Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 outlines specific rights under the UK general data protection regulation, or UKGDPR, that can be restricted if they would likely prejudice either the maintenance of effective immigration control or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control. That is known in shorthand as the immigration exemption.
The regulations amend the immigration exemption following the judgment handed down in the case of the Open Rights Group (and another) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In this case, the Court of Appeal held while there was nothing in principle unlawful about having an exemption for the purposes of maintaining effective immigration control, the legislation itself did not fully reflect the safeguards required by article 23.2 of the UKGDPR. As a result, the Home Office made a commitment to amend the immigration exemption, setting out additional safeguards, where further safeguards were considered relevant. The deadline for bringing those changes into force is 31 January 2022.
As part of the process of preparing the draft regulations, the Department has consulted with the parties to the litigation and with the Information Commissioner’s Office and has considered carefully their observations and comments, making amendments to the draft as appropriate. It may be helpful if I provide some brief details about the new safeguards.
The right of the data subject to be informed of the immigration exemption’s use, save in certain circumstances, is now on the face of the legislation, once again proving our commitment to be as open and transparent as we are able. We have also put in place an immigration exemption policy document explaining how the immigration exemption must be operationally applied and the circumstances in which data rights might be exempted. The IEPD has been published and we will, of course, keep it under review.
Publication will also give stakeholders the opportunity to offer their views on the IEPD, and where it can be improved, we will act to make it so. We are committed to addressing legitimate concerns, promoting high standards in the application of the immigration exemption, and protecting individuals’ personal data. We believe the IEPD builds on the rights and safeguards already enshrined in legislation and adds to the existing guidance the Home Office has published, and the Information Commissioner’s Office has published. As we said in court, we follow the ICO guidance and welcome the comments it will likely wish to make, and have already made, on the document.
To be clear, we are also specifically limiting use of the immigration exemption to the Secretary of State. We wanted to put beyond doubt that the immigration exemption may not be used by so-called ‘rogue landlords’ to restrict a person’s rights, a point specifically raised in court and by other parties.
I want to be clear that by laying the regulations, we are not seeking to remove anyone’s rights but to add more safeguards to them, and to increase transparency about how the immigration exemption will be used. That builds on the guidance that the ICO has issued, to which we are adhering, and will continue to do so.
I hope that I have given the Committee a good sense of why the regulations will make a positive difference to our law, and I commend them to it.
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the points raised by hon. Members. As has been said, we have not appealed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In response to the SNP spokesperson, we felt it better to engage with the issues and seek to resolve some of the concerns. I understand the point about why not address all of the concerns in primary legislation but we felt that given concerns to do with data-processing, primary legislation raises certain issues, whereas published guidance is available, and in fact we have already published in draft and we have received comments. We expect that to be an evolving document. Of course, there would be an issue had we decided to issue private guidance, and questions would be asked about whether we were trying to avoid scrutiny.
We expect the published guidance to balance the need to give individuals access to information where appropriate and, for the sake of argument, not requiring the need to inform someone that we are taking immigration enforcement action or the details on what intelligence we may or may not have on activities, particularly on those who may be involved in potential criminal activity. Although we recognise that there is a crime exemption, we believe that there are circumstances where we need a specific immigration exemption as well, rather than try to extend the criminal exemption to cover immigration. Hence the action we have taken.
We believe that the regulations meet the objectives that were set out in the judgment. We appreciate that there will always be those who take a different view, and there will always be opportunity for oversight from the ICO and judicial oversight. We cannot change the regulations at will if that then undermined the purpose of the core legislation. We believe the regulations represent a positive step forward that will resolve the core concerns. In particular, it is made very clear that their use is restricted to the Secretary of State, given that the purpose is to maintain effective immigration control, not to give an excuse to third parties to try to withhold data that should be released. That core point has been raised by many, but we should be clear that the exercise of the power lies with the Home Secretary in terms of defence of the immigration system, and not with a landlord or agent who may seek to argue the exemption when required to declare information.
We believe that the regulations are the appropriate step forward. We recognise that we are responding to a court judgment, but we did not seek to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court because we thought that the points made in the judgment were reasonable and ones that we could accept. I repeat that the document will be an evolving one.
Michael Fabricant
A very brief one, indeed. Is my hon. Friend confident then that there will not be another appeal? My hon. Friend would then be back here again coming up with another amendment. Does the SI actually meet the requirements of the court and the judgment?
Kevin Foster
We believe that it does. I can never guarantee that someone will not take legal action against the Home Office. The campaigners won and it would have been the Home Office that would look to appeal to the Supreme Court. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South noted, we decided not to appeal but to engage with the judgment and introduce additional safeguards instead. The principle of having this type of legislative exemption was deemed to be perfectly rational, but it was felt that there was a need to be clearer and to have certain published safeguards on its use.
Given some of the data-sharing arrangements with the European Union on adequacy arrangements and the carve up it applied, we have engaged with the European Commission, and we are confident about our policy. Can I guarantee that no one will launch a legal challenge against the Home Office in future? No. We live in a country where people are able to do that. I have set out the purpose of the regulations, however, and the need for them. As I said, this is not about taking away anyone’s rights or weakening any protections on data access, rather the regulations are designed to strengthen those protections and to produce a living document that can respond to emerging issues and trends, and can be amended where appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We take our commitments to the victims of the Windrush scandal seriously, and our focus is on resolving claims as quickly as possible. To enable us to do that, we have recruited 40 new caseworkers, with 35 more in the pipeline for the coming months. We have also refreshed and streamlined internal processes to reduce processing times and improve user experience for those applying to the scheme.
Catherine West
A recent report criticised the Home Office, which was forced to apologise to charities and community groups that were meant to be supporting victims with their applications. The budget remains as full as ever and underspent. It took two years for one of my constituents to receive a reply, which is an absolute disgrace considering the age profile of Windrush victims. What will the Minister do to put that right? Will he outsource the process to a proper independent group that will get on with the job?
Kevin Foster
As we have said before, outsourcing would merely introduce further delays into the process when our focus should be on getting compensation out to the victims of the Windrush scandal. The hon. Member will be aware that the changes we made in December 2020 saw us pay considerably more compensation, offering an average of £3.1 million a month, with more than £38.7 million in compensation now offered. To be clear, there is no “budget” here; we will pay the compensation that is due to people, and there is no ceiling on what will be paid.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I remind the Home Secretary of the legal maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” This Government promised to try to right some of the wrongs with the Windrush compensation scheme in a time-limited manner. In November, the Home Affairs Committee found that only 20% of claimants had applied, and that only 5% had received any compensation. Twenty-three people have died before receiving their compensation. Is it not high time that the responsibility to provide justice to the ageing Windrush generation was passed on to an independent body capable of delivering it?
Kevin Foster
Again, we would make the point that moving this operation out of the Home Office would merely further delay the provision of the compensation that we all want to see paid. As I have touched on, we are recruiting more caseworkers and speeding up the process. Given the age cohort we are talking about, we are aware that some people have sadly passed away. However, that is why we are more motivated to speed up the process and make a real difference. As I have said, we have more staff coming in, and we will streamline the process to make it not only quicker, but simpler for those claiming compensation to engage with the team.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We accept that the asylum system is broken, often taking too long to reach decisions. We are working to fix it via the Nationality and Borders Bill. Alongside that, we have plans to speed up the decision-making process and reduce unnecessary delays. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his opposition to the Bill and play his part in helping to fix our broken system.
Afzal Khan
The Conservatives say that the asylum system is broken, but having been in power for more than a decade, the truth is that they are the ones who broke it. Asylums seekers are some of the most vulnerable individuals. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit revealed the emotional and physical trauma they experience—the anxiety, insomnia, self-harm, depression, deterioration of relationships with friends and support staff and reduced engagement with vital services. How has the Home Office’s ability to make initial decisions been allowed to collapse so completely under this Government? What steps will the Minister take to intervene to ensure the situation is addressed with urgency?
Kevin Foster
I am sorry to hear that it sounds like the hon. Gentleman will not be reconsidering his opposition to our reform plans, most notably in the Nationality and Borders Bill, while his party offers no meaningful alternative. The Home Secretary, the whole team in Government and I will continue to focus on our work to reform and update the system, to ensure it offers resettlement based on need, not the ability to pay a people trafficker. That is what our focus will continue to be and we are working towards that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
To be clear, the wider immigration system obviously operates separately from the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but we are carefully considering what the requirements are, and not least how we can ensure people can actually access the system to make applications because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, for obvious reasons we cannot run our usual application centre that we would have in Kabul given the Taliban’s control of the territory.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Kevin Foster
I have to point out to my hon. Friend that extending visas beyond six months comes with issues such as payment of the immigration health surcharge and the requirement to issue a biometric residence permit, where appropriate. There are some quite considerable issues with the request, but I am always happy to talk to him about how we can support the businesses in his constituency, and I would point out that visas are already not restricted to working at one farm.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The reality is that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has been woefully inadequate. In the last few years, we have seen fruit and veg being left to rot in the fields. Why then do this Government think it is clever to introduce a further taper, making it worse, and does the Minister understand the damage he is doing to agriculture?
Kevin Foster
It is safe to say that we have not seen the maximum number of visas taken up. The hon. Member may want to have a think about some of the issues that might have affected international travel for seasonal work over the past two years—particularly relating to a global pandemic. Ultimately, our goal is the right goal, and I think it is fair. I think what the vast majority of people across the UK believe is that in the first instance we should actually focus on making sure that job offers go to our domestic workforce and that key workers are appropriately rewarded.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
In our communities, we have asylum seekers who are ready and willing to work in sectors that are experiencing acute shortages, such as fruit and veg picking and HGV driving, but those occupations still do not appear on the shortage occupation list. When will the Government widen that list, or will they simply sacrifice the economy for their hostile immigration environment?
Kevin Foster
It is worth noting that those whose applications have been outstanding for over a year through no fault of their own can access jobs on the shortage occupation list, and we are expanding that to include care workers next month. This highlights an opportunity for 31 out of 32 local authority areas in Scotland to become part of the dispersal accommodation scheme, so that some of these people will be living in their communities.
European Entry-Exit System Requirements: Port of Dover
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) for securing the debate, and to other colleagues for attending it.
This is clearly a topic of some importance, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s understanding of the current position. The EU’s entry-exit system, which I will henceforth refer to as the EES for brevity, is a new means of collecting identity and travel document data and registering entry and exit records to and from the Schengen area. The introduction of the EES will affect non-EU citizens travelling into the EU’s Schengen zone. Furthermore, on routes where juxtaposed controls are in operation, such as at the port of Dover, EES checks will be undertaken by French officers prior to departure from the UK.
I have to make it clear that as a Schengen border measure, the design and implementation of the EES is a matter for the EU member states. The UK Government do not determine the rules for it, and Border Force will not administer it or be involved in its enforcement. However, as outlined by my hon. Friend, the UK clearly has an interest in its efficient implementation and operation due to the potential impacts on passengers travelling from the UK into the EU, particularly in terms of freight operations across the short straits. As mentioned, we, too, have ambitious plans for the border in order to maintain our focus on balancing fluidity and security with the future implementation of the ETA scheme. That will particularly be the case on routes that operate juxtaposed controls, as checks for the EES prior to departure from the UK will be undertaken at the Eurotunnel entrance in Dover, and at St Pancras here in London. Similarly, ETA checks will be undertaken by Border Force before departure to the UK. It is therefore very much in our interest to work with our counterparts in the EU, as well as with port and transport operators, to identify the requirements and issues involved.
Today, passenger numbers remain a fraction of pre-pandemic levels in many instances, and we are aware that the return to normal volumes of passengers, coupled with increased checks, could have the potential to cause queues. The juxtaposed controls that we operate are a unique and valuable part of the border system. As has been said, they have been in operation in a variety of locations on rail and sea transport modes for almost 30 years: they enable secure checks to be made, and allow both ourselves and our partner countries to protect our borders. Those co-operative controls operate on UK soil, and we respect the fact that UK nationals who have abused the hospitality of our European neighbours by committing criminal offences are therefore not welcome to visit those countries again—and, similarly, the other way around. We are all working together to ensure that this is a success. Last year, we completed work with our international partners to successfully extend the arrangements to cover Eurostar services to and from the Netherlands, helping to cut down the overall journey times on this important route into the UK for the travelling public.
It is probably too early to quantify these changes exactly, but they will be a key consideration in discussions around how the EES is implemented by the relevant authorities. There are innovative ways to implement changes, such as those proposed under this new system, and we very much hope our French partners are as open to them as the UK was with the introduction of the very successful EU settlement scheme. Considerations over how much of this process can take place prior to arrival at the border are ultimately a matter for France and the European Commission. However, we remain open to discussing innovative approaches that take place on UK territory, as the UK was to the juxtaposed controls when they were introduced some decades ago.
Turning to the prospect of disruption, it will obviously be the responsibility of the police aux frontières to implement the checks on behalf of the EU member states. We are engaging with France with the aim of ensuring that the checks are implemented in a way that does not damage border throughput. Specific advice will be provided to the travelling public about the introduction of the EES with a view to increasing awareness of the new travel requirements and driving up compliance for both freight and non-freight travellers. However, to be clear, the requirements apply to the person travelling, not to goods and customs arrangements, which are separate and in place already.
I accept that any combination of near-normal levels of travel with the introduction of this new system could have quite a big impact. With people familiarising themselves not only with covid travel rules but with this new system, there could be queues, particularly at Dover. However, for many years there has been a productive working relationship between Border Force and its French counterparts to maintain flows at this key location, and we are constantly talking to them to try to make sure that we can continue to maintain flows, in the interests of both our nations—beyond the introduction of the EES.
I recognise that there is a particular challenge posed by passengers in vehicles. In line with our commitments, we will work with the implementing authorities to determine the infrastructure requirements, processes and procedures that result from the introduction of the EES. To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, practicality and safety considerations for passengers in vehicles are important elements to be agreed with our French partners. As she outlined, requiring all passengers to exit vehicles to register their biometric and biographic data would be hugely challenging, and we trust that our French partners will be open to exploring alternatives, especially given the obvious safety issues around requiring passengers to mix with active traffic flows at a busy port.
We have been engaging in this area to understand, in particular, what data the Schengen entry checks and the EES will look to secure. We understand that the biometric data to be captured is a facial photograph and four fingerprints, and that, for those enrolling for the first time, it must be captured under the supervision of a border official. Likewise, to counter fraudulent use, there will be a requirement for the supervision of any enrolment kiosks for all passengers. To be clear, this is something that will be in place at all entry points to the Schengen area; it will not be unique to entry from the United Kingdom. The juxtaposed controls present a particular situation, but also an opportunity, that we need to explore and resolve.
Last week, the European Commission announced that it is planning for the implementation of the EES in September. We of course want to finalise plans for the implementation under the juxtaposed controls that are based in the UK as soon as possible; however, we cannot set particular deadlines or timelines, given that it is all subject to further discussion with our French partners, who will operate them on behalf of the Schengen zone.
We recognise the port of Dover’s role as a key entry and exit point to and from the UK for a wide variety of time-sensitive goods, as well as passengers. Prior to the pandemic in 2019, it handled 1.2 million roll-on-roll-off units—more than all other ports serving mainland EU routes combined. It is also the UK’s largest international sea passenger port, handling nearly 11 million passengers in 2019. We are therefore fully committed to protecting this vital link, and that will be a key priority in our approach to assisting our partners in an effective implementation of the EES.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for securing the debate, and I join her in congratulating and thanking the port of Dover for the outstanding contribution to the economy that it facilitates through seamless daily trade with our European partners. I recognise the vital work that Dover Harbour Board undertook to complete a traffic management improvement project, which delivered an additional 4 km of freight holding capacity to help to keep traffic moving and better deal with traffic peaks. As the UK’s busiest roll-on-roll-off port, Dover is a recognised pressure point at the frontier and maintaining flow is a priority for UK customs planning, without compromising border security.
Across Government, officials will continue to engage with the port, the chamber of shipping and road hauliers to work through ways in which we can ensure that the border continues to be effective through 2022, with the staged customs controls coming to an end on 1 January and the prospect of the introduction of the EES in September 2022. It will have to be a cross-Government effort. I note the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for a meeting with me. That meeting would almost certainly need to involve colleagues from the Cabinet Office, who take the lead on a number of the items that she highlighted in terms of the direct relationship with the European Union. To be clear, the Home Office’s role is very much on the operational side of how Border Force and the police aux frontières can come to sensible working arrangements on the ground that suit the shared interests of our two nations.
As I have a bit of time, and a colleague from north Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) is in the Chamber, for anyone querying what impact this may have on, for example, Holyhead to Dublin, the answer is none, because the Republic of Ireland is not in the Schengen zone. It is obviously part of the common travel area with the United Kingdom, and therefore routine immigration controls are not in place at Holyhead or Dublin in terms of entry to the UK; however, there are provisions for intelligence-led operations. To be clear, if people are wondering why we are focusing on Dover rather than mentioning other entry points from the European economic area, it is because the EES will not apply to travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, due to the common travel area and the Republic not being part of the Schengen zone.
The debate has been a useful opportunity to highlight and discuss the issues. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Cabinet Office colleagues to discuss some of the points that have been raised. Given that the decision process is going through the European Union and being implemented by French colleagues, I hope that she will understand that sadly I cannot give some of the answers today that I would be able to give were the UK Home Office deciding and implementing the process; however, I assure her that we are committed to doing whatever we can to make sure that the border functions effectively, not just when coming into the UK but when going out of it, because we recognise the strong impact that there will be if that is not the case, particularly in Dover.
Question put and agreed to.
Vulnerable Asylum Seeker Services: Stockton
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. Before I start I would like to put on the record my thanks to local organisations Asylum Matter North East and Justice First for the vital work they do supporting asylum seekers in our area, and for the constructive and helpful engagement we have had over the years, which has ensured that problems such as the one I am about to discuss with the Minister are brought to my attention.
The asylum accommodation system has been run by the Home Office through private contractors for the past 20 years, without enough investment in local communities or adequate consultation with them. The outsourcing of these contracts with little oversight from or accountability to the Home Office, coupled with poor planning and ever-lengthier delays in decision making, has meant the accommodation system has lurched from crisis to crisis. The backlog of asylum claims waiting to be dealt with is at a record high, with 67,547 people waiting for even an initial decision and more than 125,000 either waiting for a further decision or due to be removed from the UK. A total of 37,562 applications were made in the year to September, which is more than were made in any 12-month period since the year to June 2004.
As a result of the Government’s failure to deal with processing in a timely fashion, on multiple occasions the Home Office has had to rely on contingency accommodation which, as the Minister knows, means the use of hotels, hostels or other institutional settings on an emergency basis. There are currently around 6,000 asylum seekers in hotels but, contrary to the views of some, they are not living in five-star accommodation.
Stockton’s experience of hosting supposedly “short-term” contingency hotel accommodation over the past two years has demonstrated how unsuitable this institutionalised accommodation is for people seeking sanctuary. Despite the huge efforts of people and organisations across Stockton to welcome and support the women and children accommodated, I have no doubt that they have suffered both physical and mental health harm.
I wish to paint a picture for the Minister of the current circumstances of some of the most vulnerable women in the country, who we as a nation are forcing to live in appalling conditions. I will focus in particular on certain asylum accommodation in my hometown of Stockton. Because of the vulnerabilities of many of the women who find their way to Stockton, I will not closely identify where they are accommodated, although I expect the Minister will be aware of the one establishment that I am going to discuss more fully.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
For the benefit of the House, I confirm that I am aware of the place to which the hon. Gentleman refers but, like him, I think that in this forum it is best not to specifically identify the property.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate on services for asylum seekers in his community. As he has demonstrated, he is a passionate advocate on this issue and the work being done by his local community to support those who we, as the Home Office, look to support. I welcome any opportunity to hear the views of the House on this important subject, not least given the vulnerability of those involved. I will come on to talk about the specific issue he raised but, like him, I will not reference the exact locations, given the vulnerable nature of these service users. I am sure that he appreciates that that is not about me not wanting to be open with the House, but because it is not appropriate in a public forum to confirm those types of details.
Before I turn to some of the specific points raised, I want to emphasise that the United Kingdom has a proud record of helping people facing persecution, oppression and tyranny, and we stand by our obligations to help those fleeing persecution. Support is provided to destitute asylum seekers until their claims are finally determined, and to failed asylum seekers if they are destitute and unable to leave the UK immediately due to circumstances beyond their control. The support provided includes accommodation, an asylum support allowance, and access to our advice, issue reporting and eligibility provider, Migrant Help. Many local authorities play an important role in supporting asylum seekers, including, as has been well outlined, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, through participation in the asylum dispersal scheme and provision of key support services. I gratefully acknowledge all the Members of this House who represent their local communities and actively work with their local councils in this area of work, not just by talking in the House about supporting those seeking asylum but by actually doing it in their own area and local community.
The asylum system does face some challenges, and the pandemic, combined with the arrival of a significant number of small boats, has increased the numbers of people within the system. That has meant that, in addition to delays in the time it takes to consider a claim for asylum, the demand for support has increased at a time when local authority housing services are already stretched. To put this in context, published data in September 2021 showed that there had been a 35% increase in demand for accommodation since the start of the pandemic, resulting in more than 68,000 service users being provided with accommodation while their claims are considered.
We cannot let this go on. Therefore, through our new plan for immigration, we will seek to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum while deterring illegal entry. It is particularly vital that we put an end to dangerous and unnecessary sea crossings from safe and democratic countries with functioning asylum systems. As the tragic loss of life in the channel last month has underlined, we need to do everything we can to stop people making perilous journeys with sometimes tragic consequences.
As I touched on, the demand on the asylum accommodation estate has meant that we have had to secure contingency hotel accommodation across the United Kingdom, including in Stockton, as has been highlighted in this debate. Hotel accommodation should only ever be a short-term measure to meet our immediate statutory need and not part of our long-term plan for accommodating service users. We are therefore working closely with our accommodation providers to increase the amount of dispersed accommodation available to us to allow us to exit the hotels we are using as a contingency for this purpose.
Kevin Foster
Recent conversations have been positive, and we are exploring all the options to ensure that people are moved on from hotels as quickly as possible, including through the very welcome conversations we have had with our local partners in Stockton. We have also been working collaboratively with colleagues across Government, particularly in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to identify empty homes across the UK that could be utilised for this purpose now and potentially as affordable accommodation more widely in future.
Furthermore, we are taking a number of steps to increase the part local authorities play in helping us meet our statutory obligations towards asylum seekers of all ages. I make clear from this Dispatch Box that it is only right that we all do our bit, and not just a small number of areas. We have therefore recently issued the relevant notice to mandate all local authorities to participate in the national transfer scheme, to ensure that the responsibility for caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is shared fairly across the entire United Kingdom. I am grateful for the continued and invaluable support of local authorities across the country, which continue to provide crucial placements to vulnerable young asylum seekers. It is right we do all we can to protect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, many of whom have been exploited by people smugglers during their journey.
The high number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children over recent months, alongside limited local authority participation in some cases, has placed unprecedented pressure on the national transfer scheme. Out of necessity, and with the children’s best interests in mind, we accommodated these children on an emergency and temporary basis in hotels while placements with local authorities were vigorously pursued. Intake remains very high and the situation remains extremely challenging. Hence, as I have already outlined, the Government have now taken the decision to mandate local authority participation in the scheme, although we are still in the period when local authorities can make representations about their individual circumstances.
Alex Cunningham
I place on record that coming from an area where we have almost the maximum recommended number of people, in Middlesbrough and Stockton, we very much welcome the fact that the Government have taken the step to mandate all other areas, because we are at saturation point, as I think they say. It is only right and proper that other communities also welcome refugees.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. There are other parts of this policy area where we will not agree, so it is pleasing to hear that this is one where we do. My own local authority has participated in the voluntary rota and is taking its share. As he touches on, it is only right that all local councils are doing their fair share unless there are circumstances that mitigate against their being part of it, and are not, for example, not taking part and therefore requiring others to do even more than their fair share of this work.
We have not taken this step lightly, but we believe it acts in the best interests of the children concerned. The main focus of the mandating is to end the use of hotels for accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. For clarity, we aim to return to a voluntary scheme in future, but only when the use of hotels is ended and the system is on a sustainable basis in terms of capacity and likely participation in a voluntary rota.
Alongside the moves to increase participation in the national transfer scheme, we are also working to increase participation in the asylum dispersal scheme to ensure that the local authorities working with us, including Stockton, are not unduly pressured as the high demand continues. We continue to work with local authorities to identify opportunities to increase the number of areas that accommodate asylum seekers across the UK, and we have produced a change plan designed in conjunction with local councils and the local government associations across the UK to achieve a more equitable distribution of service users across the UK.
We are in the process of reviewing the change plan through a number of dedicated forums, and I look forward to confirming more details of the changes we plan to make shortly. Those changes will recognise the points made by local authorities that have been part of the system for a long time—in many cases, they first volunteered to be part of it in 1999 or 2000—about funding and the wider impact of having larger numbers in certain communities. As I say, we are very much engaging with them and look forward to confirming some changes that we believe will address many of the points that have been raised and will actively encourage other authorities to take part.
Despite the challenges that we have faced, we have consistently met our statutory obligations towards destitute asylum seekers. We expect the highest standards from our service providers, including while utilising hotels, and we monitor them closely to ensure that they meet those standards. Where essential living needs are not already provided for in hotels, a cash allowance is provided. Extra assistance is provided for those who can show that they have exceptional needs, and additional support is also available for special cases—for example, further top-ups are available for families with pregnant mothers or very young children.
All asylum seekers have access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to the advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, through which they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services and get information about how to obtain further support.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister heard my concerns about the level of service provided by Migrant Help, including the time it takes to answer the phone and that it often does not even pass on particular complaints. Will he review what is happening there to ensure that it delivers the standards that he expects?
Kevin Foster
I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman again on those points, and I am happy to review that. We welcome feedback about how the service is performing, particularly from Members of Parliament who represent constituencies where a larger number of service users are likely to be accessing it. We certainly encourage hon. Members to come forward if there are particular problems or issues. I appreciate that some service users may not necessarily want to approach the Home Office directly, but we welcome it when they make representations to alert us to issues via a local Member of Parliament.
I turn to the specific situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. While I am at the Dispatch Box I take the opportunity to thank Julie Danks, the managing director of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, for the progressive and collaborative approach taken in working with us to help to understand the local issues and to raise the standard of services delivered.
I will not name it, but one of the hotels that we have been using in Stockton has been used exclusively for women and women with children, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. We have agreed to move away from that hotel and to move women with children as a priority to our community-based dispersal accommodation. Single women will also be moved to an alternative location within the community. I thank the council again for the constructive engagement that we have had about providing an alternative to the use of that particular hotel.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why, for obvious reasons, given the vulnerability of those people, I will not go into the details of those arrangements on the Floor of the House. I would be happy to brief him separately about the arrangements being made, if he is not already aware of them. I hope that that is acceptable to other hon. Members present and that they understand why I make that offer separately rather than detailing them in this speech at the Dispatch Box.
We believe the changes we are putting in place will significantly improve access to the specialist support services available for all those in need. As background, our standard services include health and wellbeing screenings, an on-site resident welfare manager during business hours, appropriate contacts available outside business hours to ensure any urgent issues are resolved, and an induction pack in a number of languages that is made available on arrival. Alongside our standard support services, a range of on-site activities has also been available in the facilities we have used, and these include classes for mothers and babies, playgroups for toddlers, language lessons and careers support, recreational activities and wellbeing classes. Pregnant women have been supported and then, where possible, moved into mother and baby units close to the hotels we have been using. However, as I have touched on, we do want to move away from the hotel to which the hon. Gentleman referred in particular.
While I am at the Dispatch Box, I would really like to highlight the community and charity organisations in the area that have been helping to support us. One of them, working in collaboration with our contractor, has provided additional items for service users and a range of activities and classes to help women access services and support. We will continue to work with all partners to ensure that mothers with young children are supported locally and are able to access local networks and services. We do not underestimate the importance of these services and the value they provide, especially to women with babies, who may find the first few months of motherhood challenging, and those with young children trying to adjust to life here in the UK. In all cases, we will seek to ensure that relocation of any individual is appropriate, and decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Let me conclude by again expressing my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue in the House. Again, I really want to thank all in Stockton—MPs, councillors and the wider community—for the commitment they are showing. I do encourage more local authorities from across the UK to engage with the Home Office, through the strategic migration partnership, to increase dispersal and relieve overall pressures on the system and the need to use hotels as contingency accommodation.
As I said earlier, the United Kingdom has a proud record of giving refuge, sanctuary and support to some of the world’s most vulnerable and oppressed people, and the communities of Stockton North have provided us with invaluable support in doing just that. However, we cannot do this without the support—the active, engaged support—of local communities, and I believe the hon. Gentleman can be proud that this is something his community has provided for many years, is continuing to provide to this day and will I am sure go on providing for many years to come. With that, and having paid tribute to those who are doing their bit, we would now encourage others to step forward in this way and do theirs as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Kevin Foster ExcerptsTuesday 7th December 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 December 2021 - (7 Dec 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It has certainly been an interesting debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) —I think he is moving on to pastures new after this debate—and I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), to his position.
The debate started with at least one positive point from an Opposition Member, when the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), referred to some of the changes we are looking to make to correct historical anomalies that have existed for far too long. The reforms we make in the Bill to British nationality law will finally address those anomalies, which will have a positive impact for a significant number of people. The Bill also includes measures for the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to people who would have become British citizens if not for unfairness and exceptional circumstances beyond their control.
Let me turn to some of the amendments. Government amendments 17 and 18, in relation to deprivation of citizenship, are minor and technical amendments to correct a drafting error in clause 9, so this is an appropriate opportunity to address amendment 12 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
We heard some quite strong comments from Opposition Members about amendment 12, but let us really get into what clause 9 does. It amends section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow the requirement to give notice of a decision to deprive a person of their citizenship to be disapplied in certain limited circumstances, such as where there is no way of communicating with the person. For example, as was well pointed out by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, if someone is in a warzone, it is rather impractical to suggest that we should ask them to stop shooting so that we can pop up and serve them a notice. We heard some extraordinary comments from Opposition Members implying that we can simply pop a letter in the post and it will almost certainly get to someone.
To be clear, clause 9 does not change the circumstances under which a person can be deprived of British citizenship, nor does it remove the right of appeal against a decision to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it preserves the right of appeal in cases where specified circumstances mean it is not reasonable to serve a person with a notice of a decision to deprive. The Government’s minor amendments to clause 9 clarify that the statutory right of appeal in deprivation cases is a right to appeal against the deprivation decision itself and not the deprivation order.
As was touched on, deprivation of citizenship is hardly a new concept; it has been in operational practice for many years, including under Labour Governments. The 1981 Act provides a statutory right of appeal against a decision to deprive. Clause 9 preserves that right of appeal in cases where the notice of a decision to deprive has not been served. Once a person makes contact with the Home Office, they are given a copy of the deprivation decision notice. They can then seek to exercise their statutory right to appeal against the decision.
Kevin Foster
Amendment 12 would remove clause 9 in its entirety, undermining the integrity of the immigration system and this Government’s efforts to keep dangerous people out of this country. To reiterate, there is no change in the scope of who could potentially be deprived, no change in the criteria, and appeal rights are still there.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It is important that we are completely accurate in what we are saying. It is true that the Bill actually does extend the role of the Home Secretary with regard to notices. Let us be clear: it places in the power of the Home Secretary the decision that they need not give notice if that is
“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or,”
breathtakingly,
“otherwise in the public interest.”
That confers a huge amount of discretion on the Home Secretary. The Bill takes our concerns about due process to another plane.
Kevin Foster
I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman did not throw a book at the Dispatch Box this time. Let me repeat what I just said: no one extra in scope, no change in criteria, and judicial oversight still there for an appeal. Let us be clear that we cannot simply allow someone who could cause high harm to this country, or who has gained citizenship via fraud, to avoid these provisions simply by hiding away—for example, in one of the repressive regimes that some Opposition Members seem far too supportive of—where we cannot reasonably issue them with a notice. We cannot be in a position where we could never deprive someone of citizenship just because it is not practical to pop a letter in the post to them.
I turn now to new clause 2, which I am afraid would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law dating back to 1915, under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories, creating quite a major precedent. However, I do hear the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and, to be fair, by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We will continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke powerfully to new clause 4. The Government remain extremely grateful to former British Hong Kong service personnel. He will be aware that under the British nationality selection scheme a limited number of personnel who were settled in Hong Kong could apply to register as British citizens. Additionally, because they were all adults at the time, all such veterans would have been eligible to acquire BNO status between 1986 and 1987. We therefore believe that most should hold BNO status and be eligible for the BNO route.
Granting the right of abode would set quite a precedent. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Home Secretary has identified an option that will enable our Government to treat this group of personnel in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel who were based in Hong Kong before handover. To be clear, that would be on top of the existing pathways they are already eligible for, including the BNO visa route and any other route. There is considerable work to be done to fully scope the impacts of this policy and the practicalities of its delivery, and I will aim to provide further details to the House as soon as I am able to, with a view to a solution being provided before the end of the next calendar year. I hope that that is of reassurance to my hon. Friend, whose regular challenge to us is that it is not just about having an idea; it is also about having a timeline to deliver it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others spoke powerfully about new clause 5, which raises issues about eligibility for the BNO route and particularly about those who were too young to obtain BNO status before the handover to China and whose BNO parents or grandparents, with whom they form a household, do not wish to apply for that route—effectively, they do not wish to move from Hong Kong. There are issues with the new clause as it is drafted, given that it does not contain an age limit and its scope could extend even to those who have never set foot in Hong Kong. However, we hear the very strong points that have been made, and we very much recognise the importance of our close ties to the people of Hong Kong.
I emphasise that those who are not eligible for the BNO route have a number of other UK immigration routes available to them, not least the very expanded skilled worker route. Individuals from Hong Kong can also apply to come, for example, as a student. As my right hon. Friend referred to, there is the existing youth mobility scheme, which is open to those aged between 18 and 30 and which offers a two-year grant of leave in the UK, with scope to switch, once people are here, to routes that lead to permanent settlement. There are currently 1,000 places available each year, and the scheme is substantially under-subscribed.
We believe that those existing measures allow a lot of people to come, and we expect one or two of the new routes being created next year to also open up a pathway to this age group in Hong Kong, alongside others. However, my right hon. Friend asked me about two specific points. First, if the other side unilaterally enacted its provision, that would not automatically change the immigration rules here in the United Kingdom. That would be something we would have to do to close the route for applications by Hong Kong nationals. I must be clear that if unilateral action happened that further damaged the rights and abilities of people in Hong Kong, the Government would look closely at whether to maintain the scheme, to put something else in its place or to continue to allow it to go forward. I point out that we have a number of successful YMS schemes.
On the timeline for applications, whatever route we put in place—I would not want to disabuse my right hon. Friend—there would be a period of time between applying and getting a decision. In the context of our simplification process and the fact that we have moved to create, in some cases, wholly digital pathways for application to the BNO route by Hong Kong citizens, we are certainly happy to look again at whether some of those principles could be applied to the YMS in Hong Kong.
I noted the comments from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). We very much welcome and value the contribution of overseas workers in the NHS; that is why we introduced the health and care worker visa. However, making changes in one area would potentially require changes in others, including to routes that some other NHS staff are on. I should also point out that new clause 7 itself would see the applicant, if they left NHS employment within three years, having to pay the fee. I can understand why he sought to put his provision into the Bill, but it would be quite a novel approach that would be difficult for the Home Office to operationalise and would inevitably require enforcement. That is why we do not think it is the right approach.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate children registered as British citizens under new clause 8. However, I must be clear that we are still waiting for the Supreme Court to give its judgment on this issue, and we will then look to respond.
We do not believe we can accept new clause 33, as we believe all applicants for UK nationality should be treated the same in the tests applied, but we are considering how the issue could be picked up as part of our work on simplification—applying it not only to those who hold settled status under the EU settlement scheme, but potentially to ILR holders more broadly. Although we will not accept the new clause today, I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow North East will be pleased to hear that we are looking closely at that work. I emphasise again, as I have said many times before, that no one has been refused British citizenship purely on the basis of the CSI requirement in free movement regulations.
Turning to amendment 2 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which would remove clause 10, unfortunately we are seeing an increasing trend of applications for children whose parents did not take the step of registering their child’s birth with their embassy or high commission, leaving their child without a nationality. Given the request for data, concerns about the use of that route were confirmed by Home Office sampling.
Of more than 200 cases sampled, 96% of parents were Indian or Sri Lankan. Crucially, a child born in the UK to a parent from those countries can only access their citizenship if the parent registers the birth at the relevant high commission. To register the child’s birth they would need to comply with the requirements set. Within the sample, 90% of Indian and Sri Lankan parents had chosen to contact the high commission to obtain letters to show their child was in fact not a citizen, and so clearly had no problem in approaching their authorities. In many cases, the parents had, I think it is safe to say, a chequered immigration record, with only 16% of parents having permission to be in the UK at the time of the child’s birth. In 67% of the cases, the parents had obtained leave to remain in the UK as a result of the child’s applications. That points to why we believe this is a clear concern.
To deal quickly with amendments 110 and 111, amendment 110 would mean in practical terms that parents who had chosen not to register their child’s birth could argue it was not in their child’s best interest to have their nationality. That could raise some obvious issues and concerns and create quite an argument, when in reality that is not something they should be doing—certainly not for an immigration benefit.
Overall, the package of measures in the Bill is fair and proportionate. Again, I say, as many Members have done in their interventions, that the scaremongering about some of the provisions in the Bill and about people who would never be in the scope of the tight criteria for deprivation of citizenship is nothing less than shocking. The criteria applies to those who have committed the worst offences or who are literally overseas committing war crimes. This will never apply in the way that Opposition Members have suggested. I urge the House to reject some of the nonsense that we have heard and vote to support these measures, which will transform our migration system and make sure that we have a nationality system that is fit for purpose.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I speak to my new clause 9, I want to associate myself fully with the comments of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). In normal times that might surprise people, but I think she put very eloquently the real challenges and issues of offshoring and pushing back.
New clause 9 calls on the Home Office to fill the gap between the digital-by-default proof of status under the EU settlement scheme and the reality of people’s lives. It is typical of the Home Office to have set up a system that does not understand the interactions that people will have to have while proving their status. I thank the Minister for speaking to me about this, and for his letter of today.
Let me give some facts. I represent over 10,000 EU citizens in Hackney South and Shoreditch; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) represents many thousands more. In my constituency, they are 8.5% of the population. Some 60% of Roma people are unable to access digital proof, and there are other groups who have real problems with digital access. Let me mention just some of the cases in my case load. An EU citizen living in my constituency who visits France weekly for work is interrogated by Border Force every time she arrives back in the UK. Another constituent has parents in their 70s who struggle to understand the complex process of proving their status digitally. Another case involves a freelancer who has had to prove his identity to every new employer, which can be every five or six weeks. The website is sometimes down, and many employers just do not want to engage, so he has lost money.
Another constituent works for a charity working with the Roma; it gave the figure of 60% of Roma people finding it difficult to access digital proof. I thank the3million, which has written to me since I tabled the new clause and explained many of these situations, which I do not have time to go into, but I reiterate the concerns of my constituents.
I say to the Minister, whose job I did just over a decade ago, that we are not so far apart on this. I, too, support methods that take us away from the old Immigration and Nationality Directorate letters, which many of my constituents still come to surgeries with in their wallets, folded up until they are falling apart. They are not a great way of proving one’s status in the UK. People lose passports. There are gaps in the system. We have seen with the covid app how we can make a difference by combining digital and paper.
Kevin Foster
An app-based solution was helpfully suggested by the3million. Having held my role, the hon. Lady will know the usual sorts of security caveats that we would add, but it is certainly something we will look at.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for that—it is a bit of a breakthrough. It is important that the Home Office remembers that people will lose records. When they are travelling, they will be in places where there is no wi-fi through which they can access information. A time-limited document that they at least have the option to have on paper would be a very welcome move.
On the basis of what the Minister has said—I will watch him like a hawk on this—I will not press my new clause to a vote, but the hon. Members who signed it have a very strong interest in this. We are talking about EU citizens who have made their life in this country, and we need to give them the comfort that they deserve, so that they can go about their ordinary lives easily and effectively.
Registers of Births and Deaths Bill
Kevin Foster ExcerptsFriday 26th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Registers of Births and Deaths Bill 2021-22 View all Registers of Births and Deaths Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I recognise that he has always been a doughty champion of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not share that concern in reference to my Bill because the reason for the deaths is stipulated by the coroner, which is outside the scope of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It might be helpful if I point out that in many cases it would be the medical certificate of the causes of death that would set out the circumstances of the death and what particular conditions may have been involved. That is part of the registration process, but its contents are not necessarily affected by the proposed change.
Saqib Bhatti
I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, but it is my contention that that would be covered by the coroner’s process. Of course, there are avenues for reflection and appeal for anyone who is the informant in that instance.
Kevin Foster
Perhaps it might help if I say that these changed procedures would not change the rules about what goes into the medical certificate of the cause of death. We have already moved how it is transmitted, so the process and methods for raising any concerns are not fundamentally affected by whether it is a paper register or an electronic register, which, of course, already runs in parallel to the paper system.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the Minister for further clarification on that point.
I mentioned that I spoke to the National Association of Funeral Directors, and I am sure the whole House will pay tribute to the funeral industry, which, like many parts of our community, has worked incredibly hard over the past 12 to 18 months due to covid. I certainly pay tribute to funeral directors for their hard work.
Registering a death has traditionally been a paper-driven process and has often been hindered by delays in the system, which serve to increase the gap between the death and the funeral. In fact, a survey of NAFD members in 2021 confirmed that 82% of funeral directors felt that processing the forms digitally was working either well or very well, and almost 80% of respondents confirmed that they rarely or never experienced delays in the registration of deaths.
But I would go further: if we have the chance today to ease the pain of any individual who is grieving, we ought to take that opportunity. That is the opportunity I believe this Bill presents. The last thing anyone who is grieving wants to do is to make that journey—sometimes a very long journey—to the registrar to register a death. Being able to do so electronically may provide some relief in an otherwise difficult time. I reassure my hon. Friends that, as has already been mentioned, this Bill does not make any changes to the information that is to be recorded in an entry, such as who can act as a qualified informant. That remains the same in the case of a birth or a death.
A further change that clause 1 makes to current procedure relates to how information is given to the superintendent registrar. Currently, registrars are required to submit copies of all the birth and death entries that they have registered in the last quarter to their superintendent registrar through a system of quarterly returns. When received from the registrar, the superintendent registrar certifies all the entries as being true copies of the birth and death entries in the registers, and forwards them to the Registrar General. The Registrar General holds a central repository of all births and deaths registered in England and Wales, which is then completed electronically using the electronic system.
My Bill removes that administrative burden, because the move to an electronic register would make the system of quarterly returns unnecessary. Following the registration of a birth or death in the electronic register, the entry would immediately be available to the superintendent registrar and Registrar General without having to complete the quarterly return process from the paper registers.
I turn briefly to the clauses. As already explained, clause 1 removes the duplication of processes and no longer requires the upkeep of a paper register. Instead, all registrations of births and deaths will be processed on to the electronic register. The clause also ends the administrative burden of quarterly returns, as I have stated, as the electronic register will make birth and death entries available to the Registrar General and the superintendent registrar immediately.
Clause 2 makes arrangements for the equipment and facilities to be maintained by local authorities. It makes it clear that all local authorities must provide and maintain the relevant equipment and facilities that the Registrar General deems necessary for all register and sub-district register offices.
Clause 3 introduces a new power that amends the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and allows the Minister to bring before the House new regulations in respect of non-paper registration. Where someone complies with specific requirements, such as the provision of identification, they will be treated as having signed the register in the presence of the registrar.
Crucially, if passed by the House under the affirmative procedure, provision may be made to include the signing of something other than the register, so that a wet signature would not be required and an electronic one would be acceptable. Those requirements would have to be put to the House in further legislation. The clause makes it clear that the Government can do so only under the affirmative procedure, which means that the provisions must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Kevin Foster
To be absolutely clear, that is not the Government’s intent. The law will still provide for hard-copy birth certificates.
Sir Christopher Chope
What my hon. Friend is referring to is like saying, “When I print off an email, it’s a hard copy.” It is not a hard copy; it is emailed and printed off. The Minister is talking about an electric record that can be reproduced in hard copy form. If we are talking about hard-hard copies, then, as I asked earlier, how does that fit in with the Forgery Act? Obviously, hard copies depend on having holograph signatures, and we hear that in this Bill there is the power for people to be able to register births without having to provide any signature at all unless they can send their signature by electronic means to the registration district. This is a very serious issue.
Without dwelling any more on the history of the Act, let me just say that throughout the mid-19th century, the only blip on issues relating to birth registrations, which were increasing the whole time, was the Vaccination Act 1853, which tied compulsory vaccination of all infants to their registration and gave powers for parents to be fined for non-compliance. As always happens with the law of good intentions, it ended out quite differently because as it was the local registrar who informed parents of their legal obligation to vaccinate their children, parents who feared vaccination avoided the registrar. Plus ça change, as they might say, in the context of today’s attempts to try to require compulsory vaccination for everybody in this country even if it means depriving them of their right to work in a care home or in the national health service.
The Bill itself contains a number of provisions about which I raised concerns with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he brought it forward originally. One of those is the fact that there are lots of regulation-making powers in the Bill. I said to him that I thought it was desirable that those regulations or orders should be available in draft at Committee stage so that they could be properly examined in Committee. He said that he thought that was a really good idea. However, when we got to Committee, no such draft regulations were available.
I presume, because the Government attach urgency to this Bill and more than a year has elapsed, that those regulations and draft orders are available. I look forward to the Minister confirming that they are, but if they are not, why not? When will they be available? Why can we not see them before the Bill goes into Committee? These draconian measures give great power to the Government to set out regulations and change the existing law. It seems bad practice that people should be expected to go through a detailed Bill such as this in Committee without having any inkling of what the Government are hiding away in the regulations that are held in the relevant Department and are not being openly disclosed. I fear that that total lack of transparency is almost endemic in so much of what the Government do.
My next concern about the Bill is that under clause 1(3), section 28 of the 1953 Act, in relation to the custody of registers, would be repealed. That would remove any requirement for registration officers to hold registers. As a consequence, the hard copies that so many people look at when they examine their family history would not be available and accessible. Clause 4 states that such a repeal of section 28 would not affect the requirement that every superintendent registrar should keep records that were already in existence, provided that that did not cover records issued between 2009 and the day when this Bill comes into effect.
I was assured by my right hon. Friend and the Minister, who responded to the debate on the previous Bill, which is on identical terms, that the requirement to keep existing—or what might be described as old—records would not be affected in any way. However, when one looks at clause 6 of this Bill, one sees that the Government are taking the power to make further consequential provisions on any provision of this Act, including clause 4, which is meant to be a safeguard. That power
“is exercisable by statutory instrument”.
It includes the powers
“to make different provision for different purposes”
and
“to make transitional, transitory or saving provision”,
and it
“may, in particular, be exercised by amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under primary legislation”—
in other words, this is a Henry VIII clause writ large—
“passed or made before, or in the same Session as, this Act.”
Under the powers in clause 6, all the assurances and guarantees on the operation of clause 4 and the safeguards under what is now section 28 of the 1953 Act are completely worthless. We, as a sovereign Parliament, do not have the power to bind our successors, but we do have the power, if we so choose, not to make it too easy for our successors to change the rules against the wishes of the people. That is why I think it is outrageous that the Government should be taking powers to change by regulation the guarantees that they say are in existence in clause 4 of this Bill. That is just the sort of issue I would like to address in Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden will be able to give me some indication that he will accept amendments facilitating those safeguards for existing registers and records.
Another concern I have about the Bill, which my hon. Friend alluded to in introducing it, is the way regulations could be amended to change the requirement to actually sign the register. Those provisions, set out in clause 3 of the Bill, amend the 1953 Act by inserting a new section 38B after section 38A. An extraordinary lack of information is attached to what the Government intend here. It has been alluded to in the speeches of some of my hon. Friends, who seem to think it is really desirable that we should simplify what has been a solemn and historic process of registering births; I will come on later to the issue of registering deaths.
The proposed new section says:
“Where any register of births or register of deaths is required to be kept…otherwise than in hard copy form, the Minister may by regulations provide that—
(a) a person’s duty…to sign the register at any time is to have effect as a duty to comply with specified requirements at that time, and
(b) a person who complies with those requirements is to be treated…as having signed the register”.
In other words, somebody who has not actually signed the register will be treated as having signed it. Are we seriously going to legislate to create the pretence that somebody who has not signed the register has signed it and is deemed to have signed it, that, in the case of a duty to sign the register in the presence of the registrar, they are deemed to have done so in the presence of the registrar, and that accordingly in such a case the entry in the register is to be taken for the purposes of the Act as having been signed by the person when it has not been? Why are we allowing that?
What is one of the biggest safeguards of the integrity of our births register and our deaths register? It is the sanction against forgery. A sanction against forgery is nugatory if we do not require holograph signatures. My hon. Friend who so ably introduced the discussion on the Bill seems to be slightly poleaxed—I think that might be the expression—by the references to that. We have not yet had any help from the Minister on how the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act fits into this, but maybe the regulation-making powers under clause 6 of this Bill will be able to change the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act so that it applies not to actual forgery as we would know it, with people using pen and ink to change something, but to something that is deemed to be pen and ink.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We have been welcoming refugees through the UK resettlement scheme since its launch in March 2021. That commitment will ensure that we continue to offer safe and legal routes to the UK for vulnerable refugees in need of protection, with our focus firmly on helping people from regions of conflict and instability directly.
Munira Wilson
I am proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond Council, and many of my constituents, stated early during the Afghan crisis that refugees are welcome in our borough, and that they would work hard to support and rehouse those evacuated. Over the past few weeks some £6,500 has been spent on family homes for evacuees from Afghanistan, but as yet no families have been resettled in those homes. Not only is that a waste of taxpayers’ money, but presumably there are many families in unsuitable hotel accommodation. What is the Minister doing to ensure that families who have been evacuated will be resettled quickly where accommodation is available?
Kevin Foster
The comments by Richmond Council certainly contrasted with the approach that the Lib-Dem leader of Torbay Council took when first asked to take part in the Afghan resettlement scheme, but it made a welcome U-turn and we will play our part. Work is being done across the Government to support those who arrived as part of the emergency evacuation back in August, and those who will arrive under the resettlement scheme, to ensure they can be housed quickly.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I am certainly happy to look into the matter and meet the hon. Member about the case to which she refers. We have put additional resources into the Windrush compensation scheme team to ensure that we can get the decisions that people deserve.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Immigration Rules: Statement of Changes
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
We have made changes to the immigration rules which will align the travel document requirements for most EEA and Swiss citizens with those which apply to other third country nationals.
From 1 January 2021, the Government have implemented a single global points-based immigration system.
Inconsistency in the design and security features of EEA national identity cards gives rise to document security risks, and the need for manual processing increases border queues. We therefore announced in October 2020 we would be phasing out the use of most EEA and Swiss national identity cards for entry to the UK.
The changes mean that, from 1 October 2021, EEA and Swiss citizens outside of those with status under the EU settlement scheme or rights under the withdrawal agreements will, like other nationalities, need a passport to demonstrate nationality and identity at the UK border, rather than use a national identity card.
We have also made a change to the immigration rules which reflects the change in the security situation in Afghanistan, by making changes to allow current and former Afghan locally employed staff (LES) and their family members who are outside Afghanistan to relocate to the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the ex gratia scheme. The schemes had previously only been available to those in Afghanistan.
Further to this we are also making a further change to grant indefinite leave to enter the UK to LES who are approved for relocation to the UK. This will replace the five years’ limited leave they are currently granted. Those already in the UK will be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain before their limited leave expires if they choose to.
These changes emphasise the UK commitment to supporting LES and their families to settle in the UK, and our gratitude for the support they provided to UK forces in Afghanistan.
We are launching the new international sportsperson visa category which will amalgamate and replace the tier 2 and tier 5 categories for professional sporting workers with simplified, dedicated visa arrangements.
The tier 5 visa routes are being rebranded to deliver a package of temporary work routes, providing a better service for customers through simplified rules that are aligned with the new points-based system.
We are also launching a dedicated temporary worker-creative worker visa category, tailored to creative workers to better serve the needs of the sector.
Consequential amendments are being made to appendix AR to provide a right of administrative review for eligible decisions under the new international sportsperson route and the rebranded temporary worker routes.
Some changes are being made in respect of the EU settlement scheme (EUSS), which enables EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by the end of the transition period, and their family members, to obtain the UK immigration status they need to continue living in the UK.
The changes reflect in the immigration rules for the EUSS, in appendix EU, the concession outside the rules for applicants whose continuous residence in the UK has been affected by coronavirus (covid-19) which was published in guidance on 10 June 2021. This will ensure, in a range of circumstances where, due to covid-19, the applicant would have exceeded the permitted absence from the UK, and broken their period of continuous residence, they will continue to qualify for status under the EUSS.
The changes also allow a joining family member to apply to the EUSS whilst in the UK as a visitor, replacing the concession to this effect outside appendix EU currently set out in guidance.
Technical changes are being made to reflect the passing of the 30 June 2021 deadline for applications to the EUSS by those resident in the UK by the end of the transition period (though a late application can still be made where there are reasonable grounds why the person missed that deadline), and to reflect the fact that a person who is exempt from immigration control can, if they wish, apply to the EUSS whilst they remain exempt or they can apply once they have ceased to be exempt.
Changes are being made to the youth mobility scheme (YMS) to rebrand the route from T5 (temporary worker) youth mobility scheme to youth mobility scheme.
We are also expanding our YMS to include new arrangements with Iceland and India. This will deliver on international commitments made via a memorandum of understanding with Iceland and mobility agreements with India. Both schemes are expected to launch on 1 January 2022.
The YMS update will also allow citizens and nationals or the rightful holder of a passport issued by a territory, without deemed sponsorship status, to apply for this route from any post that accepts such applications worldwide.
The allocations for 2022 have also been updated in appendix youth mobility scheme: eligible nationals.
Finally, following a concession made outside the rules to allow the partner and, if applicable, child under 18 of a British national (overseas) (BN(O)) status holder to join the BN(O) status holder following a grant on the Hong Kong British national (overseas) route, this has now been incorporated into the immigration rules for the BN(O) route.
[HCWS280]
Forced Repatriation of Chinese Seamen from Liverpool After World War Two
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing the debate, and on being such a passionate advocate on this issue. I am sure that we all wish her a swift recovery from the coronavirus, although, as we have just seen, covid does not seem to be having too much of an impact on her.
I also think it worth paying tribute to former Members, such as the former Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, Luciana Berger, and the former Member for Liverpool, West Derby, Stephen Twigg, who brought this issue to the attention of my predecessors. While it is right that we discuss it on the 75th anniversary of the deportations, I know this is not the first time it has been raised on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member’s predecessor, the indomitable Bessie Braddock, Member of Parliament for the wonderfully titled constituency Liverpool Exchange, first raised this with the then post-war Labour Government back in 1946. It was with great interest and admiration that I read about Mrs Marion Lee, who in August 1946 helped to create an organisation to campaign for the rights of Chinese seamen’s families, which must have been particularly brave given wider societal attitudes at that time. I also pay tribute, as the hon. Member did, to Peter Foo and others in Liverpool who have campaigned long and hard on this issue in the search for answers about what happened.
I do recognise the strength of feeling on Merseyside about what happened during this post-war period. I hear the hon. Member’s concerns and I will come on to some next steps later. I am glad that she has had a further opportunity to place her views and what happened at that time on record. I am also pleased that our current immigration rules and equalities legislation would preclude this type of behaviour from occurring now. Furthermore, I will ensure that her letter to the Home Secretary is responded to as soon as possible.
The Chinese community have had such a wonderful and welcome impact on our culture and are integral to modern Britain. I am proud that so many Chinese nationals have now made Britain their choice of destination for study, with 1 million student visas issued since 2010; their choice of destination to work, with over 55,000 work visas issued since 2010; and, ultimately, their choice of home, with over 60,000 grants of settlement and over 45,000 grants of citizenship. Our British nationals overseas group reflects the UK’s historical moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain ties to the UK by taking up this status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997.
Turning to the background, back in 1946 there were some 15,000 to 20,000 Chinese seamen based in the city of Liverpool. Chinese seamen made up almost 15% of the entire manpower of the merchant fleet at that time. I understand that the seamen in question were subject to the wartime regulations, which included what we would now regard as strict disciplinary conditions to obey orders to join ship and contractual obligations to return to their home country. Sadly, that meant that they faced not only the perils of war, but the overt racism that was common at that time. All too often, they were the ones literally at the bottom of the ship, on the lower decks, and it is all too easy to work out what their fate would be if they were there when a torpedo struck their ship. That is why I am always proud that my own branch of the Royal British Legion, the Paignton branch, commemorates Merchant Navy Day each year, alongside the other commemorations to remember all those who serve, to include the men who gave their lives trying to keep this country fed and supplied at the height of world war two.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for bringing this historical injustice to the House and her brilliant campaigning on behalf of her constituents. I know it means so much to the east and south-east Asian communities living in the UK now. These Chinese merchant seamen were subjected to the cruellest racism, which we have seen rear its ugly head again during the pandemic. Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn the anti-Asian racism that we have seen raise its head again during the pandemic, because a historical injustice has taken place and it is time that we learned lessons and actually saw progress on this issue?
Kevin Foster
I certainly join the hon. Member in condemning those who seek to use any time of crisis as an opportunity to sow division, to exacerbate community relations or to peddle their own brand of prejudice and try to blame others for the situations that we face. Whatever anyone thinks of the decisions of the Chinese Government, that is very different from then seeking to stoke hatred against the people of China and against the many people of Chinese heritage who have made the UK their home, who are British and who are part of what our British values should be—that we are a welcoming society that looks at people as who they are, not what the colour of their skin is.
The Chinese seamen who had been in the Merchant Navy during the war form part of the vast numbers of people displaced at the end of the conflict. This included members of the armed forces, refugees, prisoners of war and, of course, merchant seamen of all nations. The records relating to the activity that happened 75 years ago are incomplete. I am somewhat reliant on the same archive material that hon. Members and their constituents have access to, given that Home Office documents and records have been moved to the National Archives in Kew. And given the passage of time, people will of course realise that those directly involved clearly no longer work in the Home Office. Many will have died and, even if they are still alive, the youngest that they are likely to be is in their late 90s and probably aged well over 100.
The relevant powers used came from the Essential Work (Merchant Navy) Order, which came into force on 26 May 1941 and was owned by the then Ministry of Labour. The order was made under the Defence (General) Regulations 1939. The Home Office had always left the management and legality of the system to the then major shipping countries. This was not a matter relating to immigration rules as such, given that the modern concept of immigration control would not emerge until some decades later, but one which, according to archived historical records, was discussed by Home Office officials in Whitehall and immigration officers in Liverpool. Having looked at some of those documents, the language used to describe both merchant seamen and their wives in official records is not what would be acceptable today.
What those records also show is that a programme of repatriations did take place, starting in November 1946 and continuing for much of 1947. They were not confined to Chinese nationals and were against the backdrop of the wider work of demobilising and dealing with displaced people at the end of the war. There is contemporaneous evidence to suggest the then Ministry of Transport attempted to secure work for the merchant seamen and, during the initial repatriation process between November and December 1945, a number of Chinese seamen were identified as having British wives and their removal was rightly deferred. There is evidence to suggest that no Chinese merchant seamen who had British wives were deported, although I appreciate that some were later deported due to their criminal activity. But given the passage of time, we cannot say for certain from official records that this did not happen, and I am aware of the comments and particularly the evidence that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside cited.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), on securing this very important debate. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of my good comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), on this issue. I wonder if the Minister agrees with me that this historic injustice is a blatant form of racism against the Chinese seamen. Would he come forward with a full acknowledgement and apology for this community?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. It is hard to come to any other conclusion from reading the paperwork of the time, and let us be clear that, at the time, racism was normalised in society. It was still perfectly lawful to deny someone a job based purely on their race or ethnicity, and it is hard to not draw a conclusion from the way people are referred to that it is explicit. They are consistently referred to as “Chinese seamen”, not “unemployed seamen” or “seamen now surplus to requirements”. Consistently through the documents, “Chinese seamen” are talked about. As I touched on, there were wider repatriations going on at the end of the war, but it is very clear to see and, certainly from some of that documents that I have read, the conclusion is inescapable that ethnicity, in terms of being Chinese, was a clear factor in some of the decisions being taken. Some derogatory comments were made against those women who had married. It is hard to believe that those comments would have been made against perhaps, for the sake of argument, American or Canadian seamen who happened to be in Liverpool at the time. I will come on to some of my thoughts on the wider position and potentially what further action we could take later.
We must learn from the past to inform the present. The Home Office has defined and published our vision and mission of creating a safe, fair and prosperous UK, and we have set out our new core values of being a Department that is compassionate, courageous, collaborative and respectful. We recently launched the One Home Office transformation programme as part of the sweeping reforms we are making in the Department. Central to this programme is the transformation of our culture towards a more open and compassionate Department to build the Department into one that the British people look up to and admire.
We are also taking steps to ensure that we consistently involve communities and stakeholders in our policy development by identifying who the stakeholders or impacted groups are across different business areas and then conducting meaningful engagement with those communities. Importantly in relation to this issue, as part of the Home Office comprehensive improvement plan in response to the Windrush lessons learned review, every member of Home Office staff will undertake training on the history of migration and race in the UK so they can better understand the impact of departmental decisions, including when developing and applying immigration policy.
I have heard at some length what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside says, and I have heard what has also been stated in the Chamber. I am very happy, and very keen actually, to say that if the hon. Member would like to pass on details of any particular cases, we would be happy to look into them further at the Home Office, bearing in mind, as she touched on in her own speech, that the historical records may be incomplete. They are not there in their entirety, and of course with the passage of time, as I touched on earlier, we cannot now realistically speak to those who were involved in these operations, given that we do not believe any of them are still left alive.
In relation to those records, I can, however, confirm that I have asked officials in the Home Office to undertake research into this action, and I have asked them to report back after recess. I will come back to the hon. Member with the outcome of this research and any recommendations it provides to me, or at least try to give some closure to the children who survive. I have been particularly struck by the stories of those affected by this issue who, not unreasonably after 75 years, just want answers: what happened to their dad, and what happened at that time? That is the thing, although I have to say that I do not think I can promise we will be able to do that for everyone, given the passage of time. As I say, the records, sadly, are not complete, but we would certainly be happy to engage with them—and I would certainly be happy to meet the hon. Member—to hear some of their evidence, see if that is something we can use and, as I say, see if we can bring at least some information and some closure to them as part of this process.
Following this review, I will ensure that the post-war deportation and repatriation of Chinese merchant seamen is captured as part of the material used to train Home Office staff members on the history of migration and race in the UK that I have just mentioned. I think it is important that we learn from the past. We would all sit here now and say that this is not a policy that would be implemented today, and it is absolutely shocking that those who had literally risked their lives throughout the battle of the Atlantic then found themselves treated in that manner. I think it is right that we capture this and ensure that those taking decisions in the future are aware of where we have come from as a nation as we move forward in our mission.
Let me conclude by again expressing my gratitude to the hon. Member for raising this important issue in the House this evening. On behalf of the Government, I express our deep regret that some of those who had faced the most extreme dangers of war to keep our country supplied in its darkest hours were treated in this way.
Question put and agreed to.
Amnesty for Undocumented Migrants
Kevin Foster Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for having opened this debate—opening a petition debate is always quite a challenge, compared with others. It has been an interesting debate, and I will attempt to respond to the points that have been raised. However, I hope colleagues will appreciate that with eight minutes in which to speak, it is unlikely that I am going to cover the full gamut of our immigration rules and our position in this area.
My first point is to reflect on comments I made at the Dispatch Box last year at the start of the pandemic. I made very clear that for those approaching the NHS in relation to covid-19—either exhibiting symptoms and therefore looking for treatment, or looking for vaccination —the information they give will not be used for the purposes of immigration enforcement. Their status will not be checked: that is not a relevant consideration if they are approaching the NHS for treatment. We not only encourage people to come forward for vaccination, but have facilitated those who have arrived irregularly to access vaccination services. Given some of the stuff that exists on the internet about this, and given some of the comments we have heard throughout the debate, I want to make very clear that such treatment is in line with how those people would have been able to access vaccinations if they had been a UK national, now that vaccination is available to everyone over 18. From a Home Office perspective, the NHS’s operations to tackle the pandemic are not items that we will look to use for any purpose of immigration enforcement.
It might be helpful if I set out some of the background on the issue we have been debating today. First, it should be noted that the definition and coverage of this group is complex: the term “undocumented migrants” often interchanges with “illegal” or “irregular” migrants. As evidenced in this debate, it can include illegal entrants, who have perhaps arrived in the back of a lorry; overstayers who have stayed beyond the term of their visa; failed asylum seekers whose claims have been declined; those not adhering to the conditions of their stay; and even those who remain in the UK without status, but whose situation is temporary and who intend to leave in short order. For today, I will include all of those groups in our definition.
Secondly, there is no current, reliable and accurate estimate of the number of those without status who are resident in the UK. As my shadow, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), touched on, the last official Government estimate was made in the mid-2000s, when the population was believed to be around 430,000. In 2009, a report by the London School of Economics estimated that the number of irregular migrants was around 618,000. An obvious part of the problem in formulating an accurate estimate is not just calculating and agreeing on the different groups this population involves but the fact that, for obvious reasons, many of them will not come into contact with the Home Office or make their presence known here in the UK. The petition proposes an immediate amnesty for all those groups provided that they do not have a criminal record.
Kevin Foster
I will not, as I have less than five minutes and this has been a lengthy debate.
The Government remain committed to an immigration policy that welcomes and celebrates people who are here legally but also deters illegal immigration. We want to encourage people with skills and potential from around the world to make the UK their home and help make the UK a dynamic global economy, but we must not reward those who exploit the system and break the rules. We must also prevent the abuse of benefits and services paid for by UK taxpayers and disrupt the criminals who exploit and profit from the vulnerable, who will be tempted to use dangerous and irregular routes to get here if they can see a clear reward at the end of it. That is right both for the British public who pay for welfare services and for those wishing to visit and settle in the UK who played by the rules.
The Government recognise that we have a responsibility to help the vulnerable and have established several schemes and programmes to assist those most in need. One example is the work that we have done to resettle genuine refugees fleeing directly from regions of conflict and instability and to provide the necessary support to help them build a life in the UK and integrate as self-sufficient members of our society. In the past six years, the Government have offered protection to 25,000 people in this way—more than any other country in Europe in that period—through a planned resettlement scheme. That is in addition to welcoming a further 29,000 people through refugee family reunion between 2015 and 2019. We have also recently introduced a new pathway to citizenship for British national overseas status holders and their family members facing draconian new security laws in Hong Kong, with an estimated 5.4 million people potentially being eligible for the scheme.
We believe that a fair and balanced system is about guaranteeing integrity in the UK’s immigration system. We must support those in need, but we must also make sure that there is a cost for those who intend to break the rules, as have Governments of all colours since the introduction of our modern immigration system, despite some of the comments we have heard today.
The proposal to offer amnesty to all those without permission to be in the UK undermines the integrity and effective working of the UK immigration system. To recognise the stay of those who have wilfully and deliberately broken our laws is first and foremost an affront to those who have done the right thing and migrated here lawfully and contributed by paying visa fees and the immigration surcharge. An amnesty for those not playing by the rules could prove divisive for those groups who feel an injustice when they have complied with our policies, and it is safe to say that it is unlikely to build public confidence in the migration system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, it would certainly be interesting to see the public reaction if such a policy were included in an election manifesto.
The debate is about not just the impact of those ignoring our migration rules and refusing to leave but making sure that the public feel that there is confidence in the system. Why would someone bother to apply for status or renew their visa if they knew that they could just stay and be granted that status anyway? A point ignored by the petition and by some Members is the fact that the immigration routes already provide for undocumented migrants who have not broken the law except for by remaining in the UK without lawful immigration status.
Kevin Foster
I have less than two minutes, I am afraid. I appreciate that you wanted to give people time, Mr Hosie, but as the Minister I have only eight minutes to wind up, which is pretty short.
People who fear the situation in their country of origin may choose to claim asylum, and there is no cost to that. Those with qualifying family members who are present and settled in the UK can apply under the family rules, for example where there is a qualifying partner and insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside the UK. The private life rules provide for those who have been in the UK for a particularly long time to regularise their status. That said, we are in the process of reforming our immigration rules and, as many Members may be aware, I have met the group We Belong to discuss the current process for those who arrived here as children or were born here but did not qualify for British citizenship. We aim to simplify the settlement rules in the near future, as part of our wider work on the new migration system, which will include some changes in response to the points raised by that group, and we will reduce the number of people ending up on the 10-year route to settlement. We accept that too many people are on that route.
I have had to give a fairly short summary of the Government response, but we do not believe that granting an amnesty, as proposed by this petition, would be appropriate. It would undermine the rules—actually, it would make the whole creation of rules pointless if people could just ignore them and get status anyway.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I call Tom Hunt for a brief winding-up speech.