent!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Stop shouting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

This weekend has shown that these protests are a threat to public health. On those grounds alone, our police officers are working night and day across the country to reiterate that point and communicate that message. My final comment is that the operational independence of chief constables is recognised in law, and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 gives police and crime commissioners responsibility for policing within their forces. It is important that they reiterate many of these essential messages.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Members who took part in the second half of that statement for being swift. We were therefore able, in just over an hour, to allow everybody who wanted to participate to do so. That is a fair and decent way of doing things.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am now suspending the House for five minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

3rd reading & Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence for a few moments to wind up this Third Reading debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), who already, in the short time he has been in the House, is proving to be a very effective and powerful advocate for the town that he has the honour of representing. The matter that he raises will, I am sure, be examined by either me or one of my ministerial colleagues, consistent with the constraints we have with regard to individual cases.

I am grateful to all Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) rightly referred to the contribution made by Lord Falconer, one of my predecessors, in the Lords. She enjoined me to follow his guidelines, to use the word that she coined.

I would perhaps recharacterise it in this way: Lord Falconer’s helpful suggestions are ones that I very much bear in mind, and I like a sinner who repenteth. I will be cheeky for a moment and remind the House that while he, as a distinguished member of the Labour Government, was sitting in the Cabinet, I, as a practitioner and part-time judge, was actually having to deal with the slew of criminal justice legislation, to which the hon. Lady referred, year after year. It slowed down a bit, to defend my Government’s record, but she makes a very important point, which this Bill will of course help to deal with.

To be fair to the previous Labour Government, in the year 2000 they passed a consolidation Bill called the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, which was designed to cure the problem that we are still grappling with now. It was an excellent piece of work, but, sadly, within two years it had been superseded by another criminal justice Act. This Bill is different because we have a code, and once it is brought in, the code will indeed endure, I hope for all time. The point the hon. Lady made about future legislation having to be consistent with it and with the schedule is a very important one, and I absolutely accept what she says.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, for supporting not just this Bill but the invaluable work of the Law Commission. He will be glad to know that, as the Minister responsible, I am extremely keen to work with it and its current chair, Lord Justice Green.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who brings huge experience of the criminal justice system to this place. He is absolutely right to remind us that the experience of criminal justice is not something dry and for the pages of a law book; it is about the lives of real people—whether they are defendants, witnesses, jurors or victims—and that point must not be forgotten.

I am very grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for the way in which he has approached this important measure and the support he has given to it, while qualifying his remarks about the need to hold us to account, which I of course accept with alacrity.

Madam Deputy Speaker, sometimes the little things matter. This Bill may not attract headlines in the newspapers and it may not be the stuff of high political drama, but believe you me, this is a Bill for the ages. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As we have come to the end of this item of business and before proceeding to the next item of business, I will suspend the House for five minutes to allow the safe exit and entrance of different Members.

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

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I must inform the House, as I have just done in the previous item of business, that Mr Speaker has not selected any of the reasoned amendments. I am delighted to call the Home Secretary to move Second Reading. The Home Secretary is asked to speak for no more than 20 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill is a simple one that delivers on the promise we made to the British people. It ends free movement. It takes back control of our borders. It gives the Government the powers needed to deliver an immigration system that is firm, fair and fit for the future: the points-based system the public voted for; a system that will support our economic recovery by prioritising jobs for people here in the UK while continuing to attract the brightest and best in terms of global talent; a system that will make it cheaper, easier and quicker for global medical professionals to work in our brilliant NHS; and, as we come through coronavirus, a system that will send a message to the world that global Britain is once again open for business. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Nick Thomas-Symonds, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking the Home Secretary for our briefings in recent weeks, which have been very important throughout this crisis. I look forward to them continuing in the weeks and months ahead. We meet today during a public health emergency that has shone a light on deep inequality and unfairness in our society, and that has shown the extraordinary value of what so many workers do for our families and our communities.

The Bill fell at the general election and has now been brought back to the House for the second time. Looking at the text of the Bill, we see that little has changed—it now has nine clauses rather than seven—but what has changed dramatically are the circumstances in which we debate it.

On a Thursday evening at 8 o’clock, we clap for our carers. Millions of people come to their doorsteps to say thank you. Quite rightly, we are showing our appreciation for our NHS workers, our care workers and all our frontline workers—police, fire, all our emergency services, those in our shops and those out on our roads driving supplies up and down the country—who are putting themselves in harm’s way day after day to keep us safe. They are making sacrifices in order to help others. We are rightly proud of them and we honour their bravery and courage, yet in the midst of this crisis, the Government are putting forward an immigration system containing a salary threshold of £25,600. That sends a signal and tells people that anyone earning less than that is unskilled and unwelcome in our country.

We on the Opposition Benches know that people are not being paid the value of what they do, and that what our frontline workers earn does not reflect what they contribute to our society. Many of us did not need reminding of that, but it seems that the Government do need reminding. Those who clapped on Thursday are only too happy to vote through a Bill today that will send a powerful message to those same people that they are not considered by this Government to be skilled workers. Are our shop workers unskilled? Our refuse collectors? Our local government workers? Our NHS staff? Our care workers? Of course they are not. Government Ministers who were out clapping for the 180,000 EU nationals in the NHS and the care sector on Thursday night are sending a message tonight that they are no longer welcome. That is not fair, and it is not in the national interest.

A labour force survey by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 69% of EU migrants who currently work in the UK would not be eligible for a visa under the Government’s new immigration system. It found that 66% of EU workers in the whole health and social work sector and 90% of EU workers in transport and storage would be ineligible—the very people who are keeping this country running right now. Four in five EEA employees working full time in social care would be ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary threshold the Government want to impose. The average salary for care workers is £19,104, leaving many short of the cap, and there are 115,000 workers in our care system who are EU nationals.

I will give Members an example. This is somebody who did not want her name mentioned, but these are her details. She is an EU migrant, and she is 62. She came to the UK in 2013 and has been working as a live-in carer ever since. She is a 24-hour live-in carer for a 96-year-old lady with dementia. On her earnings last year, she would have no chance of coming to the country under the Government’s new rules. Are we to believe that a 24-hour live-in carer is in low-skilled work? That is what the Government want us to believe.

The care sector in England was not properly prepared going into this crisis and it seems that no lessons are being learnt from that lack of resilience and that lack of proper preparation before the crisis began. One would think the Government would have learned the lesson about not leaving people vulnerable in our care homes, but it seems they have not. Indeed, they want to create conditions where the situation could become even worse. In England alone, 66,000 NHS workers are EU nationals and there are 40,000 nursing vacancies, which will be exacerbated by the income threshold.

The Home Secretary talks about a fast-track visa, but it is not on the face of the Bill and, in any event, it does not include social care. No wonder the Royal College of Nursing says that the Government’s current proposals for the immigration system will exclude some health and care workers from entering the UK, primarily social care staff, and will have a devastating impact on the health and social care sector. No wonder the British Medical Association says:

“Any changes to the UK immigration system, which could deter those who may want to work in the UK, risks having significant implications for the staffing of health and social care services, quality of care and patient safety in the future.”

The truth is that the Government have not won the trust of our most vital service at this crucial time, yet rather than reflect on that they are attempting to rush this through Parliament and ask that we trust they will do the right thing by the health service. We all know that you cannot trust the Conservatives with the NHS. When it comes to the health service, if asked to choose between the RCN, the BMA and Unison on the one hand, and the Conservatives on the other, I know who I would choose every time.

Let us be clear: the Bill allows the Government to create a new system through statutory instrument. Ministers are asking this House for a blank cheque, for the trust of Members to go away and implement a new system, and for an Executive power grab that reduces the role of this House in shaping it. The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the 2017-19 Bill expressed concerns about the wide scope of the powers:

“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with part 1, however tenuous”.

The words “in connection with” are in the new version of the Bill and the situation is unchanged.

In recent weeks, we have seen the confusion and chaos caused when the Government act like they are giving Executive orders outside Parliament without proper scrutiny. The Government should not make the same mistake again when it comes to an issue as important as our future immigration system. Scrutiny makes for better Government decisions and should be welcomed, not shunned.

Let me take this opportunity to say that the 1.2 million British-born people living in the EU27 should be protected and that the 3 million EU citizens living in this country are welcome and are valued here: our families, our friends, our neighbours. They are a central part of our communities and our society. They have brought great benefits and make us a richer, more diverse society. But I am only too aware that warm words are not enough. The deadline for the EU settlement scheme will fast approach. The default position is that anyone who has not applied by the deadline will lose their legal residence status here in the UK unless they have a good reason not to have applied. The Government must act, be open on the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the system, and do all they can to ensure that those who are eligible for the scheme apply and have their applications swiftly processed.

The Government plan for the future immigration system was first set out in the White Paper published in December 2018. How different things were then. The Government talk of a points-based system; what they actually propose is an income-based system. Salary is not a proxy for the level of skill and a salary-based system will not work for incentivising high-skilled migration.



The Government have deliberately held down public sector wages for a decade, and if they do so again, the gap between what people are paid and the value of their contribution to our society will only widen. This does not reward work and is unfair. Try telling the careworkers in my constituency or, indeed, any in the land that their work is unskilled.

Fairness will be at the heart of the amendments that the Opposition will press in Committee. We know what happens when a Government lose sight of fairness and the national interest in our immigration system. Wendy Williams’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” was published only a short time ago. The Home Secretary referenced the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). That review makes for sobering reading, saying:

“Members of the Windrush generation and their children have been poorly served by this country. They had every right to be here and should never have been caught in the immigration net. The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families.”

Never should we let something like that happen again. Indeed, there is such mistrust that the3million and other campaign groups want physical proof of settled status for EU citizens because they simply do not trust the Government’s assurances about everything being digital.

Where the system is not working as it should, the Government must act. Take, for example, looked-after children in local authority care. Currently, there have to be applications for pre-settled or settled status on behalf of eligible children by hard-pressed local authorities that are dealing with the coronavirus crisis. Given those pressures, the Government should just do that automatically, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider that. On immigration detention, we will be putting forward proposals for fairness, including an all-important time limit of 28 days.

In my first letter to the Home Secretary last month, I raised the issue of the injustice of continuing with the policy of no recourse to public funds during the coronavirus crisis for victims of domestic abuse. The Government must look at the issue of those left with no recourse to public funds. We are in a public health emergency—it is in the interests of all of us that people get the help they need.

There are also issues around NHS charges during this crisis. Nobody should have barriers placed in front of them when their work is essential in helping us all. I was appalled by the revelation over the weekend that, after all, NHS staff will not be exempt from these charges, despite their hopes having been raised by the Home Secretary, who mentioned a review. The issue has been mishandled by this Government from the start of the crisis. Additional fees for NHS staff to access the very healthcare that we are thanking them for providing is no way to mark their extraordinary service throughout this crisis. I ask the Home Secretary to think again about that review.

Having left the EU, and with the transition period coming to an end, we must have an immigration system that is fair and in the national interest. Handing over sweeping powers to the Government to create a system that labels so many of those workers who are keeping our country running day by day as unskilled is the wrong thing to do. If the Government are confident in their arguments, they should not be afraid of parliamentary scrutiny of their proposed new system. If they truly value what our frontline workers do, they will not send out a powerful signal that those who earn below £25,600 are unskilled and unwelcome. Instead, they should think again, and that is why we will vote against the Bill tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Caroline Nokes, who has five minutes.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate from a more nuanced perspective than I would have been permitted just 12 months ago. I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his new role. The last time he and I debated immigration, it was in a debate on the previous iteration of this Bill, when he had the opportunity to intervene on me frequently—an opportunity denied to him today.

The hon. Gentleman said that we are rushing the Bill but also pointed out that it is just two clauses different from the previous Bill, which we well debated. I argue that we are not rushing the Bill. It is something that we must complete before the end of the transition period on 31 December this year. He also commented on the use of statutory instrument to change the immigration rules. That has ever been the case and often can be used for good; I highlight the example of Afghan interpreters, on which I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary there is still more to be done.

Returning to the iteration of the Bill in front of us, there is no doubt that we must turn off free movement. We must uphold the outcome of the 2016 referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly pointed out, but I would argue that we must do that with caution, and a phased approach might give us more flexibility. This time last year, matters were very different. I was an immigration Minister seeking to find a route through a minefield at a time of record employment. I have grave fears that my right hon. Friend will find herself doing it at a time of record unemployment. Perhaps those roles that British workers have been able to choose not to do over the past 10 years will be more attractive than they were, but the omens do not look good.

We heard calls for a British land army that were repeated yesterday by Waitrose, and many thousands have responded, but few have chosen to pursue the option. One in six of the brave care workers on the frontline of the battle against coronavirus are non-UK nationals. I commend the Home Secretary on her commitment to extend visas to doctors and nurses, but what of care workers? Are they to be the Cinderella service, forgotten once again? What of ancillary staff in our hospitals, who are crucial in a war against the virus in which repeated deep cleaning is an absolute imperative. We cannot open hospitals if we cannot clean the loos.

Many in the House have experience of the Home Office —I think that no fewer than six immigration Ministers since 2016 have had a hand in trying to introduce a Bill to end free movement—but it is a machine that moves slowly. Sometimes the best laid plans to revolutionise our immigration system do not work well when introduced in a big-bang style. That is in the best of times; we are not in the best of times. We know from Home Office press releases that there are backlogs in the settled status scheme; that visa application centres are closed; and if someone wishes to renew their indefinite leave to remain, or obtain a new biometric residence card they cannot do so currently. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) responded to me on 16 March that the Home Office was planning an engagement programme for employers that would start that month, explaining that those who were not already tier 2 sponsors should consider “applying now”.

Small businesses that have no experience of the visa system need to become registered sponsors by January, or they will not be able to sponsor the visas of new employees. That includes care homes—the people on the frontline of this crisis. I wonder whether that engagement programme, which was supposed to begin in March, did indeed do so, or has it understandably been delayed? We know from news emanating from the Home Office that it is very much not business as usual, so can care-home owners, freight transporters, retailers, food processors, au pairs and childcare providers have confidence that their applications will be processed, even if they know that they need to apply “now”—that is the Minister’s word, not mine?

I hope that the Home Office has in place the resources needed to process the many thousands of applications to become sponsors that may be made by businesses that have never had any previous contact with the system whatsoever, but I would ask what bandwidth the care-home manager, frantically trying to put a ring round her home to keep residents and staff safe, has suddenly to think, “I had better apply to become a sponsor—just in case.” This is a crucial Bill, but I would like more than two words from the immigration Minister on how it can be delivered in a big-bang fashion in just seven months’ time, when history has proved that that is perhaps not the best way to deliver bold, new immigration systems.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We now go to Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Stuart McDonald, speaking for the SNP, who has 10 minutes.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid to say that this is a dreadful Bill that will destroy opportunities for future generations and will split even more families apart. It will result in many thousands of EU nationals losing their rights in this country overnight; it will extend the reach of the hostile environment still further; it will drown thousands of businesses and key industries in red tape and massive fees; and it will deprive our public services of talented and desperately needed workers. It will push different nations and regions of the United Kingdom towards depopulation and drive a wedge between us and our European neighbours. In short, it brings to an end the one part of the UK migration system that works well—the free movement of people. Instead, it expands the reach of the UK’s domestic rules—a complicated mess of burning injustice and bureaucracy—and that is why the SNP, without any hesitation, will be voting against this awful Bill. But this awful Bill was made even worse by its appalling timing. Pushing ahead with it in the midst of a public health and economic crisis, and without paying heed to the recent Windrush review, is spectacularly misjudged and shows that the Home Office remains totally out of touch with reality, and completely out of touch with public opinion.

I turn first to the coronavirus pandemic and I join others in paying tribute to those on the frontline. I pay particular tribute to the migrant workers who are there, including too many who have lost their lives—consultants from Sudan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Uganda and Pakistan, a hospital porter from the Philippines, doctors from Germany and Iraq, nurses from Zimbabwe, Trinidad and South Africa, support workers from India and Ghana, and many, many more. Each and every one deserves our tributes and our gratitude, but the more fitting tribute would be a coherent and robust response to the crisis—one that genuinely seeks to ensure that we are all in this together and doing whatever it takes, but that is not what the Bill provides.

We should have had a Bill that makes it easier, instead of harder, to recruit the NHS, social care and other staff we need, and not one that uses an ill-considered financial threshold as a poor proxy for skill, talent or contribution. It is right that the Home Office has ditched its earlier rhetoric about cheap, low-skilled labour, but it is now time to drop the accompanying policies, too. We should have had a Bill setting out a comprehensive and generous system of visa extensions for those frontline workers and their families, not the piecemeal, back-of-the-envelope scheme that the Home Office has so far cobbled together.

We need a Bill that scraps the minimum income requirements for family visas and suspends other financial thresholds, acknowledging that migrant families and workers have had their incomes slashed, just like too many others. More than 100,000 NHS workers and a huge percentage of care workers are prevented by Home Office financial requirements from being able to sponsor their husbands, wives and children to join them here in the UK. Is it not quite outrageous for the Home Office to say, “Thank you for your hard work, but no thanks to bringing your family”? There is absolutely nothing fair about that.

We need a Bill that uprates the pitiful sums of money that we are providing to asylum seekers in this time of crisis and which ensures that, whatever stage of their asylum journey they are at, they can be properly protected. We need a Bill that ensures that all migrants have at least some form of temporary status and which ends the no recourse to public funds rules that deprive people of the support and accommodation they need to get through this crisis. It is impossible for someone to self-isolate if they do not have a roof over their head or food to eat.

We need a Bill that automatically protects all who are at risk of accidental overstaying until coronavirus is over, that gets people out of immigration detention, and that ends data sharing with the Home Office so that the NHS and other vital services are not places that people in need are afraid to attend. We need a Bill that recognises the absurdity of the NHS surcharge and scraps it for good. We need a Bill that postpones any new immigration system until this pandemic is over and we know the reality of the huge economic challenges ahead.

Employers are justifiably aghast at the fact that the Home Office is attempting to foist a whole new bureaucracy on them now, in the middle of a public health and economic crisis. The Government took four years to finalise their immigration proposals, yet they are giving employers little more than four months to adapt—four of the most difficult months imaginable. The Bill undermines, rather than helps, our response to the coronavirus.

However, it is not just the public health crisis that the Home Office has totally ignored in the Bill—staggeringly, it pays no heed to Windrush either. The Windrush lessons learned review is an incredible indictment of the Department. It talks of Ministers failing to “sufficiently question unintended consequences.” It refers to

“an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race”

that reveals a Department that does not listen to contrary opinions or learn lessons, and where the political culture and pressure to be tough has caused harsh treatment, poor decisions and an absence of empathy for individuals. The Windrush case studies presented by Wendy Williams are enough to make people shake with anger, yet the Bill has not a single trace of recognition of Windrush in it and there are alarming signs that the Department has failed to learn lessons. Its crass and insensitive defence of the discriminatory right-to-rent policy almost makes me wonder whether the review has actually been read. Meanwhile, many of the same voices that warned about Windrush are warning about the fate of tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of EU citizens—old people, young people, looked-after children, care leavers and others—who may not appreciate the need to apply for settled status.

If they truly have learned the lessons of Windrush, the Government should protect EEA nationals properly. They should provide them with automatic rights, not rights contingent on their applying by a certain date; they should provide all with fully settled status and abandon the precarious pre-settled status; they should provide EEA citizens with a physical document as proof of their rights, and they must scrap the right to rent and other discriminatory hostile environment policies. Just as before, the Government seem to be ignoring the warnings; instead, the Bill seeks to give Ministers a blank cheque on future immigration policies. The last thing we should do is give the Home Office any more powers until the lessons of Windrush are properly learned.

There are so many other areas of immigration, asylum and nationality laws that need fixing. There is nothing in the Bill to address the injustices of nationality law, such as the disgraceful fees charged to children who simply want to register their British citizenship, to which they are entitled. There is nothing to fix our broken asylum system —the poverty support rates, the chaotic accommodation contracts, the shambolic move-on period, the ban on work, the restricted family reunion rights, and the loss of Dublin III participation. There is nothing here to address our addiction to immigration detention and the shame of being the only country in Europe without a time limit on detention. There is nothing to address the decimation of appeal rights and legal aid, which has contributed to many injustices, including Windrush.

Time and again, the Home Office has shown that it is so obsessed with numbers that it has totally lost sight of individual workers, students and family members, and the contributions that they make. More and more people will be asking, “Why did we leave immigration policy to the Home Office at all?”

Of course, on the question of who should make migration policy, with every single day of Home Office incompetence and injustice, the case for migration policy for Scotland being made in Scotland grows stronger. We have been reasonable, pragmatic and thorough in building the case, publishing papers and pointing to international best practice, but the Government simply refuse to engage in a grown-up discussion about migration policy being tailored for Scotland.

The risk of population decline and a shrinking labour force and tax base are real and grave issues for Scotland. The future system that this Government have designed is nothing short of a disaster for health and social care, tourism and hospitality, food and drink, agriculture, our universities, and many other key sectors of the Scottish economy. I recognise that it is not just Scotland that the Home Office is throwing under the bus, but other nations and regions of the UK too.

Instead of issuing soundbites and slogans about a system working for all, the Home Office must engage seriously. It must recognise that any system that has the express aim of reducing migration does not just fail to work for Scotland but actively works against Scotland’s interests. This is a rotten Bill, introduced with rotten timing. It is beyond repair and it does not deserve a Second Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to introduce a formal time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I should remind hon. Members who are speaking from home to have some way of ensuring that they do not exceed five minutes in case they cannot see the time on their computer or device while they are speaking, because I will have to enforce the five-minute limit very strictly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

Today, with this Bill, the Government are seeking to grant themselves powers to reshape our immigration system, with little scrutiny and with little regard for the rights of people who, sadly, they dismiss as low-skilled simply because they do not earn a high salary. These Government plans are built on the right-wing neo-liberal myth that people’s salary determines their skills and their value. Well, the coronavirus crisis has shown all of us whose work actually is essential to keeping our society running, and many of those workers earn far less than the Government’s proposed salary threshold of £25,600. Let us be clear: workers earning under the threshold are not low-skilled; they are low-paid. All of us have a moral responsibility to recognise their contribution, and not to introduce rules that restrict the rights of low-paid workers even further, because it will be our communities, and often the most vulnerable members of our communities, who will pay the price for this.

Our care system is facing an unprecedented crisis, and our Government, shamefully, are seeking to make it harder for careworkers to come to this country to contribute. The founder of our national health service, Aneurin Bevan, once remarked that we could manage without stockbrokers, but we would find it harder to do without miners, steelworkers and those who cultivate the land. The 21st-century equivalent is that our society could cope a lot longer without hedge fund managers, fat-cat landlords and billionaire tax avoiders and tax evaders than we could without bus drivers, bin collectors, supermarket workers, carers and other low-paid workers who under these rules will face tougher restrictions than the top earners.

Our approach to the Bill today cannot be divorced from the record of this Government over the past decade. This Government, with their hostile environment, have used their narrative on immigration as a way to scapegoat one part of the working class for problems the working-class as a whole face due to austerity, cuts and free market fundamentalism. This Government are wilfully scapegoating migrants to let off the hook those who are really responsible for the economic failings of the past decade.

Just the other week, an NHS physician in my constituency who came here from Egypt wrote to me distraught because, as he put it to me, if he were to die in service of our NHS due to coronavirus, his dependent family would be booted out of this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the Government have shifted on this, but they should not have had to be asked in the first place—and why can they not extend that change in position to careworkers?

How can we trust a Government who oversaw the hostile environment? How can we hand over powers to the Government to create a new immigration system with far less scrutiny than previously? How can we trust that there will not be a second Windrush crisis affecting many thousands of EU citizens who came to make their life here but have not yet been granted settled status? How can we trust that, under political pressure, the Home Secretary and this Government will not make immigration policy that is designed not to serve the interests of working-class communities or diversity, but to chase headlines in the right-wing newspapers?



I was one of the sponsors of a reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). It was not selected, but I nevertheless want to reiterate demands made in it. I want the Government to think again about this immigration Bill. We need the Government to think again and to protect the rights of British citizens to live, work and study in other EEA member states. We need the Government to think again and grant EEA citizens currently living here in the UK automatic permanent settled status. We need the Government to reflect long and hard on the history of the Windrush scandal and of “Go Home” vans touring estates, making a hostile environment for people in our communities. The Government need to reflect on that. They need to reflect on who really contributes to our society.

The Government also need to reflect on the need to end the scandal of indefinite detention, which makes us, in a very shameful way, stick out like a sore thumb in Europe—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his five minutes. We now go to Dr Jamie Wallis in Bridgend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in these proceedings, as they represent another important step in this Government delivering on what people in Crewe and Nantwich voted for, and that is for us to take back control. That is why the Bill is important. I relish the fact that we are now once again having a full and healthy debate about the details of our immigration policy—not just a yes or no to the freedom of movement. We are having these debates because our Government are once again fully accountable for immigration policy. The Opposition have every right to scrutinise and propose alternative approaches—that is how our democracy functions.

How did we ever think that on such a complicated issue we could simply tick a box saying yes? Deciding who can visit, work in and live in our country is a matter of fundamental importance that should never have been simplified to such an unsophisticated approach as freedom of movement. There are so many different factors that we need to balance—the needs of business in the short and long term; the goal of providing the best possible job opportunities for British citizens; the obligations we have to provide safe refuge to individuals in need; the impact on our housing market; and the effect of large-scale immigration on social cohesion. Those are just a few of the things we have to think about.

All of those factors will ebb and flow in importance over time, and any effective immigration system needs to be able to ebb and flow along with them. Instead, we have had a fixed policy, direct accountability for which sat offshore. A multifactorial issue became a binary one. People were either pro freedom of movement or against it. I am afraid that that did not work, and was never going to work. It became a touchstone issue in relation to our EU membership, because voters could sense it was not right. That is fundamentally why I want freedom of movement abolished. It is policy making on the cheap, decision making without decisions—the multitude of views on all the different ways in which we should change our policy that we will hear in the Chamber today are a testimony to that.

I want to talk about what I think has been a shameless attempt to distort the meaning of the term “low-skilled”—a phrase that has been used cross-party across multiple Governments for many years. The last Labour Home Secretary referred on a number of occasions in this House to the low-skilled, and I cannot believe anybody would ascribe to him any disrespect to those he was referring to in his use of that term. The current shadow Home Secretary has spoken about high-skilled jobs in the House, and I do not imagine that anyone would argue that we can talk about high-skilled jobs without having to acknowledge the existence of low-skilled jobs. I do not in any way seek to diminish the prominence of the current post holder, but in 2014 the previous long-serving shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked the then Business Secretary what steps were being taken to address the exploitation of low-skilled workers. In 2018, the right hon. Lady also agreed that it was logical to distinguish between high and low-skilled migrants when making immigration decisions. I find the deliberate attempt to inject disrespect into the current use of that term extremely distasteful, because it is an attempt to gain some short-term political advantage by hurting the feelings of people who at this minute are working hard for this nation. However, perhaps it would do no harm to review our language in this regard so that in future it cannot be exploited.

What do we really mean when we use the term “low-skilled”? What we are actually talking about is how readily a skill can be acquired. The person who cleans a cubicle so that I can see a patient is just as vital a member of the team as I am when it comes to looking after patients. If they were not doing their job, I could not do mine. But we can more readily train someone to do that job than we can train someone to be a doctor or nurse. That is a simple fact. It does not in any way demean the importance of the role or contribution of those whose skills are more easily acquired than others. Opposition Members know that full well, and that is part of the discussion we will have about salaries and how that works when we decide roles and who we want to come here.

When we consider whether we should allow people to come here to live and work, we inevitably prioritise individuals with skillsets that are not readily or easily acquired. That is what we are talking about when we talk about high and low-skilled jobs. Going forward, perhaps we could consider changing our approach to talk about readily acquired and non-readily acquired skills, so that we are saying exactly what we mean and there can be no doubt.

Of course, I expect the Government to look closely at how their policy approach will translate in the real world so that our public services have the staff who are needed and our economy is well resourced. We need to find a way to recognise the important and valuable contribution that immigrant workers have made to the NHS during this crisis, but it is absolutely right that we should grow our home skill base whenever possible. I have felt very uncomfortable with our reliance on the immigration of healthcare professionals to this country over many decades, because we are sometimes taking staff who are desperately needed in their countries of origin, particularly outside the EU. That cannot be right—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Thank you. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]]

Importantly for this country, which has always welcomed immigrants, the Bill will enable the alignment of treatment of EU and non-EU citizens as part of our future immigration system. The Bill reflects the concerns of the British people and ends free movement, giving everyone the same opportunity to come to the UK, regardless of where they come from. In line with our manifesto commitments, there will be no automatic route into the UK for foreign workers with few formal qualifications. We can attract the talent and skills from around the world that our economy needs as we emerge from coronavirus. The new, fair immigration system will be flexible and in line with advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, which will keep the occupation shortage list under regular review to ensure that it reflects the needs of our labour market.

Immigration will no longer be used as a replacement for investment in the domestic British workforce. We have an abundance of talent and skills in this country, which must be developed and utilised. Most of us, except for those who support open borders, believe that countries should have an unalienable right to decide who gets to enter their land for work. To seek and strive for such a right does not make us anti-immigrant—quite the opposite. The UK is made up of a rich tapestry of people, and as a country we are the better for it. It is right that people from all over the world are treated fairly and equally, so far as immigration into this country is concerned, under our rule of law. We have a rule of law allowing legal immigration from non-EU countries, but it has far too often been exploited by illegal immigrants and people smugglers and traffickers. It is not right that those who have arrived here illegally are seen by some to have a presumptive right. People who avoid the law are not acting within the law, and are therefore acting illegally.

I welcome the introduction, from the end of the transition period, of a single, consistent and firmer approach to criminality across the immigration system. In my constituency of beautiful Hastings and Rye, we have seen hundreds of migrants land on our shores in small boats from France, most recently at Pett Level at the weekend. They are not refugees, as some insist on calling them. They are migrants, who move for a variety of reasons but who generally make a conscious choice to leave their country to seek a better life elsewhere. They are free to return at any time if things do not work out as they had hoped or if they wish to visit family members and friends left behind.

Refugees are forced to leave their country because they are at risk of, or have experienced, persecution. Their concerns are of safety and human rights, not economic advantage, and as such they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. Many have experienced trauma or have been tortured, causing them to risk their lives in search of protection. They are not free to return to their homelands unless the situation that forced them to leave improves.

Worryingly, we have seen unaccompanied children arrive who are thought to be victims of trafficking. The people who have been landing on our beaches are coming over from France via unauthorised, illegal crossings, having paid thousands of pounds to a criminal—a people smuggler—to do so. I want to be clear: we must press down hard on those exploiting the vulnerable and using them as part of their human trafficking system. Those making the perilous journey across the English channel are risking their lives by doing so, and we must discourage these journeys. We must ensure that those caught up in human trafficking gangs and smuggling rackets are protected and that those orchestrating the journeys are stopped.

France is a safe country. They are not fleeing persecution. Under EU law—the Dublin regulation—asylum must be sought in the first country people arrive in. Furthermore, many have travelled through a number of safe European countries before arriving in France and then going on to UK. If we do not emphasise the difference between migrants and those seeking asylum or refuge, it promulgates misconceptions about the most vulnerable—the refugees, for whom we need to provide the best possible sanctuary. We need to safeguard and expand refugees’ rights and protect them.

Ultimately, we need to ensure that the British public have trust in our immigration system and remain welcoming of legal immigrants and refugees. That can be achieved with the new, robust, fair and independent migration system controlled by the United Kingdom, making sure that illegal migrants do not have not a presumptive right to stay—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

I find it extraordinary that, even in the midst of the current pandemic, the Government have not recognised, or do not care about, the implications of the Bill for those who are out there working to keep us alive, keeping the country moving, looking after our vulnerable people and supporting every aspect of our much-changed lives. Some on the Government Benches would like us to think of those people as low-skilled and low-value, but to be deemed low-skilled is in itself insulting. To value a person’s worth based on the amount of money they earn is offensive. It is particularly indecent now, when we see these key workers keeping Britain going. This is not what we teach our children in schools, and these are not the values of the communities of Gower that I represent.

The Home Secretary has said that the new points system will be a

“firmer, fairer and simpler system that will attract the people we need to drive our country forward…laying the foundation for a high-wage, high-skill, productive economy”.

In theory, it all sounds rather sensible, but the proposed system is more of an income-based system, and it is a blunt tool that masks the other skills and qualities that immigrants bring to the UK. George Bernard Shaw said:

“Between persons of equal income there is no social distinction except the distinction of merit. Money is nothing: character, conduct, and capacity are everything.”

But this is not just about the value of these workers at this time. Immigration should be valued and celebrated at all times. I said in my maiden speech nearly three years ago:

“The freedom of movement and opportunities afforded to my forefathers is close to my heart. I will fight for those rights to continue, not just for my child but for the children of Gower and Wales.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 817.]

By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants who can work or study elsewhere in Europe without a visa. If the cost and burden of entering the UK become too high, it will be other countries that benefit from the transfer of knowledge, expertise, investment and culture.

The Government are ploughing through with the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill while the public are distracted. They continue to make meaningless gestures to the key workers such as carers, shop workers and those in public services who are keeping the economy and society going throughout these really troubled times. A significant pay rise is what all key workers need, not another Thursday evening photo opportunity. If there was ever a time to recognise the contribution of immigrant workers in the NHS and other vital jobs, it is now, during this crisis. The Labour party stands up for all the people who have chosen to make the UK their home and who now find themselves, as essential workers, putting their lives on the line to keep the rest of us going.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I share the concerns of cancer charities and others about the Bill undermining many of our already stretched public services. Analysis by Macmillan shows that the Government’s plan for a points-based immigration system will have a real detrimental effect on our health and social care system, which is already under record pressure. To mitigate this, Macmillan is calling for a separate migration route for social care, and asking for social care workers to be included on the shortage occupation list and exempt from the visa salary threshold. Workers and employers need clarity about what specific measures will be put in place to protect the NHS and social care workforces, and they especially need further details of what the NHS visa and an equivalent social care visa would involve. The Home Secretary needs to set out what specific protections a specialist visa would afford, which staff are eligible to apply, and how and when they should apply.

More urgently, will the Home Secretary clarify why the Government have not offered to extend the visas of those working in social care in the same way that they have for those working in the NHS as a result of the coronavirus? The shortage occupation list is nowhere near dynamic enough to respond to workplace shortages within the desired timeframe, so what measures will the Government take to support the already dilapidated social care sector if this new immigration policy deters vital migrant workers from joining the sector? All this uncertainty is—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes. We now go to Sir John Hayes in South Holland and The Deepings.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]]

Migration is a feature of all advanced economies and free societies; some people come and others leave, and it has always been so. For the period from the 1930s—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the sound quality is a bit of a problem. We are just seeing whether it can be improved. Let us try again. Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Migration is a feature of all advanced economies and free societies; people come and they leave, and that has always been so in our country. From the 1930s to the 1980s, migration was essentially in balance—some years, more people left the country; others, more people arrived—but from the mid-2000s, that changed dramatically. The level of net migration that this country has endured since that time is unprecedented.

Last year, about 640,000 immigrants arrived in Britain. That is 100,000 more than the populations of Manchester and Sheffield. When we take into account the number of people who left, the net figure was around 200,000, as it has been, year on year, for a considerable time. I just do not think that is tenable or practical. It clearly places immense demands on all kinds of services, particularly housing, and, frankly, the British people are not satisfied that that is the right way forward, which essentially is what they broadcast in the referendum. Of course that was about more than immigration, but for many, our inability to control our borders, and the consequent effects of large-scale net migration, was a salient factor in why they voted to leave the European Union and end free movement, which is what the Bill does.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that too few people in the political establishment are prepared to face up to the sentiments I just described, which are widely felt by British people. Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, put it this way. He said that mass migration risks igniting the “flames” of racial conflict because of “liberal self-delusion” over its impact by leaders too “touchy”, “smug” and “complacent” or “squeamish” to talk about the issue.

Of course it is true that people who come to this country do much good—we have heard a lot about that, and I could obviously quote examples from my own constituency—but there are other effects of migration of people into low-skilled occupations. When we say “low-skilled”, it is not a pejorative remark; it is a statement of fact. Some jobs are more skilled than others.

The effects of large-scale migration into those jobs have been fivefold. It has displaced investment in technology, particularly in automation; it has held down wage levels, which has been undesirable both from the migrants’ point of view and for people already here; it has encouraged under-investment in training and skills, and it has built an economy that is increasingly ossified by a dependence on relatively low-cost labour rather than the high-tech, high-skilled economy that we need to compete and thrive. But more than that, the unwillingness of successive Governments to tackle this issue has undermined public faith in the efficacy of Government and the willingness of Ministers to face the facts. Now we have a Home Secretary, the Minister on the Front Bench—who I see there now—and a Prime Minister who are willing to face the facts and take decisive action, which is what this Bill does.

I simply end by saying this: in the words of G. K. Chesterton, we should not take a fence down until we know the reason it was put up. The reason we have borders is because it is right that the British people and those they elect to represent them should decide who comes to our country, in what number and why. This Bill is a start, but I finish with these remarks, and a challenge to the Minster. First, we must deport more illegal immigrants. It is extraordinary that the recent Governments, the coalition and the Conservatives, are deporting fewer illegal immigrants than previous Labour Governments were. Secondly, we must be careful about the number of work visas issued. Thirdly, we must keep a watch on net migration as we go forward, so that what we do is in tune with what the British people are prepared to warrant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Ending freedom of movement has become the loudest answer to everything we hear on the doorstep. No jobs? End freedom of movement. No housing, no doctor’s appointment, no parking? Blame freedom of movement. In that noise, it is hard to talk about this issue without being called either a racist or a bleeding heart liberal, but the truth is that EU migration has benefited our economy. EU migrants contribute £2,300 more to the public purse each year than the average adult—and that is including the cost of their children being here, too. They are also less likely to use our public services, although they work in them. We are more likely to meet an EU migrant helping us in our hospitals than standing in front of us in a queue.

Over the past 20 years, immigration has been on a much larger scale than we have had in the previous 200 years, but, truthfully, however many people have come, this country has never been good at making it work. With every new wave of people, the UK has always been unwelcoming and always regretted it. Indeed, it was the same with the Huguenots, the wave of refugees that brought both my family and Nigel Farage’s family here. When the Windrush generation came, they were met with “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”. Now we rightly honour their contribution to our communities. We have demonised those who have come from Europe for years. Now, as we clap for those who are saving our lives with one set of hands, this proposed legislation asks us to abandon them with another.

The problem here is not immigration; it is politicians talking about what we do not want, rather than what we need. This Bill is that problem written down: bringing to an end freedom of movement without providing for what comes next, because in our toxic political culture ending freedom of movement has been sold as a solution in itself. The only answer the Government are offering us about what replaces it is to expose everyone to the dysfunction that is the current immigration system—the same system that gave us the hostile environment, the Windrush scandal and the legacy system.

The former Home Secretary and former Member for Blackburn once told me there are two divides in Parliament: left and right; and those who have to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who do not. The truth is that the UKBA has been a fiasco for Governments of all colours. It makes us all hypocrites: locking up victims of torture and rape in Yarl’s Wood, while claiming to be defenders of human rights. It is a system where, unlike in other countries in Europe, when we see refugee children, we do not seek to reunite them with their family members or provide them with safe passage to stop them being targeted by traffickers. Above all, it is a system that is just not very good at making decisions. Of the 25,000 people we locked in detention without any limit for how long, only 37% were eventually deported and yet we expect them to deal with this mess without any legal support. The only people who would be helped by this Bill will be us, because it absolves us of dealing with the problems it creates. It gives the Government Henry VIII powers to write immigration legislation without having to bring them back to this place and force us to address the damage that has been done. We already have a points-based system, so the question Ministers should be answering is: what do we award points for? We know that skilled or valued worker does not necessarily mean well-paid worker.

We know 3 million of our EU citizens, who are our friends, our family and our neighbours, are now struggling with the paperwork that pre-settled status entails. There are 1 million Brits in Europe who need a good deal, too. So ask yourselves if you want your children to be able to work for companies who have offices in Berlin or Rome without them being penalised because they cannot travel there, or one that gives points out so that if you fall in love with your French exchange partner you can move to Paris or they can come to you in Barnsley. The benefits that came with freedom of movement mean that when you do not have it, you will end up wanting to invent it. Such freedoms will become more important, not less, in the coming years.

If we are to have a better quality of legislation, we need a better quality of debate about who is coming in and why. Take, for example, the immigrant who came to us having failed his exams with a patchy work history and no ties to the UK. His name was Albert Einstein. Even then, in the 1930s, the UK border authorities misplaced his papers. His landing card was only found in a trawl of old paperwork in Heathrow in 2011. Back then, the Daily Mail urged readers to avoid him and boycott his lectures raising money for other refugees from Nazi Europe. Back then, another MP, Oliver Locker-Lampson, tried to sponsor his British citizenship and help Jews fleeing the Nazis. Back then, we said no and we lost Einstein to America.

When it comes to immigration, our policies all too often meet Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. I will not be voting for the Bill, because it is another example of that phenomenon and my constituents —former, current and future—deserve better from us all. All the while, we as politicians continue to behave like this and debate like this. The problem is not immigrants, it is us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I suspend the House for 15 minutes until 7.14 pm precisely.

Fire Safety Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

I want to begin by welcoming this long-overdue Bill. We all know what the consequences can be—[Inaudible.] Nobody here will ever forget the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, but only last autumn a block of student accommodation called The Cube, just over the border from my constituency in Bolton, caught fire. There were no casualties that time, but—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Lady because the sound quality is not very good. Let us try again for a few seconds, and if it does not improve, we will leave the hon. Lady and come back to her later.

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although this Bill is overdue, it does not guarantee action immediately. I understand that the current crisis makes it difficult—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am very sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. Lady again. Those in the Chamber, and presumably those listening in other ways, cannot make out what she is saying, so we will interrupt her speech for the moment and hopefully come back to her shortly.

I am glad to see that in the Chamber we have, without any sound difficulties, Meg Hillier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Christine Jardine—the hon. Lady cannot hear us. Do we have a connection? We can see her, but we cannot hear her. We will come back to her. Meanwhile we will go to Vauxhall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now attempt again to go to Christine Jardine.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Good, we can hear you.

[Christine Jardine]

I am delighted to be able to join this debate. Each time the House debates or acknowledges in any way the horror that was Grenfell and the 72 lives lost that night, I find, like so many others, my mind going back to that evening. As a new MP, excited by the opportunity to effect change, I was horrified to turn to my TV in my hotel room and see the tragedy that was unfolding across the city. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, that memory remains with me. More than that, it is what drives my and so many others’ commitment to preventing it from happening again.

In this Parliament and the previous one, we have become accustomed to using words like “unprecedented”, “historic” and “crisis”. I hope that when we reflect fully on this period, we will be able to be confident that we gave this issue the attention, energy and commitment that it deserved. We need a commitment to ensuring that Grenfell is fully investigated and the victims and survivors honoured, and we have to make sure we have done everything possible to ensure that it cannot happen again. For that reason, I, with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, welcome this legislation today, but with a caveat. Several aspects of the Bill perhaps miss an invaluable opportunity to introduce other vital fire and safety mentions. There is no mention of evacuation plans for high-rise blocks or three-monthly fire door inspections, as recommended by the inquiry chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick. When will the House see those measures introduced in legislation?

A building safety Bill is urgently required. As more people spend time at home isolating, the risk of injuries and harm increases. When will that legislation be laid and what impact will the pandemic have on instigating necessary change and improvement? Those questions need to be answered.

While this Bill may be designed for England and Wales only—Scotland has its own fire safety regulations—it is far-reaching and has potentially serious implications for Scotland, where many homeowners now find themselves faced with a significant problem. Nine out of 10 mortgages in Scotland are provided by London-based lenders. The terms of those mortgages are based on English law and regulations. The effect of that is that many in apartment blocks are finding that their flats are now worthless. The mortgage lenders have placed a zero value on their property, because, according to those regulations, accommodation over six storeys must have an official external wall fire review, ensuring that the cladding is safe.

In England, one person would normally own the block and lease out the apartments to the owners. In Scotland, all the apartments are owned outright; there is no leasehold. The difficulty is down to that different ownership model. In England, it is relatively simple for one person to organise the checks and work on the apartment block and then bill the leaseholders. In Scotland, that is impossible. In a block of 250 owners, there would have to be 250 EWS1 forms verifying cladding. Each one costs thousands to complete. That anomaly is blocking any checks and many sales in Scotland. People cannot sell their apartments in such blocks without an ESW1 form, and in many cases no apartments are valued at more than zero. That is not to say that the regulations should be compromised—far from it. We need acknowledgement of the issue and arrangements made for properties where there is no leasehold.

I do not believe that any one of us is not committed to doing everything we possibly can to ensure that no family and no person ever has to endure the horror that the residents of Grenfell and their loved ones have endured over the past three years. To do that, we have to not just pass this Bill—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have lost contact with the hon. Lady, just as she was coming to her peroration. I think that everyone present, and in particular the Minister, can imagine what she was about to say, so we will assume that her peroration is complete.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

I hope everyone can hear me. I welcome the Bill—all three clauses of it—but it is not sufficient to deal with the problems that have been happening in relation to buildings across the country. The Grenfell fire occurred three years ago, and although the taskforce reported last year on the things that needed to be done, none of them has yet been implemented, despite the Government promising that all the recommendations would be encompassed, lock, stock and barrel. I hope that the Government will soon introduce a Bill that does all those things.

The Bill is very welcome, but it requires proper resources. The Fire Brigades Union has estimated that it will result in hundreds of thousands more buildings needing to be inspected, which is obviously the right thing to do. However, since the Government have, for years now, been cutting fire brigade services, we have fewer fire officers and less equipment. The response can therefore often be slower than it should be. Since 2013, £141.5 million of cuts have been made to the fire budget. Clearly, if the Bill is to have an impact, money must be provided to the fire brigade so that it can carry out its work.

There has rightly been talk about the Grenfell fire, but in my constituency of Bolton South East, The Cube, which was student accommodation, also erupted into fire, leaving 200 students homeless. Fortunately, no one was injured. The university has been great at looking after the students, even though the building did not belong to it, and the local community has been fantastic. I thank the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service for dealing with the situation so speedily and effectively. However, it leads to the question about the height of buildings. High buildings are considered those of 18 metres; The Cube was just 16 cm short of that.

The Cube’s cladding was what is called high-pressure laminate, unlike Grenfell, which had ACM cladding. People rightly talk about ACM cladding, but there is unsafe cladding across buildings in this country, some of which is high-pressure laminate and some of which is not. It is imperative that the Government test every single building in our country to ensure that they are safe for the people in them. Although such things cost money, at the end of the day, people’s lives are destroyed. The Grenfell Tower showed the tragedy of how many people died and how many lives were destroyed.

Although I welcome the Bill, I urge the Government to introduce a Bill that deals comprehensively with fire safety across all buildings—not just high buildings, but smaller buildings, such as hospitals and shopping centres. We need to have proper regulation, and proper inspections should be carried out for new buildings. I ask the Government to please sort this out. People’s lives must not be played with.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now go back to Barbara Keeley. The connection is not good enough to give us a video connection, but we will have an audio connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) [V]]

It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the Grenfell families and survivors, and to the fire service. I should add that it is a pleasure to follow hon. Members across the House, although it is somewhat strange to take part in the debate from my sofa.

I am pleased with the quality of today’s debate and the many thoughtful contributions from across the House. I, like other Opposition Members, welcome the Bill; it is a step forward, although a modest step, and I urge the Government to go much further.

I would like first to reflect on the situation affecting many residents in my constituency, particularly in central Reading where there is both a huge number of larger blocks and many much smaller ones, which—like the block referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—are below the height threshold but where there are serious concerns about their safety nevertheless.

I want to reflect on an email from a constituent that I found extremely moving. It was from a young woman who had been living, for several months at this point, in great stress in a flat in the town centre that had dangerous cladding. She and her fellow residents in the block have now been living in this condition for almost three years, and it is simply appalling that people are still having to put up with such enormous stress and worry, which is shared by residents across the country. As has been said, many of them are simply trapped in their properties; they are unable to sell, and are living in properties with dangerous cladding, either ACM or one of the many other types of dangerous cladding. We heard about the high-pressure laminate earlier. and it is also worth considering the danger from wooden cladding; there was the dreadful case of a fire in Barking a few months ago.

In the Reading area, we have ACM, wooden cladding that has been found to be dangerous, and laminate types. In my constituency, four or five large blocks have been inspected by Royal Berks Fire and Rescue Service and found to be not up to the required standards. The work is under way in one of those blocks, but in many other cases has been delayed. To make matters worse, there is the related issue, mentioned earlier, of smaller blocks that fall below the threshold yet have many dangerous fire safety issues— either dangerous cladding or a host of other problems, such as substandard fire doors, which have been discovered recently.

This is a very substantial problem affecting towns and cities across the whole country. We are only just beginning to discover the full extent of it. It started with the awful fire at Grenfell and similar fires which predated it and which should have been a warning to the Government. There have been subsequent fires, such as the Barking one or The Cube fire in Bolton, but there are many other dangers out there and I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of them, particularly those to do with HMOs.

There are huge numbers of HMOs in my constituency and many other towns and cities, and the numbers are growing. HMOs are not well regulated, and local authorities do not have the power to institute the sort of fire safety measures residents would often ideally want. There is also a growing market in unregulated and illegal HMOs, often tucked away and out of sight, which are not being inspected.

I want to make two points calling for more action from the Government; one of them relates to this issue of inspection and the other is a more general point about liability. On inspection, I hope the Minister will acknowledge what I have been saying about the scale of this issue in towns such as Reading, a typical medium-sized urban area in Britain. Our local fire and rescue service estimates that 30 additional officers would be required to inspect the county of Berkshire, which has a population of about 800,000, with towns including Reading, Slough and Bracknell. Given the number of smaller but still possibly dangerous buildings, substantial investment is required from Government. I hope the Minister reflects on this and comes up with a realistic plan for funding the emergency services so that they can properly inspect the vast multitude of potentially dangerous buildings. They include, as mentioned earlier, educational buildings, and there is a whole series of other types of building that people use, as well as flats and HMOs. All these need to be inspected and the resources are currently very limited.

I should add that it can take up to two years—possibly in some cases longer, depending on the grade of the person—for fire safety officers to be fully trained. They need to be trained firefighters who specialise in this field.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I trust the hon. Gentleman is bringing his remarks to a close.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I have somewhat overrun.

My other point is briefly to reiterate the wise comments made by colleagues about the need for the owners of blocks—not just leaseholders, but freeholders—to contribute towards these schemes.

In summary, this is a step forward, but much more needs to be done and I urge the Government to look at the resources needed, particularly for inspection.

Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I wish to restate to the Committee that I will call Divisions only when they are really essential. As always, the Chair will listen to the debate and form a judgment on whether to exercise that discretion. I am reminding the Committee now, as we reminded the Committee that sat yesterday, that today the bar is a high one and that arguments in favour of going through the Division Lobbies will need to be very persuasive.

Clause 1

Expenditure on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at the beginning, insert “Subject to subsection (3),”

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 2 which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, after “persons” insert

“from not only Caribbean but also from other Commonwealth countries who arrived in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973 and persons who have a right of abode or settled status (or who are now British citizens) and who arrived to live in the UK before 31 December 1988,”

This amendment clarifies that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is not literally limited to men and women who originally came to the UK from the Caribbean Commonwealth.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 9, at end, insert—

“(3) Subject to subsection (4), modifications that must be made to the scheme before subsection (1) comes into force are set out in sections [Responsibility for the operation of the Compensation Scheme], [Consultation on simplifying the application process], [Time limit], [Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps], [Legal assistance], [Restrictions] and [Standard of proof], and [Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal].

(4) Subsection (3) does not prevent payment of interim awards under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This a paving amendment which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme before final payments can be funded by money provided by Parliament.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, at end insert

“, taking into account the impact of those difficulties on the family life of those persons”.

This amendment would require the scheme to take account of the impact on the family life of people who encountered difficulties in demonstrating their lawful immigration status.

Clause stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Responsibility for the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme—

“Within two months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must arrange for operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to be the responsibility of an institution other than the Home Office.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to move the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to an institution other than the Home Office.

New clause 2—Consultation on simplifying the application process—

“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process.

New clause 3—Time Limit—

“No time limit applies to when applications for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme must be received.”

This new clause would ensure that no time limit can be imposed on when applications should be received.

New clause 4—Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps—

“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This new clause would require a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the scheme.

New clause 5—Legal assistance—

“The Windrush Compensation Scheme must make provision for the reimbursement to applicants under the scheme of their reasonable costs of legal assistance in making applications for compensation under the Scheme.”

This new clause would allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme.

New clause 6—Restrictions—

“(1) Compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be denied to any individual on the basis that they have a criminal record.

(2) Awards of compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be reduced on grounds that the individual failed to contact the Home Office at an earlier stage.”

This new clause would modify the restrictions on the payment of compensation under the scheme.

New clause 7—Standard of proof—

“No requirement may be made of applicants for a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, including any claims relating to—

(a) loss of earnings

(b) reimbursement of private medical fees,

(c) reimbursement of international student fees, and

(d) loss of access to banking.”

This new clause would apply a civil standard of proof to claims for compensation under the scheme.

New clause 8—Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision by way of regulations for claimants to have a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against any determination issued under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought on the grounds that the determination was not in accordance with the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This new clause would allow claimants to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against determinations made under the scheme.

Points-based Immigration System

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. First of all, it is important to recognise that the new points-based system will work in the interests of the whole United Kingdom, which does include Scotland. Independent experts, including the Migration Advisory Committee, have recommended that a single, less restrictive system is absolutely right and is essential to attract the brightest and the best. Of course, we are already working with stakeholders across the country on how the system will work and how it will support all communities. I have already touched on various sectors, including seasonal agricultural workers.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about businesses. We are introducing greater flexibility for businesses, and those businesses that have engaged with the Home Office —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) may shake his head in disagreement, but the business community specifically asked for a number of factors, including: abolishing the resident labour market test; removing the cap on the number of skilled workers; and reducing the salary threshold, as it has been.

We have reformed the exceptional talent route, and we are working on a simpler, streamlined sponsorship process, both of which businesses asked for. We also aim to reduce the time taken to process visas. Skilled workers will also be able to switch easily between employers through a sponsor licence, which is effectively what businesses have asked for. We have delivered on that through this system.

It is fair to say that businesses have not only been engaged. The chief executive of Hays, the recruitment giant, recently said:

“To build a world-class economy, our businesses need access to world-class talent and not just originating from…the EU.”

I have a final point to make to the Scottish nationalists. I appreciate that we have been engaging and we have had dialogue with them, but it is important right now that the Migration Advisory Committee—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) just stops chuntering and lets me make this point—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not conduct debates while sitting.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can see the clock. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the clock—thank you very much indeed.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The MAC has stated that we should have a single UK immigration policy, one based on one system that will benefit every single part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) was right to point out that the clock is ticking. It is not going any faster than it normally does, but this statement is going rather slower, because questions have been rather long. When a question is long, the Minister has to give a long answer in order to answer the whole question. Therefore, let us all try to have shorter questions, so that the Minister can give shorter answers. In that way, everyone will get in. Otherwise, most people are not going to have a chance to say anything.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this policy, which she and I first discussed when I visited fruit farmers in her constituency when she was a thrusting young Back Bencher. Will she confirm that the great advantage of her scheme is that it gives flexibility and that we can now adapt our needs to supply and demand and the development of new labour-saving technologies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

You said it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Caring is not a low-skilled occupation and it is wrong for anybody in this House to say that it is. Carers provide essential and compassionate care to people—our loved ones—across our country and society. There is an important message for employers in the care sector: they should increase their pay to reflect the quality of care that is given. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have to go a lot faster.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on bringing forward this points-based immigration system—another Conservative manifesto policy being delivered. As an NHS doctor, I have worked with many talented colleagues from around the world. Can she confirm that the new NHS visa will enable doctors from around the world to come and work in the NHS quickly and easily?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s tone and the point that he has made. We have been very clear about this: we are growing the pilots. The pilot was established 12 months ago—let us say 12 months ago—and we have now announced that we are quadrupling the seasonal agricultural workers’ pilot. [Interruption.] Yes, to 10,000. That is quadrupling the scheme. At the same time, he will have heard that we are calling on business, and on all sectors, to invest in technology to increase wages and to increase productivity. That is something that we, as a nation, need to do collectively across all sectors.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that the Home Secretary is providing full answers to very serious questions, but the House will have to forgive her if she gives quicker answers, and not criticise her for not providing full explanations; otherwise, everyone will not get a chance to speak—they will probably not get a chance to speak anyway.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the move that is being promoted today. As an ethnic minority immigrant who came here to work in the national health service, that is to be expected. After I arrived here, the system changed. There are now opportunities for all Commonwealth English-speaking—well, sort of English-speaking—people from the top universities in the old Commonwealth. Should we not be campaigning to bring them here especially for our national health service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sorry; I know that more people wanted to speak—[Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) making gestures at me. Members will be aware that we have a lot of business tonight. I promise you that if I let this statement go on, you would not thank me at half-past 11 this evening, when you would still be here to vote. Mr Speaker and I hope that people will realise that a statement should be followed by questions, not speeches. We really must make these things work much faster in future. Let us see if we can do the next statement rather faster.

Automated Facial Recognition Surveillance

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Richard Fuller.

[Richard Fuller]

The usual prize—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) made an important point. The embedding of bias in technology is a major issue that will worsen with the early widespread adoption of artificial intelligence. The Government will inherit these biases as a user of these technologies, so will my hon. Friend, noting that the American studies show that the disproportionality of false recognition for ethnic minority women was between 10 and 100 times that for Caucasians, look seriously at how those technologies are improving as he progresses the adoption of this technology?