Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Stuart C McDonald
Main Page: Stuart C McDonald (Scottish National Party - Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)Department Debates - View all Stuart C McDonald's debates with the Home Office
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Stuart C McDonald Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I rise to speak to new clause 23, which essentially seeks to prod the Government to provide reassurance that they will do what they have promised to do, and we urge them to do so as quickly as possible.
The Government have made a very important promise. Under section 17 of the EU withdrawal Act, the Government agreed to seek an agreement with the EU to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in an EU state can continue to be reunited with family members in the UK after Brexit. That was very welcome.
Of course, all of that is currently done through the EU’s so-called Dublin III regulations, which, though not perfect, have been vital in ensuring that children are not left unaccompanied and in danger of exploitation and trafficking. We must ensure that that route is not closed off; but, if it is, the danger is that more children will be forced into the hands of traffickers and smugglers, in order to reach family here in the UK. I do not think that anyone on this Committee would want that to happen.
New clause 23 seeks to put a timeframe on that promise. If there is a Brexit deal, we ask the Government to include and bring into force that agreement before the transition ends. If there is no deal, the new clause seeks to ensure that the arrangement comes into force within three months of withdrawal. Essentially, therefore, this is the opportunity for the Minister to let us know what is happening to implement Parliament’s express will in section 17 of the withdrawal Act.
Equally, this is also the chance for the Government to consider going further than their original commitment. For example, why not also seek to implement the other Dublin provisions, so that it is not just unaccompanied children who can be reunited with family here but other asylum seekers, too, where appropriate?
As I have said, Dublin III is not perfect. It relies on other EU countries to process asylum claims and then request a transfer, which—as we have often seen—can be a ludicrously slow process. Would it not be better simply to use immigration rules to allow asylum seekers to be reunited here, thereby potentially bypassing that first administrative step?
Finally on new clause 23, of course the Dublin rules on family reunion only apply in a European context. Why not apply them more broadly so that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and other asylum seekers can be reunited with family here in the UK without having to make dangerous journeys to Europe? We will revisit some of these issues when we debate a later amendment, but for now a progress report from the Minister would be very much appreciated.
I lend my full support to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston Green for everything she said about amendment 19 and the right of asylum seekers to work. That policy has had the Scottish National party’s full support for many years, and to my mind it is an absolute no-brainer. As she said, first of all it is good for asylum seekers themselves. Anyone who spends 12 months out of work will find themselves in a drastic situation, and that is just as true, possibly more so, for asylum seekers, whose skills are lost and run down, which can have a negative impact on self-esteem and mental health. Frankly, as the hon. Lady said, the situation is putting people in poverty, given the unacceptably low levels of asylum support that they are left to subsist on.
The right to work is also good for employers, particularly because at a time when the Government are very happy to tell us that unemployment is at very low levels, access to workers will always be welcome. Of course, asylum seekers have a range of skills. A scheme in Glasgow is successfully integrating refugee doctors into the workforce, but why do we have to wait for them to be recognised as refugees? If they have the skills to work in the NHS, why not allow that to happen when they are still asylum seekers?
The right to work is good for communities; it is pivotal for integration and for tackling poverty. Some locations to which asylum seekers are dispersed are not the wealthiest in the country—the Minister and I have debated that a lot recently. Often, in fact, they are among the poorest, so putting in place a new population who do not have the right to work does not help. It would be good for communities if people were earning an income that they could spend in the community.
As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston pointed out, the right to work is good for the public purse. Put simply, there would be savings on asylum support, and tax revenue would be gained from the income tax and the increased spending of asylum seekers. Various estimates put the Government’s savings at tens of millions of pounds.
From time to time, the Government have expressed concerns about the pull factor, but if that were a significant issue no asylum seekers would come to the United Kingdom at all, because, as the hon. Lady pointed out, we are the outliers. By implementing a right to work, we will not be very different from neighbouring countries. I have already mentioned Canada, which is not a neighbouring country, but which pretty much allows the right to work from day one.
The proposed measure is popular with the public. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they are willing to consider the arguments, but it is time to get a move on. The right to work is long overdue and the time for procrastination has come to an end.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling the amendment and new clause, both of which we support. The immigration White Paper has almost nothing to say about asylum or refugee issues, even though there are so many problems.
Amendment 19 deals with the right to work. The right to work would allow asylum seekers the dignity of work, as has been said, and would enable them to earn enough money to support themselves and their families. It would also encourage integration and prevent people from having to rely, for no good reason, on the meagre state subsidy of £5.39 a day. If the Home Office cannot resolve cases in the six-month target time, it is right that asylum seekers be given the right to work.
The waste of talent has already been touched on. I came across an asylum seeker in my constituency who was a Syrian consultant but who has not been allowed to work, even though, with 100,000 job vacancies in the NHS, we really need that skill. Research has shown that not being able to work for a long period doubles the risk of asylum seekers experiencing major mental health problems.
We continue to support the right of unaccompanied children to be reunited with family members in the UK after our withdrawal from the EU. An SNP private Member’s Bill is trying to achieve the same outcome and it is right that we support both the amendment and the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
One of our problems is that many asylum claims take longer than six months to assess. The Minister just cited unfounded claims as a problem. Surely there must be a process by which we can establish whether a claim is completely unfounded in a much shorter timeframe than six months.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was not entirely unexpected. He knows that we are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay, so that people who need protection can be granted it as soon as possible in order for them to integrate and rebuild their lives.
Until recently, our aim was to decide 98% of straightforward asylum claims within six months from the date of the claim. However, many asylum claims are not straightforward, which means that it has not always been possible to make an initial decision within six months. Many of these cases had a barrier that needed to be overcome in order to make the asylum decision, and many of those barriers were outside the Home Office’s control.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber yesterday when I said that I regard the situation as not good enough. I know that we have to do more in this area, and one of our key priorities is to speed up the process. I would still like to make several comments about the rights of asylum seekers to work; if the Committee will indulge me, I will expand a little on some of my thoughts in a moment.
I am conscious that we cannot simply dismiss the risk that removing restrictions on work might increase the number of unfounded claims, which would reduce our capacity to take decisions and support genuine refugees. However, we recognise the importance of getting both the policy and the process right, which is why the Home Secretary has already committed to a review of the policy on asylum seekers’ right to work. Officials are already undertaking that review, looking at available evidence and anticipating the economic impact that such changes might bring about.
Hon. Members are right to point out that this matter has been raised frequently in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall. I remember that in October many hon. Members here today contributed to a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). I later responded before the Select Committee on Home Affairs to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), when he spoke of a report he had contributed to several years ago on the rights of asylum seekers to work.
The issue was raised extensively on Second Reading and yesterday it cropped up again in Home Office oral questions. I had forgotten, until the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned it, that I sat on the Bench last week for the First Reading of the Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) (No. 2) Bill, the ten-minute rule Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who spoke passionately about this issue and made a number of the points that we have heard again today.
Over the course of the past 12 months I have made a significant effort to engage on the issue, not only with non-governmental organisations and charities involved in the sector, but with hon. Members in this place. I appreciate the thought and time that have gone into those conversations, not least with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her good friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who made a fleeting visit to the Committee this morning. I think she was a little optimistic if she thought we would get to this amendment before lunch. She has always made a powerful case on this subject.
As Immigration Minister, I am conscious that one should not conflate asylum seekers with refugees. I fear that in my next comments I am about to do just that, for which I apologise. I have spent a great deal of time on visits over the course of the past year, and I will give some edited highlights. One of my first ministerial visits was to Bradford, where I met members of World Jewish Relief Aid who were working closely with resettled refugees who had come here as part of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. That is where the conflation is coming in. They were making efforts to enable those with refugee status to improve their English and CVs and work through the process of moving into employment. It was a humbling experience and fascinating to have the opportunity to talk to the refugees about the importance to them of work. Hon. Members will have heard me say previously—
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response. We are aware of the review that the Government are undertaking and very much appreciate that that is taking place and appreciate the opportunities that we have been offered to participate in it. In the light of her engagement with the subject and the comments that she has made about the potentially discriminatory nature of amendment 19, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
The Chair
Stuart C. McDonald
I wanted to speak briefly to these amendments. First, I note how unusual and exciting it is to be debating substantive provisions of immigration law. One of the key points that I make throughout this process is that this is a rare occurrence. We get to what would usually be shoved into immigration rules or a statement of changes; it is then passed through Parliament, and the Bill becomes law without anyone realising that it is happening—never mind having a chance to debate it. Perhaps we could even suggest amendments to the shadow Minister to improve his draft new clauses. I welcome what he has done in proposing substantive immigration policy in a way that allows MPs to come and have a say. Our take on what he has said about the SAWS and the evidence we heard from National Farmers Union Scotland was that the pilot scheme was not enough. We welcomed the pilot, but 2,500 places are not enough. I think that the number that was mentioned that would be sufficient was 10,000. That is against the background that National Farmers Union Scotland was also absolutely and clearly in favour of retaining the free movement of people.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Coming from a constituency that is agricultural as well as fishing, I recognise a lot of the concerns that have been raised by National Farmers Union Scotland. Does the hon. Member agree that Andrew McCornick, the president of NFU Scotland, also stated, not in evidence to this Committee but in previous evidence, that he would like the immigration system to open up to employees from outside the EEA as well?
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to acknowledge that evidence. The two things are not inconsistent: to attain free movement of people we have got to have a seasonal agricultural workers scheme to allow access to labour from outside the EU as well. Even with free movement of people, there is still a huge recruitment problem. There are crops and fruit going unpicked.
As we have seen, countries from which farmers were able to recruit previously, such as Poland, have caught up. In fact, they have job offers from other parts of the EU. Subsequently, farmers were recruiting more from Romania, but again, the economy and wages there have caught up slightly and there are also alternative employment options elsewhere. So there is already a recruitment crisis, even though we have had free movement of labour. There must be a two-pronged approach here: retain free moment and at the same time have a proper seasonal agricultural workers scheme to allow farmers and others to recruit from outside the EU as well. The SAWS pilot is welcome but it is not enough: we need the free movement of people as well.
In other evidence, NFU Scotland stated that the proposals for a no-deal scenario were not remotely sufficient for its purposes. There is the strange three months, then a three-year visa, if you are successful. NFU Scotland thought that that would put employers at a competitive disadvantage. They would only be able to say to folk, “We are trying to recruit. You can come for three months and possibly you will be able to stay on beyond that”. They need people to have that guarantee up front. Some—but not enough—will be able to do that through the pilot.
On the two new clauses, there are things I would have done slightly differently, but that is what is good about having this debate. A lot of farmers will say that the six-month SAWS time limit in new clause 20 is not sufficient. With new clause 21, I hugely welcome the proposal for family to be allowed to accompany the workers here. That is not envisaged in the Government’s proposal for a one-year visa; also the Government have the “12 months on, 12 months off” idea, which a lot of employers understandably find absolutely ludicrous.
Our concern with new clause 21 is, again, the 12-month time limit; I also want further information about what the sponsorship licence looks like. One of the huge problems, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, is around the requirements to be a licensed sponsor. Many have found that to be hugely problematic and costly, and to involve red tape. I like the principle behind the ideas. I would have some difficulty in voting for them because I do not quite agree with everything that is in them, but I welcome the fact that we are having that debate.
I agree with the proposal in amendment 20. As I have said during the course of our debates, sometimes the criticisms made of free movement of people and, generally, of migration for work, and some of the problems flagged up in relation to that are not problems with migration itself, but problems with labour market enforcement, labour standards and the enforcement of existing laws. It is pivotal that we marry up what we are doing in the immigration system with what we are doing in terms of labour market enforcement. One silver lining from the Immigration Act 2016 was the introduction of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. There is a question whether his remit is wide enough and whether the resources are there to do the job properly, but I fully welcome amendment 20 and the intention of making sure that we do a much better job of that.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton for giving us the opportunity to consider two important issues: the protection of migrant workers and the opportunities that are open to them. Amendment 20 concerns the protection of workers’ rights. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I do not believe there is any real difference between the hon. Gentleman and me on this issue. It is of the highest importance that everyone working in our economy is safe, and is treated fairly and with respect. I am proud of the Government’s track record in this area, with the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the further powers we have given to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. We will not be complacent on the matter.
Let me be very clear that migrant workers in the UK are entitled to all the protections of UK law while they are here, whether that is the minimum wage, health and safety legislation, working conditions, maternity and paternity arrangements, the right to join a trade union, the right to strike, statutory rights to holiday pay and sick pay or any of the other myriad protections in UK law for workers. Those protections apply to those who are in the UK on work visas every bit as much as they do to the resident workforce. That is true of migrant workers who are here under the current immigration system and those who may come in future under the new one.
In the future system, those who come under the skilled worker route will be taking up professional occupations and will be sponsored by their employer, so the Home Office will have a relationship with their employer. The Home Office may well visit and inspect the employer, and the Government will take very seriously any suggestion that the worker is not benefiting from every employment right to which they are entitled. Migrant workers who come to the UK under the temporary worker route may be doing jobs that are more vulnerable to exploitation. That is why a feature of that route is that migrant workers are not tied to one employer and may move around the labour market if they are unhappy, for whatever reason, in their employment. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the temporary worker route will be open to nationals from countries that pose a low immigration risk. We do not expect that route to be used by those who may, unfortunately, be economically desperate enough to make themselves vulnerable to exploitation.
As we have heard, there is one sector in which we will operate a special scheme under which workers will, to some extent, be tied to a particular type of work, and that is the agricultural sector. The independent Migration Advisory Committee recognised the sector’s unique reliance on short-term migrant labour, and the Government have accepted that argument. We are currently catering for that through a seasonal worker pilot, which comes into operation shortly. I will say a bit more about that when I address new clause 20, but let me deal first with the protection issues.
The potential for exploitation of the pilot was the recent subject of a thoughtful and considered debate in Westminster Hall, secured by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). In that debate, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—he responded to the debate because I was in this Committee taking evidence—set out the careful work that had gone into the design of the pilot scheme, and the ongoing liaison with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to ensure that migrant workers are protected. I suspect members of this Committee were present in this Committee rather than in that debate, and I urge them to review the principles of the pilot and the protections that will be applied, as set out by my ministerial colleague.
On the requirement in amendment 20 to consult trade unions, I appreciate that trade unions have a unique perspective on work-related immigration, and they will understandably want to protect the rights of their existing members in the domestic workforce. As part of our ongoing engagement following the publication of the immigration White Paper, we are consulting some trade unions about the proposed future system. However, I do not see how the amendment could practically be made to work. As I have explained, we do not propose to introduce sectoral working visas other than in agriculture, and MAC specifically advised against doing so. Our proposed work routes—the skilled worker route and the temporary worker route—are, in combination, open to the full range of occupations and professions. That means that the Government would be committed to consulting hundreds of trade unions and representative bodies every time a change was required to the immigration rules, and that would be unworkable.
The second half of amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on workers’ rights for any future work-related immigration arrangements, and I do not believe that that is necessary. As I have said, migrant workers who come to the UK will be subject to the full protections that already exist for every worker—regardless of their nationality—who is employed by a UK employer. Since the statutory workplace employment rights and protections will be the same for domestic and migrant workers, it is unlikely that an impact assessment would be necessary or add to the understanding of the future immigration system.
I turn to new clause 20. Although I appreciate what the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton seeks to achieve, I believe that, once again, he and the Government are in the same place and the new clause is not necessary. The Government fully understand the importance of our food and farming industry, and the sector’s significant reliance on seasonal labour. We appreciate that farming is a long-term endeavour and that the sector places great emphasis on certainty when it comes to workforce planning. That is particularly the case as we look to the design of our future immigration system. As I set out earlier, the temporary worker route will be open to nationals from countries that pose a low immigration risk. That route will support seasonal employment of all kinds across all sectors, including our farmers and growers. The route will offer considerably more generous terms than the proposals in the new clause; that includes not tying migrants to a specific employer.
We intend to go further, however. As the Committee will be aware, the Migration Advisory Committee identified agriculture as a special case, and as the only sector that is deserving of special treatment. The Government have accepted that advice.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister has made the point a couple of times that the Government will not expect people to be tied to a particular employer. I welcome that, because tying people to employers gives rise to the risk of exploitation. However, other problems have arisen because of very short visas. If, for example, domestic workers get about halfway through their visa and have only four, five or six months left, there is no chance that anyone else will take them on because they are so close to the end of their visa. Is that not something we need to learn from? Should we not, generally speaking, look to have visas with a term longer than just one year?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the temporary work visas are a transitional measure, but we will be looking carefully at that and listening to the advice that we have received in the evidence sessions for this Committee and more widely. As the Immigration Minister, I am conscious that people from a huge range of sectors are beating a path to my door to outline the particular circumstances of their industries, and I fully expect that to continue over the next 12 months. I do not expect people to beat a path to my door, however, so we are going out and engaging actively with different sectors. We are holding roundtables in every part of the country, and across every part of industry, so that we have a top-range understanding of the challenges.
Caroline Nokes
We did hear evidence in which people expressed concerns about the temporary routes, but we also heard from the agricultural sector, which was keen that there should be some. I vividly remember some evidence that indicated that temporary routes would inevitably—that was the word used—lead to exploitation. In the rebuttal from the National Farmers Union, however, we were given much evidence about workers on temporary contracts who returned year after year. That suggests that short-term routes would not inevitably lead to exploitation.
That remains something for us to consider carefully by listening to the evidence and the discussions that we have in the next 12 months, so that we understand the sectors—particularly the agricultural sector—that are engaging with us. I highlight again the fact that we are in the final stages of establishing the relevant pilot scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
Two other points that relate to the one-year visa proposed in the White Paper are: not allowing family to join the worker in the United Kingdom; and not allowing any recourse to public funds, including, for example, tax credits. Surely that is unfair? In fact, why would anyone want to come if those were the conditions for incoming people?
Caroline Nokes
As I have said, this is a transitional route that we will review carefully, but there are very good reasons why we do not propose that dependants should be able to come for such a short period. Of course, “no recourse to public funds” is about encouraging people who come here for work to not be reliant on the benefits system, which they will not have paid into for any significant period. We will have an immigration route for high-skilled and medium-skilled workers of all nationalities, and we will have a transitional route for workers at all skill levels. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I had intended to add my name to the amendment, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. We fully support it. Our view is that ending free movement while keeping the immigration system for non-EEA nationals broadly the same poses a huge challenge and, indeed, a danger to this particular sector. We very much support the amendment, which comes from 16 leading organisations.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe for providing the Committee with the opportunity to discuss the amendment, and for his really important work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer.
The amendment gives us the opportunity to consider the impact that ending free movement through the Bill might have on the health and social care and medical research sectors. I appreciate that there are those on the Committee who do not believe that we should end free movement. I have to remind them that the people of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum, in which there was no doubt that immigration was a key consideration for some members of the electorate. Parliament has to respect that democratic mandate.
Kate Green
The amendment is in my name along with those of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I am very pleased to have that cross-party support. I also place on record my thanks to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, and in particular the Children’s Society, which has helped me considerably, not just with preparing the amendments we are discussing this afternoon but in pursuing my interest in the impact of Brexit on children, going back to our debates on article 50 more than two years ago. It was good to have the Children’s Society give oral evidence to us last week; I am sure that other Members will agree that that was helpful.
Amendment 27 would require the Government to undertake a best interests assessment before an EEA child could be removed from the United Kingdom. There are around 2 million EU national children and parents with dependent children living in the UK who will need to change their immigration status through the European settled status scheme or secure citizenship rights following Brexit. We know from history and examples around the world—we heard about them in oral evidence two weeks ago—that large-scale projects intended to change the immigrant status of significant cohorts or populations are riddled with challenges, from poor design to low take-up. If just a small proportion of the hundreds of thousands of European children already in the UK do not settle their status through the settlement scheme or secure citizenship, the number of undocumented children in the UK could rise substantially. Despite the Government’s commitment to a simple EU settlement scheme, a significant number of children currently living in the UK may find themselves subject to immigration control if they fail to secure their status and become undocumented.
Stuart C. McDonald
Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not just a matter of whether the settled status scheme itself is simple, but a question of how simple UK immigration and nationality laws are? Many children and those looking after them would find it impossible to understand whether, for example, the person is British or has other rights to be in the country and whether they need to apply under the settled status scheme at all.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for admission of EU nationals as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons.
(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may require that the EU nationals entering as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds, but in deciding whether that test is met, account must be taken of the prospective earnings of the EU nationals seeking entry, as well as any third party support that may be available.
(5C) Regulations under subsection (1) must not include any test of financial circumstances beyond that set out in subsection (5B).”
This amendment would ensure that UK nationals and settled persons can be joined in future by EU spouses and partners and children without application of the financial thresholds and criteria that apply to non-EEA spouses, partners and children.
As hon. Members will have gathered, I disagree with immigration law and rules in this country, but one area of those rules about which I feel particularly strongly is what I regard as the egregious and outrageous rules on family. The problem with the Bill and the White Paper is that, although thousands of families have already been split apart because of the nature of current immigration rules, in future, many more families will face that awful situation. I could pick away at and criticise different aspects of the family immigration rules, but the amendment focuses on spouses, partners and children.
My message to the members of the Committee is that this could be us. If we lost our seats or were lucky enough to be able to retire, we could find ourselves on incomes that did not allow us to sponsor spouses or children to join us from overseas. It could affect our kids or our nephews and nieces. It certainly affects lots of our constituents. I have raised the matter a number of times in debates in Westminster Hall, in the main Chamber, and at Question Time, and I am then inundated with emails from families up and down the country, who are really suffering because we have some of the most draconian immigration rules for families in the world.
I will start with two case studies to highlight the issue, although I could easily provide hundreds. Kiran works six days a week for the NHS, booking people into appointments with their GPs. Sunday should be her only day off, but she instead gets up at the crack of dawn to clean a 21-acre car showroom. Her work is exhausting; there is no respite because the next day, the weekly routine starts again, and she goes back to her nine-to-six job working for the NHS. She has been doing that for a year, all so that she can push her income above the £18,600 threshold and be with her husband in the country that she grew up in. She says:
“I can't even describe to you how it feels. Why do we have to struggle so much to have our loved ones here? It doesn't feel very British to make people suffer like this. I used to be proud to be born and bred here, but all this has changed that. The system splits people apart and makes them feel like they’re worthless.”
The second case study is that of Juli and Tony. Juli met her husband, Tony, while studying for her master’s degree in Northumbria. He is a self-employed plasterer from Edinburgh and she is an artist and media management expert from the US. They met at a party, fell in love and got married after a whirlwind romance. Tony earns more than £18,600 from the business that he runs, but a technicality means that not all of his income is counted. As a result, this loving couple have not been allowed to start building their life together in the UK.
Juli has instead been sent back to the US, where she has slept on a sofa and lived out of a suitcase for months while she fights to come back to her husband. Tony cares for his mother, who suffers from severe mental health problems, and struggles with depression himself, especially without his wife by his side. Juli says:
“I hope this is the year my husband and I finally get to be together again, and I hope it’s sooner rather than later. My husband is suffering, and I’m very worried about him. I would like nothing more than to be able to use my degree to work, contribute to the Scottish economy and finally be able to build a life with my husband and start a family.”
As I said, I could give a million more examples, but every single one of them is about real lives turned upside down by unnecessarily restrictive immigration rules. The Bill and the White Paper would extend those rules to more families. We should do the opposite and try to repeal the worst of those provisions, which came into force in 2012. Since 2012, the minimum income rule has meant that thousands of British citizens, people with indefinite leave to remain and refugees are not allowed to live with their partners, but are forced to leave the country and live thousands of miles away from extended family and support networks. That is all because they do not meet the financial threshold.
As we know, the base threshold is currently set at £18,600, so a British citizen or a settled person must have an income far higher than the minimum wage in order to sponsor the visa of a non-EEA partner. The threshold is higher still if someone wishes to sponsor a child as well as a partner. If someone is sponsoring a partner and one non-British child, the threshold is £22,400 a year, plus a further £2,400 for any additional child. Usually, only the sponsor’s UK income counts towards meeting the threshold, which to me undermines some of the reasons offered by the Government in defence of the rules. If it was seriously only about whether a couple could support themselves without recourse to public funds, why is there this rule that prohibits any account being taken of the potential earnings of the spouse applying to come in from outside the EEA?
Proving the income is also complex, and can be extremely stressful. There are seven separate categories of ways in which sponsors can show that they earn above the required amount. In most cases, only income from UK employment can be counted, while income from overseas employment, the non-British partner’s potential earnings, job offers and support from third parties are excluded from consideration. None of that can be used to demonstrate a couple’s self-sufficiency.
To give an idea of the scale for the people affected, the UK’s income requirement is the highest in the world relative to average earnings. It is equal to more than 121% of the national living wage for those aged 25 and over, 129% for 21 to 24-year-olds and 161% for those aged between 18 and 20. That covers people who are employed on the basis of a full-time salary, but for the ever-growing number of self-employed the system is even more difficult to navigate. If the British partner is self-employed, couples will often end up spending at least 12 months apart, because the sponsor must be able to prove that they met the minimum income requirement over the course of the last full financial year, which is April to April, and applications for an initial spouse visa can usually only be made overseas.
Various groups are disproportionately affected, including women. In many parts of the country, well over half of full-time employed women would be affected. In some regions, more than 60% of the population would not be able to sponsor a spouse from outside the EEA. In many of the constituencies of MPs in this Committee, that will be the percentage of constituents who could not have a spouse join them in this country.
The rules have had a severe detrimental impact on the thousands of families who are unable to meet the requirements. Due to the minimum income rules, British citizens and settled UK residents have been separated from partners, parents and grandparents, often indefinitely. The Children’s Commissioner for England, together with academics from Middlesex University and researchers from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, have documented the short and long-term negative effects of those rules on children whose parents are unable to satisfy the requirements.
Parents reported a range of behavioural and psychological problems in their children, including separation anxiety, anger, aggression, depression and guilt, disrupted sleep, bed wetting, social problems with peers and changes to eating patterns. Such effects stem from the enforced separation of children from a parent and/or other family members as a result of the Government’s immigration policy, as well as the transfer of parental stress and anxiety on to children.
NHS England alone employs more than 225,000 British citizens at salaries below the minimum income requirement. How can MPs tell them that they are not allowed to be joined here by their overseas spouse, or that they have to leave their job in the NHS to go and join their spouse overseas?
Average annual pay for teaching assistants, who make up 25% of the UK teaching workforce, is estimated to be between £13,600 and £15,900. The minimum income requirement means that those workers, too, are unable to establish a stable family life in the UK, and many take the difficult decision to move to their partner’s country of origin, or to a third country.
We have also heard about careworkers, more than 70% of whom would not be able to establish a family life in this country with a non-EEA partner under existing immigration rules. There are currently more than 100,000 empty jobs in the adult social care sector. With a fifth of all workers in the sector aged 55 or over, that number will skyrocket over the coming years. If the minimum income rules are extended to cover the spouses and partners of EU nationals, as set out in the White Paper, the care sector will be one of many to be heavily impacted.
Across all sectors, the minimum income requirement is forcing workers with children out of salaried employment. Parents unable to sponsor their partner to come to the UK to live with the family are often forced to choose between paying for prohibitively expensive childcare to enable them to continue working and to reach the threshold, or giving up work altogether in order to act as the family’s sole caregiver. That effect was not properly anticipated in the Government’s initial assessment of the economic impact of the rule changes.
As well as having a negative impact on the workforce, the policy risks harming children, since children of single parents who work part-time are at greater risk of falling into poverty. Some would-be sponsors with children will never be able to reach the minimum income requirement due to their childcare obligations. Single-parent households have a median annual income of about £17,800, compared to about £23,700 for two-parent households. All the stats under the sun cannot properly reflect the human cost and human tragedy at the heart of all this.
I finish with another quote, from a mother with a two-year-old son:
“I am a single mother who has to look after my son as well as provide for my family. I did not want or choose to be in this position but I am being forced to”
by the Government’s immigration rules. I am shocked. It is way after time that we rolled back these provisions. There is no way that we should extend them to many thousands more families who will face these heartbreaking situations. The amendment will prevent that from happening. It is only a first step, because it will stop the extension of the rules, whereas what we actually want is for the rules to be rolled back. Will the Minister comment on that?
Will the Minister also address the evidence we heard about Surinder Singh cases, in which British citizens want to return with non-EEA national spouses, having exercised their right to free movement elsewhere. Some of them may well end up in the difficult position of having to meet thresholds that they are unlikely to be able to meet. I feel very strongly about this rule, and I ask hon. Members to give serious thought as to whether they can countenance splitting families apart in this way.
Afzal Khan
We support the amendment. We feel that income thresholds discriminate against working-class people on lower incomes. Around 40% to 50% of UK residents earn less than £18,600. Due to Brexit, the Government plan to extend this threshold requirement to EU citizens. In the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto, we said that we would replace income thresholds with a prohibition on recourse to public funds, which we feel is a more appropriate way forward.
The Government argue that the financial requirement supports integration and prevents a burden from being placed on the taxpayer. It is right that there are controls on who is able to sponsor a partner to come to the UK. The immigration rules already state that anybody who wants to move to the UK to be with their partner or spouse must prove that they are in a genuine, loving relationship and must pass an English test, and they will not have access to benefits when they arrive. However, demanding that the British partner proves that they earn a specific amount on top of the existing rules means that families are being forced apart purely on the basis of income.
An estimated 15,000 children are growing up in Skype families, where the only contact they have with one of their parents is through Skype, because the British parent does not earn enough for the family to live together. Another group affected is the 80% of women in part-time work who do not meet the threshold. Young mothers are particularly badly affected, often being pushed out of the labour force because they have to handle childcare responsibilities alone due to these rules. I believe that these rules have a negative impact on families, on social cohesion and on the economy. They must be changed, so I am happy to support the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for her response. I am frustrated, though. I do not think she appreciates the level of anger there is about this and how many constituents are affected. We are talking about tens of thousands already; about families split apart. She will be imposing that on many thousands of families. She suggested that the old test of a family maintaining itself without recourse to public funds was in some way difficult. That is not my recollection of how it operated in practice. However, I will reconsider whether there is an even more straightforward test that could apply, to refer to certainty. You can have certainty at all sorts of different levels of income, though: it does not have to be at £18,700. As for resting on the MAC’s assessment, if we give it a certain remit to provide certain answers and it gives us the most generous of those, we cannot say, “Well, the MAC says this”, because it did not have the option to give any alternative answers.
The rules regarding prospective earnings and third-party support are still far too restrictive. I will go back and look again at what the Minister said, but the experience of people who are writing to me is that, generally speaking, they are struggling as individuals to meet the threshold. Proper account has not been taken of the earning potential of people who are applying to come into this country.
The arguments about the burden on the taxpayer make no sense. The spouse is not allowed to claim public funds, but apart from anything else, as a taxpayer I am perfectly happy to provide top-up tax credits or whatever else is needed if that allows a British citizen to live with their husband or wife in this country. For the party of the family to say what it is saying is extraordinary.
Kate Green
I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Does he agree that there might be a saving for the British taxpayer if, for example, a family member or spouse can come in to care for a British national who might otherwise be dependent on national health service and local authority social care services?
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. I would be interested to see whether the Government will have the courage of their convictions and reassess the impact on the Treasury of the changes. Researchers from Middlesex University found pretty much the opposite of what the Government suggested would happen. That is because of situations like the one that the hon. Lady describes. Another example is that of parents who have had to give up work because they do not have a spouse here to support them and share childcare responsibilities. It is far from clear cut that there has been a burden on the taxpayer, and it is not a reasonable argument anyway—I would not split families apart merely to save the taxpayer a small sum of money.
I do not understand the argument about integration—how does being separated from a spouse possibly help anyone to integrate? We are saying to these individuals, “You’re not entitled to have your husband or wife or child join you here; we expect you to head off to another country and integrate there.” It is a very strange argument, which I do not follow. I do not think there is a public confidence argument either. The more the public hear about these rules, the more they are outraged, so I reject that argument.
I will think again about precisely how the amendment is worded, but on this occasion the Minister gravely underestimates how far wrong the immigration rules have strayed. I ask her to look again at how they operate and stop families having to suffer in this way. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Paul Maynard.)