Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 18th May 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The House divided: - Ayes: 351 / Noes: 252 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must inform the House, as I have just done in the previous item of business, that Mr Speaker has not selected any of the reasoned amendments. I am delighted to call the Home Secretary to move Second Reading. The Home Secretary is asked to speak for no more than 20 minutes.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We meet here today in extraordinary circumstances. Our way of life has changed beyond anything we could have imagined just a few months ago. The British people are making extraordinary sacrifices as we pull together to combat this deadly pandemic. Coronavirus is the biggest crisis this nation has faced in my lifetime, and we must do everything in our power to control the virus as we reopen society and support the United Kingdom’s recovery. Our national recovery will reflect many new norms, including how we look to the future as a confident, outward-facing, global Britain, open to the world now that we have left the EU.
The Bill will play a vital role in our future recovery plans. It will end free movement and pave the way for our new points-based immigration system: a firmer, fairer and simpler system that will attract the people we need to drive our country forward through the recovery stage of coronavirus, laying the foundation for a high-wage, high-skill, productive economy; a system that works in the interests of the British people, allowing us to attract the very best talent from right around the globe; a system that will revolutionise the operation of the UK border, tightening security and keeping criminals out while also making the experience of coming to the UK transparent, smoother and simpler; a system that, for the first time in decades, allows us, as an open and democratic country, to set our own controls and to count people in and out; a system that will attract the most talented people from around the world to boost our economy and support our public services to rebuild and thrive, including our outstanding NHS.
Since publishing the details of the new points-based system in February, our world has undoubtedly changed, but what has not changed is the Government’s unwavering support for our NHS and its incredible professional staff. They are the very best of Britain. That is why we are introducing a new fast-track NHS visa, to prioritise the qualified staff needed to provide high-quality and compassionate professional care. During these exceptional times, it is right that policies that affect our NHS workers are kept under review, including the immigration health surcharge. That is why I recently announced a free automatic one-year visa extension for those with six months or less left to stay on their visas. Our EU settlement scheme enables EU citizens who made our country their home to continue to build their lives here, including those working in the NHS.
As Britain fight back against coronavirus, controlling the virus to save lives remains the Government’s top priority, but it is also our duty to continue to serve the public by delivering on the people’s priorities so that when these darker days are behind us, we can focus on building a brighter future—a brighter future for people in cities, towns and villages across all four nations—and, as we have promised, on levelling up right across the country, especially in those areas that have been left behind in economic renewal in the past and communities that placed their trust in us back in December last year.
It is almost four years since the British people voted for independence from the European Union. This Government have already delivered that sovereignty, and we have been clear that there will be no extension to the transition period with the EU. We promised the British people that we would end free movement, take back control of our borders and restore trust in the immigration system. This Bill delivers on that.
The story of immigration in the UK is woven into our national fabric. It is at the core of our national character and has defined many traditions and characteristics of our country. It is a testament to British society that, notwithstanding the past struggles of race, ethnicity and class, today in this very House so many descendants of migrants are now representing every region of the United Kingdom. Equally, our national fabric continues to be enriched by EU citizens who have made the UK their home. From day one, despite scaremongering from those in the Labour party, we have been clear: we say to EU citizens in the UK—to all of them—“We want you to stay”.
Our successful EU settlement scheme has now seen over 3.5 million applications, with over 1.3 million concluded. This is a fantastic example of a digital and data-led project delivering real results, despite many of those who have sought deliberately to campaign against the scheme and undermine public trust and confidence in protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our immigration system, and we are determined to get it right. Through our extensive engagement programme, we have consulted the British people, business leaders, employers, civic groups, local government, academia and specialist organisations such as those working with vulnerable migrants. Our proposal to lift the cap on skilled workers has been supported by the CBI. The decision to widen the threshold for skilled workers has been welcomed by the Construction Industry Training Board, and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has spoken favourably about the plans for the salary threshold.
This responsive, people’s Government have listened to the evidence and designed an immigration system that meets the needs of our businesses, our economy and our country. To ensure that it works from the start, our extensive engagement programme continues. We are working with employers to make it a success for them. We are supporting them every step of the way to ensure that their economic needs and business needs are supported, so people know that global Britain is open for business. The Government will work with employers to develop a UK-wide labour market strategy, enabling businesses to move away from their reliance on the immigration system as an alternative to investing in the domestic labour market, and encouraging employers to invest in people, their skills and development, leading to an economy that is fit for the future, with higher productivity and wider investment in technology and skills.
The current crisis has shone a light on how we value those who provide compassionate care across health and social care. The Government’s long-term solution for social care is focused on investing in those who deliver that compassionate and high-quality care. An additional £1.5 billion has already been allocated for adult and children’s social care in this financial year, and the Government are working with the sector on a plan for the long-term recruitment, investment and training of those who are dedicating their careers to care. As the Migration Advisory Committee identified in its own report published earlier this year, the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector.
I will now set out for hon. Members exactly what this Bill does. First and foremost, the purpose of this Bill is to end free movement. From 1 January 2021, all EU and non-EU citizens will be treated equally. The Bill repeals all EU immigration legislation retained under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. This means that European economic area citizens, including EU and European Free Trade Association citizens, and their family members will become subject to UK immigration law, and they will require the same permission to enter and remain in this country as people from the rest of the world—levelling the playing field and giving everybody the same opportunity to come to the UK regardless of which countries they come from.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Nick Thomas-Symonds, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking the Home Secretary for our briefings in recent weeks, which have been very important throughout this crisis. I look forward to them continuing in the weeks and months ahead. We meet today during a public health emergency that has shone a light on deep inequality and unfairness in our society, and that has shown the extraordinary value of what so many workers do for our families and our communities.
The Bill fell at the general election and has now been brought back to the House for the second time. Looking at the text of the Bill, we see that little has changed—it now has nine clauses rather than seven—but what has changed dramatically are the circumstances in which we debate it.
On a Thursday evening at 8 o’clock, we clap for our carers. Millions of people come to their doorsteps to say thank you. Quite rightly, we are showing our appreciation for our NHS workers, our care workers and all our frontline workers—police, fire, all our emergency services, those in our shops and those out on our roads driving supplies up and down the country—who are putting themselves in harm’s way day after day to keep us safe. They are making sacrifices in order to help others. We are rightly proud of them and we honour their bravery and courage, yet in the midst of this crisis, the Government are putting forward an immigration system containing a salary threshold of £25,600. That sends a signal and tells people that anyone earning less than that is unskilled and unwelcome in our country.
We on the Opposition Benches know that people are not being paid the value of what they do, and that what our frontline workers earn does not reflect what they contribute to our society. Many of us did not need reminding of that, but it seems that the Government do need reminding. Those who clapped on Thursday are only too happy to vote through a Bill today that will send a powerful message to those same people that they are not considered by this Government to be skilled workers. Are our shop workers unskilled? Our refuse collectors? Our local government workers? Our NHS staff? Our care workers? Of course they are not. Government Ministers who were out clapping for the 180,000 EU nationals in the NHS and the care sector on Thursday night are sending a message tonight that they are no longer welcome. That is not fair, and it is not in the national interest.
A labour force survey by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 69% of EU migrants who currently work in the UK would not be eligible for a visa under the Government’s new immigration system. It found that 66% of EU workers in the whole health and social work sector and 90% of EU workers in transport and storage would be ineligible—the very people who are keeping this country running right now. Four in five EEA employees working full time in social care would be ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary threshold the Government want to impose. The average salary for care workers is £19,104, leaving many short of the cap, and there are 115,000 workers in our care system who are EU nationals.
I will give Members an example. This is somebody who did not want her name mentioned, but these are her details. She is an EU migrant, and she is 62. She came to the UK in 2013 and has been working as a live-in carer ever since. She is a 24-hour live-in carer for a 96-year-old lady with dementia. On her earnings last year, she would have no chance of coming to the country under the Government’s new rules. Are we to believe that a 24-hour live-in carer is in low-skilled work? That is what the Government want us to believe.
The care sector in England was not properly prepared going into this crisis and it seems that no lessons are being learnt from that lack of resilience and that lack of proper preparation before the crisis began. One would think the Government would have learned the lesson about not leaving people vulnerable in our care homes, but it seems they have not. Indeed, they want to create conditions where the situation could become even worse. In England alone, 66,000 NHS workers are EU nationals and there are 40,000 nursing vacancies, which will be exacerbated by the income threshold.
The Home Secretary talks about a fast-track visa, but it is not on the face of the Bill and, in any event, it does not include social care. No wonder the Royal College of Nursing says that the Government’s current proposals for the immigration system will exclude some health and care workers from entering the UK, primarily social care staff, and will have a devastating impact on the health and social care sector. No wonder the British Medical Association says:
“Any changes to the UK immigration system, which could deter those who may want to work in the UK, risks having significant implications for the staffing of health and social care services, quality of care and patient safety in the future.”
The truth is that the Government have not won the trust of our most vital service at this crucial time, yet rather than reflect on that they are attempting to rush this through Parliament and ask that we trust they will do the right thing by the health service. We all know that you cannot trust the Conservatives with the NHS. When it comes to the health service, if asked to choose between the RCN, the BMA and Unison on the one hand, and the Conservatives on the other, I know who I would choose every time.
Let us be clear: the Bill allows the Government to create a new system through statutory instrument. Ministers are asking this House for a blank cheque, for the trust of Members to go away and implement a new system, and for an Executive power grab that reduces the role of this House in shaping it. The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the 2017-19 Bill expressed concerns about the wide scope of the powers:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with part 1, however tenuous”.
The words “in connection with” are in the new version of the Bill and the situation is unchanged.
In recent weeks, we have seen the confusion and chaos caused when the Government act like they are giving Executive orders outside Parliament without proper scrutiny. The Government should not make the same mistake again when it comes to an issue as important as our future immigration system. Scrutiny makes for better Government decisions and should be welcomed, not shunned.
Let me take this opportunity to say that the 1.2 million British-born people living in the EU27 should be protected and that the 3 million EU citizens living in this country are welcome and are valued here: our families, our friends, our neighbours. They are a central part of our communities and our society. They have brought great benefits and make us a richer, more diverse society. But I am only too aware that warm words are not enough. The deadline for the EU settlement scheme will fast approach. The default position is that anyone who has not applied by the deadline will lose their legal residence status here in the UK unless they have a good reason not to have applied. The Government must act, be open on the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the system, and do all they can to ensure that those who are eligible for the scheme apply and have their applications swiftly processed.
The Government plan for the future immigration system was first set out in the White Paper published in December 2018. How different things were then. The Government talk of a points-based system; what they actually propose is an income-based system. Salary is not a proxy for the level of skill and a salary-based system will not work for incentivising high-skilled migration.
The Government have deliberately held down public sector wages for a decade, and if they do so again, the gap between what people are paid and the value of their contribution to our society will only widen. This does not reward work and is unfair. Try telling the careworkers in my constituency or, indeed, any in the land that their work is unskilled.
Fairness will be at the heart of the amendments that the Opposition will press in Committee. We know what happens when a Government lose sight of fairness and the national interest in our immigration system. Wendy Williams’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” was published only a short time ago. The Home Secretary referenced the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). That review makes for sobering reading, saying:
“Members of the Windrush generation and their children have been poorly served by this country. They had every right to be here and should never have been caught in the immigration net. The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families.”
Never should we let something like that happen again. Indeed, there is such mistrust that the3million and other campaign groups want physical proof of settled status for EU citizens because they simply do not trust the Government’s assurances about everything being digital.
Where the system is not working as it should, the Government must act. Take, for example, looked-after children in local authority care. Currently, there have to be applications for pre-settled or settled status on behalf of eligible children by hard-pressed local authorities that are dealing with the coronavirus crisis. Given those pressures, the Government should just do that automatically, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider that. On immigration detention, we will be putting forward proposals for fairness, including an all-important time limit of 28 days.
In my first letter to the Home Secretary last month, I raised the issue of the injustice of continuing with the policy of no recourse to public funds during the coronavirus crisis for victims of domestic abuse. The Government must look at the issue of those left with no recourse to public funds. We are in a public health emergency—it is in the interests of all of us that people get the help they need.
There are also issues around NHS charges during this crisis. Nobody should have barriers placed in front of them when their work is essential in helping us all. I was appalled by the revelation over the weekend that, after all, NHS staff will not be exempt from these charges, despite their hopes having been raised by the Home Secretary, who mentioned a review. The issue has been mishandled by this Government from the start of the crisis. Additional fees for NHS staff to access the very healthcare that we are thanking them for providing is no way to mark their extraordinary service throughout this crisis. I ask the Home Secretary to think again about that review.
Having left the EU, and with the transition period coming to an end, we must have an immigration system that is fair and in the national interest. Handing over sweeping powers to the Government to create a system that labels so many of those workers who are keeping our country running day by day as unskilled is the wrong thing to do. If the Government are confident in their arguments, they should not be afraid of parliamentary scrutiny of their proposed new system. If they truly value what our frontline workers do, they will not send out a powerful signal that those who earn below £25,600 are unskilled and unwelcome. Instead, they should think again, and that is why we will vote against the Bill tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Caroline Nokes, who has five minutes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate from a more nuanced perspective than I would have been permitted just 12 months ago. I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his new role. The last time he and I debated immigration, it was in a debate on the previous iteration of this Bill, when he had the opportunity to intervene on me frequently—an opportunity denied to him today.
The hon. Gentleman said that we are rushing the Bill but also pointed out that it is just two clauses different from the previous Bill, which we well debated. I argue that we are not rushing the Bill. It is something that we must complete before the end of the transition period on 31 December this year. He also commented on the use of statutory instrument to change the immigration rules. That has ever been the case and often can be used for good; I highlight the example of Afghan interpreters, on which I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary there is still more to be done.
Returning to the iteration of the Bill in front of us, there is no doubt that we must turn off free movement. We must uphold the outcome of the 2016 referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly pointed out, but I would argue that we must do that with caution, and a phased approach might give us more flexibility. This time last year, matters were very different. I was an immigration Minister seeking to find a route through a minefield at a time of record employment. I have grave fears that my right hon. Friend will find herself doing it at a time of record unemployment. Perhaps those roles that British workers have been able to choose not to do over the past 10 years will be more attractive than they were, but the omens do not look good.
We heard calls for a British land army that were repeated yesterday by Waitrose, and many thousands have responded, but few have chosen to pursue the option. One in six of the brave care workers on the frontline of the battle against coronavirus are non-UK nationals. I commend the Home Secretary on her commitment to extend visas to doctors and nurses, but what of care workers? Are they to be the Cinderella service, forgotten once again? What of ancillary staff in our hospitals, who are crucial in a war against the virus in which repeated deep cleaning is an absolute imperative. We cannot open hospitals if we cannot clean the loos.
Many in the House have experience of the Home Office —I think that no fewer than six immigration Ministers since 2016 have had a hand in trying to introduce a Bill to end free movement—but it is a machine that moves slowly. Sometimes the best laid plans to revolutionise our immigration system do not work well when introduced in a big-bang style. That is in the best of times; we are not in the best of times. We know from Home Office press releases that there are backlogs in the settled status scheme; that visa application centres are closed; and if someone wishes to renew their indefinite leave to remain, or obtain a new biometric residence card they cannot do so currently. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) responded to me on 16 March that the Home Office was planning an engagement programme for employers that would start that month, explaining that those who were not already tier 2 sponsors should consider “applying now”.
Small businesses that have no experience of the visa system need to become registered sponsors by January, or they will not be able to sponsor the visas of new employees. That includes care homes—the people on the frontline of this crisis. I wonder whether that engagement programme, which was supposed to begin in March, did indeed do so, or has it understandably been delayed? We know from news emanating from the Home Office that it is very much not business as usual, so can care-home owners, freight transporters, retailers, food processors, au pairs and childcare providers have confidence that their applications will be processed, even if they know that they need to apply “now”—that is the Minister’s word, not mine?
I hope that the Home Office has in place the resources needed to process the many thousands of applications to become sponsors that may be made by businesses that have never had any previous contact with the system whatsoever, but I would ask what bandwidth the care-home manager, frantically trying to put a ring round her home to keep residents and staff safe, has suddenly to think, “I had better apply to become a sponsor—just in case.” This is a crucial Bill, but I would like more than two words from the immigration Minister on how it can be delivered in a big-bang fashion in just seven months’ time, when history has proved that that is perhaps not the best way to deliver bold, new immigration systems.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now go to Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Stuart McDonald, speaking for the SNP, who has 10 minutes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid to say that this is a dreadful Bill that will destroy opportunities for future generations and will split even more families apart. It will result in many thousands of EU nationals losing their rights in this country overnight; it will extend the reach of the hostile environment still further; it will drown thousands of businesses and key industries in red tape and massive fees; and it will deprive our public services of talented and desperately needed workers. It will push different nations and regions of the United Kingdom towards depopulation and drive a wedge between us and our European neighbours. In short, it brings to an end the one part of the UK migration system that works well—the free movement of people. Instead, it expands the reach of the UK’s domestic rules—a complicated mess of burning injustice and bureaucracy—and that is why the SNP, without any hesitation, will be voting against this awful Bill. But this awful Bill was made even worse by its appalling timing. Pushing ahead with it in the midst of a public health and economic crisis, and without paying heed to the recent Windrush review, is spectacularly misjudged and shows that the Home Office remains totally out of touch with reality, and completely out of touch with public opinion.
I turn first to the coronavirus pandemic and I join others in paying tribute to those on the frontline. I pay particular tribute to the migrant workers who are there, including too many who have lost their lives—consultants from Sudan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Uganda and Pakistan, a hospital porter from the Philippines, doctors from Germany and Iraq, nurses from Zimbabwe, Trinidad and South Africa, support workers from India and Ghana, and many, many more. Each and every one deserves our tributes and our gratitude, but the more fitting tribute would be a coherent and robust response to the crisis—one that genuinely seeks to ensure that we are all in this together and doing whatever it takes, but that is not what the Bill provides.
We should have had a Bill that makes it easier, instead of harder, to recruit the NHS, social care and other staff we need, and not one that uses an ill-considered financial threshold as a poor proxy for skill, talent or contribution. It is right that the Home Office has ditched its earlier rhetoric about cheap, low-skilled labour, but it is now time to drop the accompanying policies, too. We should have had a Bill setting out a comprehensive and generous system of visa extensions for those frontline workers and their families, not the piecemeal, back-of-the-envelope scheme that the Home Office has so far cobbled together.
We need a Bill that scraps the minimum income requirements for family visas and suspends other financial thresholds, acknowledging that migrant families and workers have had their incomes slashed, just like too many others. More than 100,000 NHS workers and a huge percentage of care workers are prevented by Home Office financial requirements from being able to sponsor their husbands, wives and children to join them here in the UK. Is it not quite outrageous for the Home Office to say, “Thank you for your hard work, but no thanks to bringing your family”? There is absolutely nothing fair about that.
We need a Bill that uprates the pitiful sums of money that we are providing to asylum seekers in this time of crisis and which ensures that, whatever stage of their asylum journey they are at, they can be properly protected. We need a Bill that ensures that all migrants have at least some form of temporary status and which ends the no recourse to public funds rules that deprive people of the support and accommodation they need to get through this crisis. It is impossible for someone to self-isolate if they do not have a roof over their head or food to eat.
We need a Bill that automatically protects all who are at risk of accidental overstaying until coronavirus is over, that gets people out of immigration detention, and that ends data sharing with the Home Office so that the NHS and other vital services are not places that people in need are afraid to attend. We need a Bill that recognises the absurdity of the NHS surcharge and scraps it for good. We need a Bill that postpones any new immigration system until this pandemic is over and we know the reality of the huge economic challenges ahead.
Employers are justifiably aghast at the fact that the Home Office is attempting to foist a whole new bureaucracy on them now, in the middle of a public health and economic crisis. The Government took four years to finalise their immigration proposals, yet they are giving employers little more than four months to adapt—four of the most difficult months imaginable. The Bill undermines, rather than helps, our response to the coronavirus.
However, it is not just the public health crisis that the Home Office has totally ignored in the Bill—staggeringly, it pays no heed to Windrush either. The Windrush lessons learned review is an incredible indictment of the Department. It talks of Ministers failing to “sufficiently question unintended consequences.” It refers to
“an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race”
that reveals a Department that does not listen to contrary opinions or learn lessons, and where the political culture and pressure to be tough has caused harsh treatment, poor decisions and an absence of empathy for individuals. The Windrush case studies presented by Wendy Williams are enough to make people shake with anger, yet the Bill has not a single trace of recognition of Windrush in it and there are alarming signs that the Department has failed to learn lessons. Its crass and insensitive defence of the discriminatory right-to-rent policy almost makes me wonder whether the review has actually been read. Meanwhile, many of the same voices that warned about Windrush are warning about the fate of tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of EU citizens—old people, young people, looked-after children, care leavers and others—who may not appreciate the need to apply for settled status.
If they truly have learned the lessons of Windrush, the Government should protect EEA nationals properly. They should provide them with automatic rights, not rights contingent on their applying by a certain date; they should provide all with fully settled status and abandon the precarious pre-settled status; they should provide EEA citizens with a physical document as proof of their rights, and they must scrap the right to rent and other discriminatory hostile environment policies. Just as before, the Government seem to be ignoring the warnings; instead, the Bill seeks to give Ministers a blank cheque on future immigration policies. The last thing we should do is give the Home Office any more powers until the lessons of Windrush are properly learned.
There are so many other areas of immigration, asylum and nationality laws that need fixing. There is nothing in the Bill to address the injustices of nationality law, such as the disgraceful fees charged to children who simply want to register their British citizenship, to which they are entitled. There is nothing to fix our broken asylum system —the poverty support rates, the chaotic accommodation contracts, the shambolic move-on period, the ban on work, the restricted family reunion rights, and the loss of Dublin III participation. There is nothing here to address our addiction to immigration detention and the shame of being the only country in Europe without a time limit on detention. There is nothing to address the decimation of appeal rights and legal aid, which has contributed to many injustices, including Windrush.
Time and again, the Home Office has shown that it is so obsessed with numbers that it has totally lost sight of individual workers, students and family members, and the contributions that they make. More and more people will be asking, “Why did we leave immigration policy to the Home Office at all?”
Of course, on the question of who should make migration policy, with every single day of Home Office incompetence and injustice, the case for migration policy for Scotland being made in Scotland grows stronger. We have been reasonable, pragmatic and thorough in building the case, publishing papers and pointing to international best practice, but the Government simply refuse to engage in a grown-up discussion about migration policy being tailored for Scotland.
The risk of population decline and a shrinking labour force and tax base are real and grave issues for Scotland. The future system that this Government have designed is nothing short of a disaster for health and social care, tourism and hospitality, food and drink, agriculture, our universities, and many other key sectors of the Scottish economy. I recognise that it is not just Scotland that the Home Office is throwing under the bus, but other nations and regions of the UK too.
Instead of issuing soundbites and slogans about a system working for all, the Home Office must engage seriously. It must recognise that any system that has the express aim of reducing migration does not just fail to work for Scotland but actively works against Scotland’s interests. This is a rotten Bill, introduced with rotten timing. It is beyond repair and it does not deserve a Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now have to introduce a formal time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I should remind hon. Members who are speaking from home to have some way of ensuring that they do not exceed five minutes in case they cannot see the time on their computer or device while they are speaking, because I will have to enforce the five-minute limit very strictly.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Parliament has an opportunity to seek a broader consensus on what immigration and citizenship means for our country. However, we must recognise that immigration is a question of balance. It may bring pressures, but it also brings significant gains. Finding that balance is crucial.
My party’s manifesto talked about control, which was a cornerstone of the 2016 referendum. However, a country’s having a sovereign say over its borders should not be confused with its being anti-immigration; as my party’s manifesto set out, it is more about offering a balanced package of measures that are fair, firm and compassionate.
The importance of the new immigration system is to identify and welcome the skills our country needs. The proposed NHS visa is a good case in point. The ongoing health crisis has underscored the tremendous contribution and commitment that many healthcare workers from overseas make to our care; without them, our nation and our brilliant NHS could not cope.
Further, we have a commitment to the 3 million-plus EEA nationals who call Britain home. We have rightly made a promise that no one with legal status should lose out, and we likewise rely on an important reciprocal arrangement with our European friends that they safeguard the rights of over 1 million British citizens living and working on the continent. Only a few days ago, my friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the European Commission to highlight the issues some of our fellow British citizens are encountering in seeking to guarantee their rights—issues that I reasonably foresaw and gave prior repeated warnings on to both successive UK Governments and the EU, for example during my meeting with Michel Barnier last July.
The immigration debate today also focuses on the new points-based system and visas for work immigration. That is, of course, a central and key part of the new immigration policy, but it is not the only aspect that warrants and deserves our attention. I encourage the UK Government to think more about what happens after the points-based system: what is in store for those who come here, who build their lives here, who pay their taxes here, who reside here and who make significant contributions here? Just as the Government’s points-based system draws on the experience of Australia and Canada, there is much to be learned from their respective approaches to citizenship. For example, the Canadian handbook for new citizens opens with a warm message of welcome from the Queen and has a positive tone throughout. We could simply and easily emulate that welcoming, positive tone. But how do the costs of becoming a British citizen compare with those of Canada or Australia? It is estimated that the cost to the Home Office to process a citizenship application is about £370, yet the fee charged to an applicant is £1,330-odd, the highest amount in the western world. The combined cost for citizenship in Australia, Canada, France, Denmark and the United States is still less than the cost of an application for one British citizenship. This serves to highlight the huge disparity between our nation’s costs and those of nations such as Canada and Australia, whose immigration systems we are about to emulate.
I am currently chairing an inquiry involving colleagues from across the House and experts outside it, with the highly respected non-partisan think-tank British Future. The inquiry seeks to promote a new, proactive, measured approach and making citizenship fully part of our new perspective on immigration, and some of the practical ideas that could make that a reality. Therefore, in supporting this Bill today, I make this very modest request of the Government: to conduct a review of citizenship policy, to assess the current policies and processes from the perspective of the value of integration and shared identity that can be gained by encouraging the uptake of British citizenship.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The cross-party Select Committee on Home Affairs that I chair has repeatedly called for us to build a new, positive consensus on immigration in place of the polarisation of previous years, and this should be the time to do that: right across the country everyone can see the immense contribution of immigration to our nation and our public services, most of all our NHS and social care system. More than half of the NHS and careworkers who have died from coronavirus were born abroad; they could not have given more to this country, and we owe them so much.
We are also at a time when we need to move on from the old Brexit divides: Brexit happened in January and as a result European free movement rights end in December, so we need new legislation and the UK has to choose what to do next. We have to choose well and build a positive system that recognises and welcomes the contribution people coming to Britain have made for many generations and will make in future, too. We have to choose well and build a positive system that recognises and welcomes the contribution that people coming to Britain have made for many generations and will make in future, too. That means that the Government have to ditch the divisive rhetoric of recent years and recognise that the hostile environment, and the treatment of the Windrush generation as a result, demean us and can never be part of a new consensus. Meanwhile, Labour will need to make a start on the commitment we made in our 2017 manifesto to draw up new fair immigration rules for EU and non-EU migration in place of the EU free movement system.
I heard from Labour supporters concerned about the gulf, for example, between the rules for EU and non-EU citizens. I heard from others who opposed EU free movement, because they could see employers exploiting it to keep wages down, and who rightly pointed out that there is a difference between a free-market approach to immigration and a progressive approach to immigration. There are many different ways to draw up a left-of-centre, fair approach. It is time to look afresh at how we build a new positive consensus on immigration, but there are significant problems with the Government’s approach.
First, this is only half a Bill. It removes the old system, but it does not set out a new one. It gives Ministers major powers. In fact, we should be rejecting the old approach through successive Governments of only doing things through secondary legislation by making things more transparent and putting the bones of a new system in primary legislation instead.
Secondly, by default, the Bill extends rather than repeals the hostile environment. As we have seen from the Windrush scandal, that shames us. The hostile environment should be repealed rather than extended in this way.
Thirdly, there will be considerable problems with the Government’s White Paper proposals for social care. A quarter of a million careworkers have come from abroad —half of them from Europe—and we should be supporting them, yet the Government’s £25,000 salary threshold for overseas workers will turn those people away. Those careworkers should be valued and paid more, and I will campaign for them to be so, but the Government must heed the warning from the Health Foundation, which said:
“The government’s new immigration system looks set to make our social care crisis even worse.”
We cannot do that at this time.
The Bill should also do more to support careworkers. Rightly, the Home Office has introduced free visa extension for overseas doctors and nurses and has also said that if they die from covid-19, their families will be given indefinite leave to remain, but why exclude careworkers? Why exclude NHS porters and cleaners—those who wash and clean sick residents, those who scrub the door handles and the floor and those who do laundry for the covid wards? It is also time to lift the NHS surcharge for NHS staff and careworkers, instead of charging families maybe £10,000 when they renew five-year visas, on top of their taxes, to fund the NHS they are already working incredibly hard for and, in some awful cases, giving their lives for, too.
I believe this Bill is flawed, but I recognise that legislation on immigration is now needed. As Select Committee Chair, I will table amendments that I hope will receive cross-party support. In that cross-party spirit, I will not vote against the Bill tonight, although if the Government’s approach does not change, I expect to oppose it when it returns to the House, because it is immensely important that we try to build that new consensus. I urge the Government to do so, because they have the opportunity to do so now. There will always be disagreements on different aspects of immigration, but right now at this point, particularly in this coronavirus crisis, we should be looking for the areas where we can find agreement, and find a positive way forward.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
It is always a privilege to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and I will pick up on one or two of the things she said.
The core purpose of the Bill is to deliver on the 2016 mandate of taking back control of our borders, so it is no surprise that I wholeheartedly approve of that policy, although I say to those on both Front Benches that I have always presumed that control of our own borders allows us to create policies that protect the interests of sectors such as care homes and their dedicated workers, and I trust we will do that.
The House should also use this opportunity to put right some deep and long-standing injustices at the heart of our immigration system. As it stands, illegal migrants can be held and detained indefinitely in psychologically inhumane conditions. Detention is meant to facilitate deportation, but we routinely detain people for extraordinary lengths of time without deporting them. By the end of 2019, the individual detained for the longest period had been in a holding centre for 1,002 days —nearly three years. These people are detained without trial or due process, without oversight and without basic freedom, and they are carrying the destabilising psychological burden of having no idea when they will be released. This flies in the face of centuries of British civil liberties and the rule of law.
For the most part, these detainees are not hardened criminals—they are frequently the victims of human trafficking, sexual assault and torture—yet we treat them as criminals, with little compassion at all. Let me tell one story, that of Anna, a Chinese woman who speaks no English. She had fled her home in China after her husband was sentenced to death for drug offences. She was told that she was being taken elsewhere in China. After days of travel, when the doors of her vehicle finally opened, she was not in China, but in rural Britain, where she was forced into prostitution and several years of unpaid work—slavery by another name—under threat of being reported to the immigration authorities. She was then arrested during a raid, taken to Yarl’s Wood and held indefinitely. Anna’s story is not an isolated case; as a country, we detain about 25,000 individuals each year for immigration purposes. Any situation in which the state strips people of their liberty requires the highest possible level of scrutiny and accountability. The purpose of any incarceration should be clear. Conditions and a time for release should be set. That is why I intend to table amendments limiting migrant detention to 28 days and providing robust judicial oversight. This was backed before, at the last turn of this Bill, by a cross-party group of MPs, as well as by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I will finish by saying this simple thing: the UK has a proud tradition of civil liberties and the rule of law, and it is time to honour that by bringing an end to this damaging and unjust policy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
If the covid-19 crisis has taught us anything, it is the value of key workers, so many of whom are immigrants to this country, as we see when we look at the names of the NHS and social care workers who have tragically died. They came from every corner of the globe to care for us and have given their lives for us. So many of the key workers in the UK are immigrants: about 180,000 workers in the NHS and social care sector are from the EU alone, and they are highly represented among the doctors and nurses in our NHS; and, of course, we also have the agriculture workers, food production workers and other key workers, who are keeping our country going at a time of crisis. For decades, we have undervalued them, but now we applaud them in the streets. When the applause dies, we cannot return to business as usual; we cannot go back to the hostile environment, the racism and xenophobia, the “go home” vans and the scandal of Windrush.
We understand that the world economy is about to fall off a cliff, so we must invest domestically, in skills, education and jobs for our constituents, to ensure that they do not face mass unemployment and hardship, but we will still need new immigrants to help us fill skill gaps, where they exist. Now is not the time to put up barriers because, as we have heard, if we do so, the NHS and social care system will be on its knees. The new global Britain must be open for business, welcoming those who want to roll up their sleeves and help us, just as previous generations did, including my parents’ generation, who made a contribution to this country as new Commonwealth migrants. So let us not forget the proud history of supporting and encouraging immigration appropriately to rebuild after the post-war period. This Bill does not meet our economic needs after covid, nor does it protect the NHS or the social care system. The major flaw in the Bill is the conflation, as others have said, of skills and salaries. Lots of low-paid workers have a huge range of skills; yet the Government are setting a bar of more than £25,000, which, as we have heard, will block many NHS and social care workers.
Unison has predicted that we will need an extra 1 million careworkers by 2025. Many of them earn between £16,500 and £18,500. We should be recruiting an army of carers so that we honour the generations that raised us, who should be supported and cared for in their later years. That will be put even further at risk if we do not ensure that we meet the skills gap and shortages. We need to ensure that we have a pragmatic policy on immigration. The Bill provides nothing of the sort.
Finally, I want to turn to other areas where the Bill does not address the challenges. In other countries, such as Portugal and elsewhere, Governments are looking at how to ensure that undocumented migrants—we have some 800,000 to 1 million undocumented migrants—are given the healthcare that is needed during the pandemic, where there could be a wider risk.
When the Prime Minister emerged from hospital, he thanked staff, especially the two nurses from New Zealand and Portugal. Despite his praise, it is his Government’s policies that are making them suffer. The proposed surcharge on NHS workers coming to the UK could be as much as £8,000 for a family of four on a five-year visa. That is a huge amount of money, and it is an absolute disgrace that the Government are considering that surcharge. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that that does not happen.
There are many flaws in the Bill, as others have pointed out, including the power grab by Ministers. Why should anyone trust Ministers who presided over the “Go Home” vans and the Windrush scandal? For those reasons, the Bill is not fit for purpose and does not recognise that we need a new settlement and a new consensus, having seen the contribution of migrants to our national health service in protecting and saving lives. The Bill is not fit for purpose, and for that reason I will vote against it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
For decades, people in this country have talked about immigration. When it comes to EU migration, that national debate has been entirely academic, as the UK had so little control over it. In 2016, the British people were asked their view on membership of the EU. Some suggest that immigration was the main driver in making their decision to leave. I think that there were several reasons, but without doubt, immigration was clearly a key driver—the control of our borders and the ending of free movement.
A question was asked; a question was answered. Although too many Members of the last Parliament did not get it, today we can put the dilly, dally, dither and delay to an end. I understand that some are concerned by what they see as a bizarre concept: the end of free movement. To me, it is rather simple: a UK immigration system created and developed by the UK’s elected Government; a system devised in our national interest, determined by the needs of our economy; a system that treats immigrants from every corner of the globe on the same basis, which is all about what they are bringing to our country rather than where they are coming from.
The Bill means that the nurses, doctors, engineers and scientists from the Philippines, Canada, India or the USA will be treated equally to those from Germany, Italy or France. The Bill is not anti-immigration; it is about fair immigration. It will mean that applicants will be judged on their skills and talents, not just their country of origin. The European backdoor will be closed, but Britain will be very much open to the brightest and best, wherever they come from. It is absurd that someone from outside the EU might be denied access to this country based on criminality, while someone from the EU who met the same threshold would be free to enter. It is wrong and it must end.
Very often, the country has chosen to import huge segments of its workforce. Actually, we need to look at why we fail to find the right people with the right skills domestically. The success of this system will be determined by the adaptability and flexibility of the shortage occupation list, coupled with a renewed effort to train, incentivise and invest in our domestic workforce. At the same time, I am glad that the Government are working to welcome the migrants who make such a valued contribution to our NHS, extending the visas of frontline NHS workers and introducing a new NHS visa with fast-track entry and more generous terms.
I am happy to be talking about our borders because it is a subject that concerns many people in my constituency, but also because it is crucial at this time to secure our borders. I have discussed this issue with the Home Secretary and look forward to hearing her express our shared concern to deliver a swift and active solution. Let us give the people what they want and what they voted for: a country in control of its own borders, with a fairer, firmer points-based system that will welcome the brightest and the best based on what they can contribute to this country and not on where they come from.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Today, with this Bill, the Government are seeking to grant themselves powers to reshape our immigration system, with little scrutiny and with little regard for the rights of people who, sadly, they dismiss as low-skilled simply because they do not earn a high salary. These Government plans are built on the right-wing neo-liberal myth that people’s salary determines their skills and their value. Well, the coronavirus crisis has shown all of us whose work actually is essential to keeping our society running, and many of those workers earn far less than the Government’s proposed salary threshold of £25,600. Let us be clear: workers earning under the threshold are not low-skilled; they are low-paid. All of us have a moral responsibility to recognise their contribution, and not to introduce rules that restrict the rights of low-paid workers even further, because it will be our communities, and often the most vulnerable members of our communities, who will pay the price for this.
Our care system is facing an unprecedented crisis, and our Government, shamefully, are seeking to make it harder for careworkers to come to this country to contribute. The founder of our national health service, Aneurin Bevan, once remarked that we could manage without stockbrokers, but we would find it harder to do without miners, steelworkers and those who cultivate the land. The 21st-century equivalent is that our society could cope a lot longer without hedge fund managers, fat-cat landlords and billionaire tax avoiders and tax evaders than we could without bus drivers, bin collectors, supermarket workers, carers and other low-paid workers who under these rules will face tougher restrictions than the top earners.
Our approach to the Bill today cannot be divorced from the record of this Government over the past decade. This Government, with their hostile environment, have used their narrative on immigration as a way to scapegoat one part of the working class for problems the working-class as a whole face due to austerity, cuts and free market fundamentalism. This Government are wilfully scapegoating migrants to let off the hook those who are really responsible for the economic failings of the past decade.
Just the other week, an NHS physician in my constituency who came here from Egypt wrote to me distraught because, as he put it to me, if he were to die in service of our NHS due to coronavirus, his dependent family would be booted out of this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the Government have shifted on this, but they should not have had to be asked in the first place—and why can they not extend that change in position to careworkers?
How can we trust a Government who oversaw the hostile environment? How can we hand over powers to the Government to create a new immigration system with far less scrutiny than previously? How can we trust that there will not be a second Windrush crisis affecting many thousands of EU citizens who came to make their life here but have not yet been granted settled status? How can we trust that, under political pressure, the Home Secretary and this Government will not make immigration policy that is designed not to serve the interests of working-class communities or diversity, but to chase headlines in the right-wing newspapers?
I was one of the sponsors of a reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). It was not selected, but I nevertheless want to reiterate demands made in it. I want the Government to think again about this immigration Bill. We need the Government to think again and to protect the rights of British citizens to live, work and study in other EEA member states. We need the Government to think again and grant EEA citizens currently living here in the UK automatic permanent settled status. We need the Government to reflect long and hard on the history of the Windrush scandal and of “Go Home” vans touring estates, making a hostile environment for people in our communities. The Government need to reflect on that. They need to reflect on who really contributes to our society.
The Government also need to reflect on the need to end the scandal of indefinite detention, which makes us, in a very shameful way, stick out like a sore thumb in Europe—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his five minutes. We now go to Dr Jamie Wallis in Bridgend.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is clear that when some people in Bridgend voted for my party for the first time, they did so knowing that this Government would take them out of the European Union and that we were going to take back control of our borders. One of the loudest messages that some of my constituents raised with me during the last general election campaign was that immigration needed to be under this Government’s control. They rejected the plan on offer by the Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has shown that she is absolutely on the side of British people and their priorities.
Immigration is essential to our culture, economy and way of life. Immigrants have powered and often created many of our businesses. We should also thank them for their continued contribution to our great public services, and our appreciation should never waver, especially now, during the covid-19 crisis. But this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way our immigration system works for the better. For the first time in decades, the UK will have full control over who comes to this country and how our immigration system operates. I welcome the Government’s commitment to build a fairer, single global immigration system that considers people based on their skills rather than their nationality. I also welcome the commitment to replace free movement with the UK’s very own points-based system. This new system will prioritise those with the best skills and the more-needed talents, including scientists, doctors, nurses, engineers, academics and innovators.
I have always believed that the new system is about more than simply controlling the numbers. While I am glad that the Government are committed to reducing the overall levels of migration, I am more glad still of their commitment to attract the best and brightest from across the world. This will benefit businesses, including those within my Bridgend constituency. This process is about helping to create a high-wage, high-skill, high-productivity economy. I welcome this approach. Our country cannot become dependent on cheap labour and must focus instead on investment in technology and future industries, such as the space industry and clean energy.
The current covid-19 crisis will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the British economy, and it is imperative that our immigration policy facilitates those businesses looking to future industries as a way of supporting our recovery. We must ensure that our policy is focused on building a future where we level up Britain and focus on what is best for all our futures in the coming months. Our common aim should be to invest in and mobilise our UK workforce.
We also need to take into account the fact that within the United Kingdom we are going to have regional variations in demand for certain skills. Take Wales, for example: we have a high dependence on a limited number of sectors such as steel and manufacturing. Where there is a shortage of certain skills within specific industries, the Migration Advisory Committee should be set up to acknowledge and report on those differences.
Just before I close, let me say that the economy, especially during these uncertain times, has the potential to change quite dramatically over the next few years. We need to make sure that, rather than looking at the current output of certain industries, our immigration policy is looking to respond proactively to their potential. For example, sectors such as clean energy and robotics may make up a small part of Britain’s economy today, but they have the potential to make a much larger contribution in the future. It is therefore important that we have an immigration policy that is set up to support the future growth of these sectors in particular. By ensuring that we take this proactive approach, we can ensure that our immigration system can withstand significant changes to the way our economy may work in the future and that we continue to attract the brightest and the best in their respective fields.
Finally, stopping the unfair disadvantage that some people outside the EU face when trying to come to this country is a sound argument. I say that as someone who has parents and grandparents who were born outside the EU, but who made Britain their home and built their lives here. Talent is spread across the whole world and is not concentrated in any one region. That is why, with this fair immigration Bill, we will be able to ensure that our friends and partners across the whole world have the opportunity to come to this great country and help make a success of post-Brexit Britain.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Like my good friend the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I shall be voting against this Bill. It is a bad Bill. It is bad in principle, bad in practice and it sends a terrible message to migrants and the children of migrants. The Bill does indeed abolish freedom of movement—although once this country voted to brexit, freedom of movement would have fallen in any event—but the Government are doing it in such a way and in such a manner that it seems to ignore the effect of this on around 890,000 British nationals in the EU. We feel that there was a better way of achieving the same effect.
The Bill gives the Government a blank cheque to construct a new immigration system through statutory instrument. Anybody that has had to deal with the immigration system knows that one of the problems is ill-thought regulation piled on top of ill-thought regulation. The idea that the Government can construct a new immigration system without proper parliamentary scrutiny will make anyone who has ever tried to help anybody with an immigration problem fear for the consequences.
The Bill is a slap in the face for the thousands of migrants, including EU migrants, who have been working so hard for the NHS and the care sector in this time of covid crisis. The idea put forward by Ministers that £25,600 is somehow a proxy level for skill is absurd. We know that the skills, the concern and the devotion that migrants are currently showing at this time of covid crisis cannot be measured by money, but Ministers seem to think that we can measure somebody’s value to society by an arbitrary financial threshold.
EU migrants play a vital role not just in the NHS and the care sector, but in construction. In fact, they play a big role in construction, not because they are unskilled but because, as any developer would tell us, they have very important construction skills that developers are unable to recruit here. They play an important role in hospitality. They should have been granted settled status automatically. They should have physical documents, not a digital code, and we should not be moving towards extending the hostile environment towards EU migrants.
The Bill represents a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity on the NHS surcharge. It is quite wrong that migrants working for the NHS pay three times over: once through taxation; once through the surcharge; and, in some cases, with their lives. It should have ended the no recourse to public funds system. It should have brought in a 28- day statutory time limit for immigration detention. It should have brought back legal aid for article 8 immigration cases, and it should have reformed the law on deportations so that people who came here as children cannot be arbitrarily deported.
When the House debated Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review, there was a lot of hand-wringing on the Government side of the House about the Windrush scandal, but the review had some quite specific recommendations about immigration, including that the Home Secretary introduce a migrants commissioner; that the immigration department should re-educate itself fully about the current reach and effect of immigration and nationality law; that there should be a programme of training and development for all immigration and policy officials; and that Ministers should ensure that all policies and proposals for legislation on immigration are subject to rigorous impact assessments.
The Home Secretary has said that the Bill is about a brighter future. A brighter future for whom? For EU nationals, who face a period of great uncertainty? Is it a brighter future for the old, the sick and the infirm, because the institutions that they rely on will have enormous difficulty recruiting people when there is an end to freedom of movement? Is it a brighter future for society, when we pass a Bill that sends a signal to wider society—and to migrants in particular—that you are only as valuable as the amount that you earn, and that we will clap for you on a Thursday and put forward a Bill like this a few days’ later?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in these proceedings, as they represent another important step in this Government delivering on what people in Crewe and Nantwich voted for, and that is for us to take back control. That is why the Bill is important. I relish the fact that we are now once again having a full and healthy debate about the details of our immigration policy—not just a yes or no to the freedom of movement. We are having these debates because our Government are once again fully accountable for immigration policy. The Opposition have every right to scrutinise and propose alternative approaches—that is how our democracy functions.
How did we ever think that on such a complicated issue we could simply tick a box saying yes? Deciding who can visit, work in and live in our country is a matter of fundamental importance that should never have been simplified to such an unsophisticated approach as freedom of movement. There are so many different factors that we need to balance—the needs of business in the short and long term; the goal of providing the best possible job opportunities for British citizens; the obligations we have to provide safe refuge to individuals in need; the impact on our housing market; and the effect of large-scale immigration on social cohesion. Those are just a few of the things we have to think about.
All of those factors will ebb and flow in importance over time, and any effective immigration system needs to be able to ebb and flow along with them. Instead, we have had a fixed policy, direct accountability for which sat offshore. A multifactorial issue became a binary one. People were either pro freedom of movement or against it. I am afraid that that did not work, and was never going to work. It became a touchstone issue in relation to our EU membership, because voters could sense it was not right. That is fundamentally why I want freedom of movement abolished. It is policy making on the cheap, decision making without decisions—the multitude of views on all the different ways in which we should change our policy that we will hear in the Chamber today are a testimony to that.
I want to talk about what I think has been a shameless attempt to distort the meaning of the term “low-skilled”—a phrase that has been used cross-party across multiple Governments for many years. The last Labour Home Secretary referred on a number of occasions in this House to the low-skilled, and I cannot believe anybody would ascribe to him any disrespect to those he was referring to in his use of that term. The current shadow Home Secretary has spoken about high-skilled jobs in the House, and I do not imagine that anyone would argue that we can talk about high-skilled jobs without having to acknowledge the existence of low-skilled jobs. I do not in any way seek to diminish the prominence of the current post holder, but in 2014 the previous long-serving shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked the then Business Secretary what steps were being taken to address the exploitation of low-skilled workers. In 2018, the right hon. Lady also agreed that it was logical to distinguish between high and low-skilled migrants when making immigration decisions. I find the deliberate attempt to inject disrespect into the current use of that term extremely distasteful, because it is an attempt to gain some short-term political advantage by hurting the feelings of people who at this minute are working hard for this nation. However, perhaps it would do no harm to review our language in this regard so that in future it cannot be exploited.
What do we really mean when we use the term “low-skilled”? What we are actually talking about is how readily a skill can be acquired. The person who cleans a cubicle so that I can see a patient is just as vital a member of the team as I am when it comes to looking after patients. If they were not doing their job, I could not do mine. But we can more readily train someone to do that job than we can train someone to be a doctor or nurse. That is a simple fact. It does not in any way demean the importance of the role or contribution of those whose skills are more easily acquired than others. Opposition Members know that full well, and that is part of the discussion we will have about salaries and how that works when we decide roles and who we want to come here.
When we consider whether we should allow people to come here to live and work, we inevitably prioritise individuals with skillsets that are not readily or easily acquired. That is what we are talking about when we talk about high and low-skilled jobs. Going forward, perhaps we could consider changing our approach to talk about readily acquired and non-readily acquired skills, so that we are saying exactly what we mean and there can be no doubt.
Of course, I expect the Government to look closely at how their policy approach will translate in the real world so that our public services have the staff who are needed and our economy is well resourced. We need to find a way to recognise the important and valuable contribution that immigrant workers have made to the NHS during this crisis, but it is absolutely right that we should grow our home skill base whenever possible. I have felt very uncomfortable with our reliance on the immigration of healthcare professionals to this country over many decades, because we are sometimes taking staff who are desperately needed in their countries of origin, particularly outside the EU. That cannot be right—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Thank you. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his five minutes.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate remotely. Last week, one Member described the hybrid system as “sub-optimal”, and that is undoubtedly the case, but it does at least allow everyone the chance to take part in debates safely.
If the Leader of the House is going to press ahead with his proposals for a physical Parliament after recess, I hope he will explain how we could debate this Bill any more effectively while only small numbers of Members can be allowed in the Chamber; how Members who are shielding or self-isolating could take part in this debate; how Members who have childcare responsibilities and kids off school during the crisis could take part in this debate; and how we could sensibly have a Division involving 600 people at the end of this debate, while social distancing. Perhaps he will also explain why the House of Commons should follow different advice from that given to the rest of the country.
Let me move on to the Bill. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said about the EU citizens who are keeping our care system and our health service going at this most difficult of times. They are heroes, like the rest of the staff in our care and health sector and the other key workers in this crisis. They are highly skilled; they should be highly valued. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the income threshold and our concerns about the risk to the future care sector under the Government’s proposals.
Three quarters of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, and the principles of openness, co-operation, internationalism and solidarity that led so many of them to do that have not changed. Yes, free movement brings challenges, but it also brings huge economic, social and cultural benefits. It will be a sad day when my constituents and other UK citizens will no longer have the ability to travel freely and to study, live and work easily across our wonderful continent.
I recognise that free movement is going to end as a result of the Bill, but the way the Government are going about it is unacceptable, most worryingly in the granting to the Executive of wide Henry VIII powers, which many of my constituents in south Manchester do not trust this Government with. Side-lining Parliament is ironic in the context of the arguments for taking back control to Parliament.
The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report on the almost identical 2017-19 Bill and expressed serious concerns about the wide scope of its regulation-making powers. The Committee stated that it was “frankly disturbed” that the Government would attempt to confer permanent powers to Ministers
“to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate”
as long as it was loosely connected to clause 4 of that Bill. It is a serious report and I refer all Members to the concerns expressed in it.
Other Members have raised the important issues in respect of detention, unaccompanied vulnerable children and visas, so I shall not go over them again. I wish to use the brief time I have left to raise one specific issue for future consideration. As we design a future work and immigration system, and as we come out of this crisis, it is more important than ever to support our cultural industries, which have been hit harder than most by the crisis. Lots of my constituents in south Manchester work in the entertainment industry, many of them in the live music and performance professions. Loss of freedom of movement could have a seriously detrimental effect on the live performance industry. If we make it harder for EU artists to perform in the UK, we are vulnerable to measures that make it harder for our artists to perform around the EU. Winding up a Westminster Hall debate just four months ago, in January, the Minister, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), said:
“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 56WH.]
Organisations in the music industry are pressing for an EU-wide touring visa for musicians, performers, road crew, tour managers, sound and light engineers—all the people who make the industry such a vital contributor to our economic and cultural life. We need a passporting system with reciprocal arrangements, so performers can continue to tour easily after the transition period. A two-year, multi-entry touring visa that is cheap and easy to administer is a deliverable ask.
Music remains a low-earning sector, with musicians earning £23,000 a year on average. They would not meet the salary threshold under the Government’s proposal, so it is vital that the Government come up with a system that supports the live music and performance industries, which employ so many of my constituents and make all our lives richer and more rewarding.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
Importantly for this country, which has always welcomed immigrants, the Bill will enable the alignment of treatment of EU and non-EU citizens as part of our future immigration system. The Bill reflects the concerns of the British people and ends free movement, giving everyone the same opportunity to come to the UK, regardless of where they come from. In line with our manifesto commitments, there will be no automatic route into the UK for foreign workers with few formal qualifications. We can attract the talent and skills from around the world that our economy needs as we emerge from coronavirus. The new, fair immigration system will be flexible and in line with advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, which will keep the occupation shortage list under regular review to ensure that it reflects the needs of our labour market.
Immigration will no longer be used as a replacement for investment in the domestic British workforce. We have an abundance of talent and skills in this country, which must be developed and utilised. Most of us, except for those who support open borders, believe that countries should have an unalienable right to decide who gets to enter their land for work. To seek and strive for such a right does not make us anti-immigrant—quite the opposite. The UK is made up of a rich tapestry of people, and as a country we are the better for it. It is right that people from all over the world are treated fairly and equally, so far as immigration into this country is concerned, under our rule of law. We have a rule of law allowing legal immigration from non-EU countries, but it has far too often been exploited by illegal immigrants and people smugglers and traffickers. It is not right that those who have arrived here illegally are seen by some to have a presumptive right. People who avoid the law are not acting within the law, and are therefore acting illegally.
I welcome the introduction, from the end of the transition period, of a single, consistent and firmer approach to criminality across the immigration system. In my constituency of beautiful Hastings and Rye, we have seen hundreds of migrants land on our shores in small boats from France, most recently at Pett Level at the weekend. They are not refugees, as some insist on calling them. They are migrants, who move for a variety of reasons but who generally make a conscious choice to leave their country to seek a better life elsewhere. They are free to return at any time if things do not work out as they had hoped or if they wish to visit family members and friends left behind.
Refugees are forced to leave their country because they are at risk of, or have experienced, persecution. Their concerns are of safety and human rights, not economic advantage, and as such they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. Many have experienced trauma or have been tortured, causing them to risk their lives in search of protection. They are not free to return to their homelands unless the situation that forced them to leave improves.
Worryingly, we have seen unaccompanied children arrive who are thought to be victims of trafficking. The people who have been landing on our beaches are coming over from France via unauthorised, illegal crossings, having paid thousands of pounds to a criminal—a people smuggler—to do so. I want to be clear: we must press down hard on those exploiting the vulnerable and using them as part of their human trafficking system. Those making the perilous journey across the English channel are risking their lives by doing so, and we must discourage these journeys. We must ensure that those caught up in human trafficking gangs and smuggling rackets are protected and that those orchestrating the journeys are stopped.
France is a safe country. They are not fleeing persecution. Under EU law—the Dublin regulation—asylum must be sought in the first country people arrive in. Furthermore, many have travelled through a number of safe European countries before arriving in France and then going on to UK. If we do not emphasise the difference between migrants and those seeking asylum or refuge, it promulgates misconceptions about the most vulnerable—the refugees, for whom we need to provide the best possible sanctuary. We need to safeguard and expand refugees’ rights and protect them.
Ultimately, we need to ensure that the British public have trust in our immigration system and remain welcoming of legal immigrants and refugees. That can be achieved with the new, robust, fair and independent migration system controlled by the United Kingdom, making sure that illegal migrants do not have not a presumptive right to stay—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Two words dominate my thinking in this debate: disappointment and frustration. My disappointment is that we are presented with a Bill that seeks to end freedom of movement without offering a fair, compassionate and effective alternative, and that the bold words from the Home Secretary are not matched by bold actions in her Bill. I am afraid that I see no point in any level playing field if it is one on which no one is welcome to play. My frustration is with the fact that the Government do not appear to have listened to the many reasonable voices from across Parliament calling on them to rethink this potentially damaging Bill.
The Bill comes at a time when everything we thought we knew about our economy, our wellbeing, our health and how we live our lives every day has been thrown into doubt by the pandemic—a pandemic which demands that we take its actual and potential impacts into account in each step we take towards putting the crisis behind us. That is more relevant to this immigration Bill than to almost any other legislation before us.
Just this morning, a Cabinet Minister told the “Today” programme that the Government want to see people we need come to this country. Surely there is nobody this country needs more at the moment than the tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other NHS staff, the hundreds of thousands of social care workers and the millions more in sectors hit hard by this crisis—from restaurants and hotels to construction and manufacturing —in every city, town and rural community in this country who are migrants. These are migrants who are putting their lives on the line to protect us, who will be crucial to creating economic growth and jobs as we recover from this crisis, and yet who are still expected to pay the surcharge for the NHS they work for, despite the false hope offered by the Home Secretary.
The Royal Society has warned that the end of freedom of movement could mean that other countries without restrictive visas and salary qualifications will benefit from the skills and knowledge available across Europe to which we will no longer have access. In the midst of this crisis, I find it beyond understanding that the Home Secretary is pushing ahead with her plans to make it much harder for employers to hire the very people I am talking about. Visa extensions and fast tracks for some are not enough. Many of these people are the very people we go out every Thursday to applaud for their efforts and sacrifice for us. Surely the Government’s memory is not that short.
That is only part of why I believe that this House should refuse the Bill a Second Reading. Crucially, it also fails to protect the rights of British citizens to live, work and study in EU member states, and it does not fully guarantee the rights of UK citizens already living across the EU. While I am disappointed and frustrated that the Government refuse to respect the rights of EU citizens who contribute to this country, I find it beyond comprehension that they do not recognise the need to protect the rights of our citizens either.
If the stated aim of this Bill is to establish an immigration system to replace free movement that will allow businesses and public services to recruit the workers they need, then it fails. What is needed by the people living in this country right now—people depending on our NHS right now and people struggling, right now, to see how their employer or the business they have worked decades to build will survive this—is an immigration system that will work for them. All of us need a system that will encourage not only those we need to come here, but those we need to stay, and one that will encourage them by creating a fair and compassionate system that will value them according to what they do, not just by a simple salary calculation. Many will also have no recourse to public funds in this crisis.
This Government, in asking Parliament to support a Bill that will give Ministers sweeping powers, would do well to take into account the words of US politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”
This Bill could have profound and, I believe, negative effects on our society and culture. Surely it is up to those of us with political power to save us from that, and that is why I will be voting against this Bill.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I rise in support of this Bill. First and foremost, I am a democrat. I stood on a manifesto saying that we will take back control of our immigration policies, and this Bill is part of that package. Brexit and covid-19 have shown how quickly the world changes, and we need an immigration system flexible enough to ensure that we attract the skilled workers that we need for tomorrow. February’s policy statement made it clear that we need to move away from cheap labour from Europe and more towards investment in technology and automation. I would add that perhaps we need to talk about increasing manufacturing to be making our country more self-sufficient.
The system proposed is a lot simpler. It really does incorporate a points-based system, with streamlined process times that I am sure businesses will welcome. The reality is that businesses need to adapt. They are currently having to change fundamentally the way they work because of the pandemic, and this will be part of their business decision making. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) referred to the criminality, and how this reinforces and strengthens that policy, and I am fully in agreement with him.
As things stand today, we have a two-tier immigration system. With our leaving at the end of this year, we need to have a simple single immigration system, and this immigration Bill allows that to happen. We must be flexible, yet firm on our direction of travel. The Migration Advisory Committee has done some sterling work, and I urge Ministers to ensure that a regular review is fed back to them and perhaps to the Home Affairs Committee on the parameters it uses for the shortage occupation lists. In my view, that will be the key driver in ensuring that we have the skilled workers in the right place at the right time. I welcome the proposal for the support of the agriculture sector, with the increase to 10,000 visas per year from the current 2,500.
It is probably worth remembering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned, that this Bill is only two clauses different from that proposed in the previous Parliament. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to continue to encourage their European nationals to utilise the EU settlement scheme, which is fundamentally very successful. Of the 3.147 million applications, 99% have either been granted as settled or pre-settled, with only 1% having other outcomes; only 640 have been refused, so it is obviously a system that works.
I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know there are other colleagues wanting to be involved in this debate. Thank you for your time.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
I find it extraordinary that, even in the midst of the current pandemic, the Government have not recognised, or do not care about, the implications of the Bill for those who are out there working to keep us alive, keeping the country moving, looking after our vulnerable people and supporting every aspect of our much-changed lives. Some on the Government Benches would like us to think of those people as low-skilled and low-value, but to be deemed low-skilled is in itself insulting. To value a person’s worth based on the amount of money they earn is offensive. It is particularly indecent now, when we see these key workers keeping Britain going. This is not what we teach our children in schools, and these are not the values of the communities of Gower that I represent.
The Home Secretary has said that the new points system will be a
“firmer, fairer and simpler system that will attract the people we need to drive our country forward…laying the foundation for a high-wage, high-skill, productive economy”.
In theory, it all sounds rather sensible, but the proposed system is more of an income-based system, and it is a blunt tool that masks the other skills and qualities that immigrants bring to the UK. George Bernard Shaw said:
“Between persons of equal income there is no social distinction except the distinction of merit. Money is nothing: character, conduct, and capacity are everything.”
But this is not just about the value of these workers at this time. Immigration should be valued and celebrated at all times. I said in my maiden speech nearly three years ago:
“The freedom of movement and opportunities afforded to my forefathers is close to my heart. I will fight for those rights to continue, not just for my child but for the children of Gower and Wales.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 817.]
By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants who can work or study elsewhere in Europe without a visa. If the cost and burden of entering the UK become too high, it will be other countries that benefit from the transfer of knowledge, expertise, investment and culture.
The Government are ploughing through with the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill while the public are distracted. They continue to make meaningless gestures to the key workers such as carers, shop workers and those in public services who are keeping the economy and society going throughout these really troubled times. A significant pay rise is what all key workers need, not another Thursday evening photo opportunity. If there was ever a time to recognise the contribution of immigrant workers in the NHS and other vital jobs, it is now, during this crisis. The Labour party stands up for all the people who have chosen to make the UK their home and who now find themselves, as essential workers, putting their lives on the line to keep the rest of us going.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I share the concerns of cancer charities and others about the Bill undermining many of our already stretched public services. Analysis by Macmillan shows that the Government’s plan for a points-based immigration system will have a real detrimental effect on our health and social care system, which is already under record pressure. To mitigate this, Macmillan is calling for a separate migration route for social care, and asking for social care workers to be included on the shortage occupation list and exempt from the visa salary threshold. Workers and employers need clarity about what specific measures will be put in place to protect the NHS and social care workforces, and they especially need further details of what the NHS visa and an equivalent social care visa would involve. The Home Secretary needs to set out what specific protections a specialist visa would afford, which staff are eligible to apply, and how and when they should apply.
More urgently, will the Home Secretary clarify why the Government have not offered to extend the visas of those working in social care in the same way that they have for those working in the NHS as a result of the coronavirus? The shortage occupation list is nowhere near dynamic enough to respond to workplace shortages within the desired timeframe, so what measures will the Government take to support the already dilapidated social care sector if this new immigration policy deters vital migrant workers from joining the sector? All this uncertainty is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes. We now go to Sir John Hayes in South Holland and The Deepings.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
Migration is a feature of all advanced economies and free societies; some people come and others leave, and it has always been so. For the period from the 1930s—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the sound quality is a bit of a problem. We are just seeing whether it can be improved. Let us try again. Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Migration is a feature of all advanced economies and free societies; people come and they leave, and that has always been so in our country. From the 1930s to the 1980s, migration was essentially in balance—some years, more people left the country; others, more people arrived—but from the mid-2000s, that changed dramatically. The level of net migration that this country has endured since that time is unprecedented.
Last year, about 640,000 immigrants arrived in Britain. That is 100,000 more than the populations of Manchester and Sheffield. When we take into account the number of people who left, the net figure was around 200,000, as it has been, year on year, for a considerable time. I just do not think that is tenable or practical. It clearly places immense demands on all kinds of services, particularly housing, and, frankly, the British people are not satisfied that that is the right way forward, which essentially is what they broadcast in the referendum. Of course that was about more than immigration, but for many, our inability to control our borders, and the consequent effects of large-scale net migration, was a salient factor in why they voted to leave the European Union and end free movement, which is what the Bill does.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that too few people in the political establishment are prepared to face up to the sentiments I just described, which are widely felt by British people. Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, put it this way. He said that mass migration risks igniting the “flames” of racial conflict because of “liberal self-delusion” over its impact by leaders too “touchy”, “smug” and “complacent” or “squeamish” to talk about the issue.
Of course it is true that people who come to this country do much good—we have heard a lot about that, and I could obviously quote examples from my own constituency—but there are other effects of migration of people into low-skilled occupations. When we say “low-skilled”, it is not a pejorative remark; it is a statement of fact. Some jobs are more skilled than others.
The effects of large-scale migration into those jobs have been fivefold. It has displaced investment in technology, particularly in automation; it has held down wage levels, which has been undesirable both from the migrants’ point of view and for people already here; it has encouraged under-investment in training and skills, and it has built an economy that is increasingly ossified by a dependence on relatively low-cost labour rather than the high-tech, high-skilled economy that we need to compete and thrive. But more than that, the unwillingness of successive Governments to tackle this issue has undermined public faith in the efficacy of Government and the willingness of Ministers to face the facts. Now we have a Home Secretary, the Minister on the Front Bench—who I see there now—and a Prime Minister who are willing to face the facts and take decisive action, which is what this Bill does.
I simply end by saying this: in the words of G. K. Chesterton, we should not take a fence down until we know the reason it was put up. The reason we have borders is because it is right that the British people and those they elect to represent them should decide who comes to our country, in what number and why. This Bill is a start, but I finish with these remarks, and a challenge to the Minster. First, we must deport more illegal immigrants. It is extraordinary that the recent Governments, the coalition and the Conservatives, are deporting fewer illegal immigrants than previous Labour Governments were. Secondly, we must be careful about the number of work visas issued. Thirdly, we must keep a watch on net migration as we go forward, so that what we do is in tune with what the British people are prepared to warrant.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
Amidst the ongoing lockdown and social distancing, those of us abiding by these measures have not seen our friends or family in person for weeks. Yet while for most of us this experience is temporary and will last for just a few weeks or months more, it is what those families separated by borders under the UK’s restrictive rules and conditions face all year round. It is just a taste of what these families, who must jump through the Home Office’s complex hoops and over its changing barriers, endure.
The first of these barriers are the deeply discriminatory and restrictive minimum income requirements for families. Currently, someone wishing to bring their partner and children to the UK must have a combined income of £18,600 a year with an additional £3,800 for their first child and £2,400 for each additional child. However, this figure fails to take into account the significant divergence in living costs between different areas of the country. The median house price in my constituency is half the average for England and Wales. While applicants struggle to reach the £18,600-plus figure, particularly as the average yearly wage is around £6,000 less than the UK average, it does not mean that they cannot support a family, and they are unfairly penalised as a result. The Home Office’s disgraceful “Go home” vans on immigration and the detention and treatment of the Windrush generation are the most visible aspects of the hostile environment, but we cannot overlook the huge impact of these deeply unfair rules that tell huge numbers of people they do not earn enough to be with the people they love.
The Bill also says nothing about the extraordinary rise in the cost of immigration health surcharges for those staying in the UK for more than six months, which this October are set to rise by more than 50% in one swift jump, having already doubled early last year. This must be paid for each year and for each person applying and it must be paid upfront along with the extortionate visa fees, creating huge costs for families in this country on work permits, and sending completely the wrong message to families around the world who want to come to this country. The charge also does not go directly towards funding our NHS where it is intended to go, but instead goes straight into the Treasury coffers and acts as a secondary form of taxation on migrants who already pay into our NHS through VAT, income tax, fuel duty and a host of other duties and regular taxes.
The Bill further fails to address the deeply institutionalised discrimination embedded in the Home Office that both I and my staff must navigate on a daily basis. One of the clearest examples of this is the poor decision-making process employed by UK Visas and Immigration. On numerous occasions I have found that the decision maker either does not fully understand the circumstances and situation or ignores documentation sent, claiming it has not been included. That means applications are being rejected for some of the most minor reasons, such as a missing page or bank document that could easily be requested, and which demonstrates the sheer pettiness of the Home Office and how embedded the hostile environment is.
Another example is the high number of refused visa applications: the applications of around nine in 10 of my constituents who reach out to my office for assistance with visitor visas for family and friends from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh are refused. The Home Office states that these decisions are made by a computer system but it is clearly either broken or the Home Office has programmed it with an inbuilt racial bias as those applying have a good financial history and visitor history and are often visiting on compassionate grounds.
As a proud city of sanctuary, Bradford has for years welcomed people from all over the world with open arms, and offered them a new life. In this Bill and the Government’s immigration system, however, the kindness and good will for which we in Bradford advocate so fiercely is tragically absent. As we debate the Bill, I implore the Minister to recognise the importance of family and to ensure that no child is separated from their parent, and to address the serious discrimination and malpractices in the Home Office and the immigration system, with the minimum income requirement, the immigration health surcharge and the decision-making process.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I rise to warmly welcome the Bill, which ends free movement, eliminates the unfairness between EU and non-EU migration, paves the way for a points-based immigration system and, most importantly, delivers on our pledge at last year’s election.
I need no convincing that immigration is and has been a good thing for Britain. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is woven into our nation’s fabric, and we need to continue to attract the brightest and the best around the world. Uncontrolled immigration, however, has placed a great strain on many communities. We simply abandoned any expectation along the way of those who came here to integrate, to speak English and to commit to working and living by the same rules as everyone else. As Tony Blair relaxed the rules, the Labour party simply forgot about working-class communities across the country. It did not listen as those communities struggled for jobs, experienced the difficulties of getting school places and doctor’s appointments, and lived with the consequences of divided communities, which were left to suffer in silence and, should they speak out, risked the wrath of the north London chattering classes who, for the third time in a row, are once again running the Labour party.
Today, the Government are proposing to right those wrongs, and are proposing a pathway to a fair immigration system. What do we hear from the Opposition? We heard the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talk once again about austerity cuts. We heard a disingenuous blurring of the lines between those who are here already and those who may come here in future. We heard from the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that now is not the time, without any indication of when the time might be for a policy such as this. He spoke about lessons learned and the need for the Government to learn lessons, but the Opposition seem to have learned no lessons at all. A lot has been written about how Labour voters abandoned the party in the general election, but the truth is that the Labour party abandoned those voters and those communities many years ago. It is the Conservative one-nation Government who are righting those wrongs and standing up for those communities. I commend the Bill, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s leadership on this matter.
6.54 pm
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Ending freedom of movement has become the loudest answer to everything we hear on the doorstep. No jobs? End freedom of movement. No housing, no doctor’s appointment, no parking? Blame freedom of movement. In that noise, it is hard to talk about this issue without being called either a racist or a bleeding heart liberal, but the truth is that EU migration has benefited our economy. EU migrants contribute £2,300 more to the public purse each year than the average adult—and that is including the cost of their children being here, too. They are also less likely to use our public services, although they work in them. We are more likely to meet an EU migrant helping us in our hospitals than standing in front of us in a queue.
Over the past 20 years, immigration has been on a much larger scale than we have had in the previous 200 years, but, truthfully, however many people have come, this country has never been good at making it work. With every new wave of people, the UK has always been unwelcoming and always regretted it. Indeed, it was the same with the Huguenots, the wave of refugees that brought both my family and Nigel Farage’s family here. When the Windrush generation came, they were met with “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”. Now we rightly honour their contribution to our communities. We have demonised those who have come from Europe for years. Now, as we clap for those who are saving our lives with one set of hands, this proposed legislation asks us to abandon them with another.
The problem here is not immigration; it is politicians talking about what we do not want, rather than what we need. This Bill is that problem written down: bringing to an end freedom of movement without providing for what comes next, because in our toxic political culture ending freedom of movement has been sold as a solution in itself. The only answer the Government are offering us about what replaces it is to expose everyone to the dysfunction that is the current immigration system—the same system that gave us the hostile environment, the Windrush scandal and the legacy system.
The former Home Secretary and former Member for Blackburn once told me there are two divides in Parliament: left and right; and those who have to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who do not. The truth is that the UKBA has been a fiasco for Governments of all colours. It makes us all hypocrites: locking up victims of torture and rape in Yarl’s Wood, while claiming to be defenders of human rights. It is a system where, unlike in other countries in Europe, when we see refugee children, we do not seek to reunite them with their family members or provide them with safe passage to stop them being targeted by traffickers. Above all, it is a system that is just not very good at making decisions. Of the 25,000 people we locked in detention without any limit for how long, only 37% were eventually deported and yet we expect them to deal with this mess without any legal support. The only people who would be helped by this Bill will be us, because it absolves us of dealing with the problems it creates. It gives the Government Henry VIII powers to write immigration legislation without having to bring them back to this place and force us to address the damage that has been done. We already have a points-based system, so the question Ministers should be answering is: what do we award points for? We know that skilled or valued worker does not necessarily mean well-paid worker.
We know 3 million of our EU citizens, who are our friends, our family and our neighbours, are now struggling with the paperwork that pre-settled status entails. There are 1 million Brits in Europe who need a good deal, too. So ask yourselves if you want your children to be able to work for companies who have offices in Berlin or Rome without them being penalised because they cannot travel there, or one that gives points out so that if you fall in love with your French exchange partner you can move to Paris or they can come to you in Barnsley. The benefits that came with freedom of movement mean that when you do not have it, you will end up wanting to invent it. Such freedoms will become more important, not less, in the coming years.
If we are to have a better quality of legislation, we need a better quality of debate about who is coming in and why. Take, for example, the immigrant who came to us having failed his exams with a patchy work history and no ties to the UK. His name was Albert Einstein. Even then, in the 1930s, the UK border authorities misplaced his papers. His landing card was only found in a trawl of old paperwork in Heathrow in 2011. Back then, the Daily Mail urged readers to avoid him and boycott his lectures raising money for other refugees from Nazi Europe. Back then, another MP, Oliver Locker-Lampson, tried to sponsor his British citizenship and help Jews fleeing the Nazis. Back then, we said no and we lost Einstein to America.
When it comes to immigration, our policies all too often meet Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. I will not be voting for the Bill, because it is another example of that phenomenon and my constituents —former, current and future—deserve better from us all. All the while, we as politicians continue to behave like this and debate like this. The problem is not immigrants, it is us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I suspend the House for 15 minutes until 7.14 pm precisely.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
Immigration is a good thing for the United Kingdom, but more than that, immigration has shaped many aspects of life in today’s United Kingdom. People have come to this country from overseas for centuries, bringing their skills, ideas and cultures. For the last 40 years, however, people wanting to live here have been treated in different ways based not on what they can offer, share or contribute, but purely on whether or not they came from the European Union. Those from some of our oldest allies, such as the United States, and from our greatest friends in the Commonwealth, such as Australia, New Zealand, India and Pakistan, have all been treated differently. In fact, it has been worse than being treated differently—it has been discrimination. This Bill will end the discrimination and replace it with equality and fairness.
In the referendum on the EU, along with 17.4 million people, I voted to leave because I wanted to the UK to take back control of its laws, money and borders. But I did not want to close the borders and say no to immigration —far from it, I wanted to say, “We welcome the people who want to come to the UK to contribute, to make this an even better country.” If someone from Spain wants to come here to do that, excellent. If someone from South Korea wants to come here to do that, excellent. With this Bill, from now on they will both have an equal chance, a fair opportunity—a level playing field, if you will.
During this horrendous coronavirus pandemic, we have all seen the massive contribution to the NHS from thousands of staff who have come from overseas to settle in this country. At some time in our lives, each and every one of us is likely to have been diagnosed, treated or nursed by healthcare professionals who were born abroad. I want that to continue and for the NHS to have access to the best talent, the greatest minds and the most compassionate carers, wherever in the world they come from. Nothing in the Bill will change that.
Of course, immigration cannot be unlimited. No country in the world would be able to support that. What is more, the British people have made it clear that they want lower overall immigration and an end to free movement by citizens of the EU. The Bill delivers their mandate. It paves the way for deciding who should be allowed to live and work here, using a points-based system that delivers for our economy and society. It can be adapted and tailored to the UK’s needs. It will encourage businesses to focus on developing and training the British workforce in lower-skilled occupations while ensuring that they have ready access to the cream of the global skill and talent pool. The tradeable characteristics in the points-based system and ongoing reviews by the Migration Advisory Committee provide flexibility over salary and skills that will ensure that employers can hire the right people at the right time to boost our productivity and improve our public services. It is a system that is firm and fair, clear and coherent. Coming from a constituency with a large number of microbusinesses, I just ask that sufficient focus and attention are devoted to small firms to ensure that they have the guidance and support they need to implement these new measures at a time when they already face considerable challenges resulting from coronavirus.
I also welcome the benefits that the Bill will bring to our border security. Stricter controls will help to ensure that serious criminals cannot come to our country to commit offences and create more victims of crime. Can anyone really disagree with that? Too often as a magistrate, I saw criminals who had been able to come into the UK unchecked because of EU free movement. I am therefore pleased that in future, we will have the right automatically to reject EEA migrants with criminal convictions, and I look forward to seeing further details of the proposed mechanics of that later in the Bill’s progress.
Some people have said that this is the wrong time to introduce this Bill. I respectfully disagree. At a time when we are encouraging the country to try to go about its business while staying safe and alert, we in this House, too, should be going about our business, delivering the legislation that we promised in December’s election. This is the right time for this Bill. It helps to set the shape of the country that we will become in the years and decades ahead, paving the way for a strong, dynamic recovery from a health crisis that has crippled the globe, welcoming the best and brightest, equally judged and free of favour, and unshackled from the EU, open to the world—the United Kingdom, rightly in control of its own borders.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
I will not be voting for this Bill. I do not believe it should even be permitted to proceed through this House, and I tabled a reasoned amendment to that effect. The Bill certainly should not proceed at this time, when we are in the midst of a global pandemic.
The Government’s approach is fatally flawed. In plain language, it puts the cart before the horse and post-Brexit immigration legislation before the legal, economic and trade relationship with the EU is in any way settled. Our relationship with the EU will remain our most important external economic relationship for years to come, and it is important to get that right. Our immigration system should fit into that, not the other way around. Worse still, the Bill is supplemented by a whole slew of Henry VIII powers.
My constituents did not elect me to this House to hand away the right to speak up for them and represent them on these issues. What does our democracy even mean if any Government are given the opportunity to make laws that so fundamentally affect people’s lives and the economy with little scrutiny and behind closed doors? That is essentially a constitutional power grab. No Government should be given a blank cheque that they can redeem any time they are in trouble or are tempted to whip up anti-migrant sentiment as a distraction. Who would trust this Government with these powers? Immigration policy brought in by this Government has been bad enough as it is.
This will be the second time in the past 10 years that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have entered this country, lived here, settled here, had children here, opened businesses here and paid taxes here. The Government did it in 2014 to the Windrush generation, and we saw just how many suffered, but as they are pressing ahead with the Bill, it seems that no lessons were learned. The Government’s commitments on EU nationals’ rights are meaningless if not underpinned by primary legislation and if they are not granted automatic settled status. The Bill does neither.
We cannot continue to allow Governments to keep passing legislation like this. It leaves migrants and their children asking at what point their rights in this country—their home—are truly secure. Instead of giving reassurances and creating a migration system that is fair, respects human rights and benefits our economy, this Government have opted simply to subject EU nationals to the same failed and inhumane hostile environment policies that they have had for people from outside the EU.
Children born here and who have lived here their whole life are asked to pay more than £1,000 to be British. Families are split apart because of the arbitrary minimum income threshold. Data sharing with the Home Office makes the most vulnerable scared to use services. The Government continue with no recourse to public funds, even though the courts have ruled it unlawful and the coronavirus has proved it inhumane. They detain people for months on end, even the victims of torture and trafficking—longer than any other country in Europe —only to eventually release nearly 70% of them, allowing private companies to profit from their misery. This Bill and the Government’s points-based system end none of those things.
In fact, the Bill does not even help our work shortages. The Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that under the income threshold, 69% of EU nationals would not be eligible. To all those who call such workers “low skilled”, I say that those earning below the salary threshold are not low skilled at all. There is no such thing as low-skilled work; just low-paid work. All work is skilled when it is done well. Persisting down this line is a slap in the face to those many key workers who are low paid and who have been our backbone throughout this pandemic. How callous is it to bring forward the Bill without being sensitive to those matters?
We need a fair immigration policy that does not retrospectively strip people of their rights—an immigration policy that meets this country’s needs and ultimately ends the hostile environment. The Government are not in any way attempting to do that. History proved right those brave few who voted against the Immigration Act 2014, and I urge all Members to vote down this disgraceful piece of legislation today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind every contributor who is not physically here to please have a timing device ready so that you know when you are coming towards the end of your speech. In the Chamber, Members have a clock at their disposal.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This is a key moment in British politics. For years, the issues of Europe and immigration have stretched Governments and divided parties, but here is a chance to lay those ghosts to rest. In December, Britain voted for a Government who promised to deliver Brexit and end uncontrolled immigration, so this Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. Not only does it allow the UK to take back control of its borders, but it also helps our territorial sovereignty in a way that has not been possible for more than four decades. For those politicians who dare to listen to the electorate, that is what we promised and what we will deliver.
In recent weeks, people have told me that the Bill is contentious, but it should be regarded for what it is, not for what others fear it to be. For a start, I was elected on the Conservative manifesto of 2019, which promised to end free movement across our borders and to restore trust in our immigration system. History is littered with examples of Governments failing to deliver, but here we are, on the road to delivery. Not only does the Bill fulfil the clear pledges that were made, but it allows our independent country to evolve in the post-Brexit era, as we would wish it to.
People have told me that the Bill flies in the face of what has been achieved by so many during the pandemic, notably in the NHS. A handful of constituents have even asked me to withhold my support for the Bill until it recognises the contribution of key workers. No one should need any reminder of the respect, admiration and awe with which the British people regard those heroes. The contribution of our public sector employees, public servants and staff is the stuff of legend, and we will always be grateful. But we must be careful not to mix metaphors. Contrary to what we have heard, the Bill does not serve to detract from that, nor does it serve to demean anyone, irrespective of their creed, colour, faith or ethnicity. In fact, it bears no correlation whatever with that. It simply fulfils a promise to bring in a fairer system that allows the UK to welcome the brightest and best to our shores. To use logistical terminology, it will be on a demand-pull, not a supply-push, basis.
For the avoidance of any doubt, immigration has been good for the UK, and we have built a proud global nation on the back of our history, shared values and unrivalled diaspora and those who have come here from abroad. I have also been honoured to serve alongside many brilliant foreign and Commonwealth soldiers. We owe a debt of gratitude to them, and our shared wealth, prosperity and enviable trading relationships will only be enhanced further through our pursuit of new free trade agreements.
The blueprint for future success does not mean that we can write a blank cheque in the post-Brexit era for all those hoping to come here, as much as we might want to. In this competitive and conflicted world, it is no surprise that many seek to come to the UK, but that cannot be ad hoc. That has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia, and those who are confused about that are wrong.
The Bill promises a points-based immigration system that mirrors other countries of the free world. We do, however, need to be careful that it does not become a blunt instrument. The legislation must be flexible and agile enough to respond to the employment market at any given time, particularly in terms of the skills being offered. For example, there will be a need for seasonal labour, and we must be able to attract all those we need. Indeed, I welcome the fact that employers will be given sufficient notice to plan, but it is essential too that the UK Government do not cut off their nose to spite their face by inadvertently limiting those we need. I would certainly welcome some transitional arrangements in that respect.
Of course, none of that is sustainable if we allow free movement across the channel. We need to better provide law enforcement agencies with the power to intercept and return. As many hon. Members will testify, what is happening now in Dover is unsustainable, and we must disincentivise those who seek to exploit the misfortune of others with promises of asylum. We must also ensure that those entering the UK on student visas do not become lost to the system, and it is right that the legislation further enables changes to social security arrangements and visas.
As contentious as the Bill might be to some, it is what many in Britain have requested for the past four decades. It is what we voted for in 2019, and it is what the Conservative Government promised.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
The Bill offers more questions than answers, it has so much missing from it. We do know, given the coronavirus crisis, that how much someone earns is not related to how skilled they are; we have seen that with the careworkers in our country, but this Bill does not tell us anything about what the Government are going to do with that information. All we have heard so far about their immigration policy is that there will be a test that relies largely on how much people earn.
We do not know what will happen in our economy, or what the situation will be for the care sector, the construction sector, or the vital creative industries that make many of our cities vibrant and thriving. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) talked about the importance of the music sector for Manchester; we do not know where that important sector will be when the coronavirus crisis is over. It is foolish to legislate as we are doing with this Bill, in reverse; rather, we should decide what kind of economy we want to have in this country and what kind of management we want to exercise in the labour market, and then decide where our immigration policy should fit in alongside those principles. Instead, the Bill gives the Government the right to make up the rules as they go along. That is my first argument against the Bill: it gives too much power to a Department of Government that we know already makes up the rules as it goes along—the Home Office.
Secondly, the Bill is foggy on the underlying causes in this debate. People have spoken about the political mess that we have got into on immigration. Some have argued that people coming to the UK to work have been used for low-paid work, but that misses what is actually going on in our country. In fact, immigration is what happens when the shape of a country’s labour market is such that, with an ageing population, people are needed in that country who are able to do the jobs necessary to support the older and ageing population. The real question is how we manage that transition, how we create a proper skills system, so that people can get the jobs that they want, and how we have a workable immigration policy that means we can afford to support our country as a whole and provide the kind of social care, pensions and healthcare for older people that we aspire to.
Finally, I want to say a word or two on the politics of this debate. Pretty much everybody who has contributed has said that immigration is a good thing for our country, and it can be so. I am glad to hear people say that. The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that the Bill would lay the ghost of the immigration debate to rest, but I have to tell him that he is wrong. The argument that underlies the Bill is as old as the hills, but as long as there are recessions and economic downturns, as long as there are economic problems in countries around the world, there will be politicians who are ready to blame foreigners. This Bill, however it is amended, and however many clauses are added, will not end that because that empty rhetoric cannot be beaten.
We have had the hostile environment and it has been shown that it will never work. There are always people ready to accuse politicians of betrayal when it comes to immigration, so I suggest that instead we concentrate on building a country where everyone is included and where there is a proper economic plan for all the people here. That is the way we will bring our country together.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to speak on Second Reading of this Bill, which will end the EU freedom of movement and pave the way for a new points-based immigration system that treats everyone equally. Let me say at the outside that the Bill has my full support. Taking back control of our borders was one of the central reasons, if not the main reason, why millions of people up and down the country voted to leave the European Union almost four years ago. The Bill brings us one step closer to finally delivering on that historic verdict.
The desire to take back control of our borders is not to deny the immense contribution made by many people who have come here from overseas and will continue to do so in future; in fact, ending freedom of movement and building a points-based immigration system based on equality and individual merit will allow us to welcome more people from around the world who have so much to offer this country, On the contrary, taking back control is about ending the uncontrolled mass immigration that has disproportionately affected our working-class communities in recent decades. These communities have seen the increased pressure on their schools and hospitals, their wages have remained low, and there have been rapid cultural changes in the towns in which they live.
Although it is undoubtedly clear that the vast majority of those who have moved to our country under EU freedom of movement rules have made a positive contribution and integrated fully, the simple truth is that that has not been the case for everyone who has taken advantage of those rules, and many of our communities have been adversely affected because of that.
Today’s Bill gives us a power to continue to welcome into our country all those who wish to make a positive contribution to not just our economy but our society, while allowing us to say, “No,” to those whose impact is likely to be more dubious. That is the reality of the Bill, and it is a reality to be welcomed. For too long, those issues were known but locked inside the EU treaties. There was no way to address them through our traditional democratic process. Immigration was an issue snatched out of people’s democratic control, undermining their confidence in our political system, as well as in our ability to execute our fundamental responsibility as a nation to decide who enters our country.
We have an unmissable opportunity to restore the public’s confidence by building an immigration system that welcomes the best and the brightest from around the world while retaining democratic control and the consent of the people. Despite the clear support in the country for such reforms, the Labour party of today remains wedded to open borders and uncontrolled, mass immigration. During his leadership campaign, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set out his full support for bringing back freedom of movement in the future, clearly disappointed that his attempts to reverse the decision of the 2016 referendum were not successful. If given the chance, it appears that he would do everything in his power to dilute and frustrate the decision instead. In other words, why set yourself against many of your party’s traditional supporters once when you can do it twice? By voting against the Bill tonight, the Labour party takes yet another step in its long march away from the people it once faithfully represented.
When we debate the future of our immigration system, we need to touch on illegal immigration, although I appreciate that that will be dealt with in a separate Bill. For public confidence in the system today, tackling illegal immigration must be one of the key issues that we confront. While thousands of people continue to break our laws by operating outside of our legal immigration system, the public will not have full faith that we have control of our borders. I urge the Government to build on the important work in this Bill by giving further consideration to how we tackle illegal immigration over the coming weeks and months.
As I said at the start of my speech, the Bill has my full support because it ends freedom of movement, gets us ready for a new global immigration system and helps to restore public confidence in the integrity of our borders. There is still more work to be done, and we cannot count on the Labour party’s support in doing it, but the era of uncontrolled and undemocratic mass immigration is certainly coming to an end, and that should be welcomed.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). I understand that there are no reasonable, reasoned amendments being taken this evening. Although I understand that there are those who will vote against the Bill, it is important that they not only hear and share their concerns but listen to Members such as myself, who share many of the frustrations about the omissions and areas for improvement in the Bill but recognise that it will pass in any event. I therefore encourage them, over the weeks to come, to collaborate with Members who share some of their concerns.
It is also right to recognise that controlling the borders of the United Kingdom was a fundamental reason why the majority of people in our country voted to leave the European Union. We support the principle of ending uncontrolled immigration and treating those wishing to enter the UK from the European economic area and the rest of the world fairly and equally. However, we are not ignorant of the impact that such a sharp and poorly tailored approach to ending free movement could have, particularly in Northern Ireland, on the growth of certain important economic sectors such as agriculture and hospitality, if current access to labour is not replicated in an appropriate way.
I welcome the elements of the Bill that reiterate the rights afforded to UK and Irish nationals to work, reside and access Government benefits in each other’s jurisdiction. Such provision was enshrined in national law well before either country joined the EU and was never going to be threatened by the UK’s exit from the EU.
We do, however, express concern at the Government’s recent decision to amend the settlement scheme to allow family members of British and British-Irish citizens dual citizenship. This was intended to placate certain aspects where a spouse or partner was a British citizen as a result of being born in Northern Ireland and therefore was not eligible for a scheme explicitly for EU27 nationals. The reality is that citizens born in Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement have the right to both Irish citizenship and British citizenship, but it is in addition to British citizenship, not instead of it. That issue strikes at the very heart of the principle of consent.
On the settlement scheme, we believe there is a duty on Government to honour the provisions of the citizens’ rights chapter of the withdrawal agreement in good faith, with compassion and clarity. At the same time, we do not believe it would be helpful to use this Bill as a vehicle to reopen, replace or expand the terms of that chapter. EU citizens need clarity and continuity at this time, not uncertainty or false expectations. Much depends on the outcome of the negotiations on the future relationship. I ask that the Home Office steps up its efforts to fill any void with information in respect of the operation of the settlement scheme, including in terms of the effectiveness of appeals, how applications still pending on 31 June 2021 will be dealt with and how local authorities are proactively seeking to ensure that looked-after children are treated fairly and sensitively.
We need to ensure that EU citizens—many of whom have contributed to UK society on a level far surpassing the minimum requirements set out in the settlement scheme, including in the NHS and as careworkers during the current crisis—are not disadvantaged. Officials should be looking at reasons why status should be granted, as opposed to reasons why it should not be, and clarity is required on the reasonable grounds for missing an application.
The DUP supports a compassionate and open approach to refugees from communities in other countries affected by terrorism, war or persecution. We appreciate the need to review routes for individuals and believe that it would be best to get international co-operation outside the free movement debate. We believe that consideration should be given to mitigations for family members of EEA citizens who have been convicted of domestic abuse and whose status in the UK could be linked to their perpetrators.
In terms of the new points-based system, the intention to implement a single skills-based system of immigration in the UK, treating all migrant workers from anywhere in the world on a fair and equal basis, is a welcome development. As the Bill progresses, we will be seeking change, but we want to see a regime that is fair, sensible and will be to the benefit of our country and its contingent parts.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). This Bill is one of many landmark Bills that the Government have introduced to establish Britain’s new post-EU framework. We had the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill last week and will debate the Trade Bill this Wednesday; I would be keen to speak in that debate too, if you could put in a good word for me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Collectively, these new Bills represent a transfer of power, authority and, crucially, responsibility back to this place and back to the British people. If the British people decide they want a different approach in future to agriculture, trade or immigration, they can now vote for it at a general election. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), spoke brilliantly about this earlier. I wholeheartedly endorse his comments about the misrepresentation and weaponisation of the term “low-skilled” by some Opposition Members. I had hoped that the cynicism of Corbynism might depart with its figurehead, but clearly the new Leader of the Opposition cannot stop its momentum.
It is unsurprising that those who were always against leaving the European Union and sought to overturn the referendum result are now seeking to oppose these Bills. They did not listen to the people then, and they are still not listening. Even now, they are playing for time and hoping, like Mr Micawber, that something will turn up to derail the transition process. But we have left the European Union, which means that, for the first time in more than 40 years, we can deliver control of immigration by ending freedom of movement and replacing it with a considered and considerate approach that will command the trust of the British people. The Bill will introduce a new system that is fair and simple and that will level the playing field, attracting the brightest and best to live, work and make their lives here in the UK, regardless of where they are from. When we do that, we will give top priority to the skilled workers we need to boost our economy and support our public services.
We will continue to welcome doctors and nurses from around the world to support our NHS, which is particularly welcome at this moment of national emergency, as we deal with coronavirus. I pay tribute to all those NHS workers—immigrants or otherwise—who have gone above and beyond in these last few months in helping to respond to this terrible pandemic. The new NHS visa will offer fast-track entry to the UK for qualified overseas doctors and nurses and will provide three to five-year work visas with reduced up-front fees, and we have already removed doctors and nurses from the tier 2 visa cap.
Similarly, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I welcome the Government’s intention to make it easier to attract leading scientists, engineers and mathematicians to come and work in the UK. More generally, I know that the Government are listening to advice to ensure that this new immigration system will be flexible enough to meet the needs of businesses and essential services. They have responded to the call from the independent Migration Advisory Committee to lower the general salary threshold, and they have tasked that same committee with keeping the shortage occupation list under regular review. This bodes very well.
It is also important that the Bill will protect the long-held rights of Irish citizens, recognising our deep, historic ties with the island of Ireland and the contribution that Irish citizens have made to the UK. Once free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK to live and work, as they do now, regardless of where they have travelled from. The wider rights enjoyed by Irish citizens in the UK, which flow from the common travel area arrangements, will also be maintained.
The Bill and the new points-based immigration system obviously represent a significant departure for our country, but one that emphasises and reinforces a positive social change. We remain one of the most welcoming and tolerant countries in the world, and, as Ipsos MORI recently found, people are more willing than ever to say that immigration has had a positive impact on Britain, a sentiment I have always shared. Some see this as ironic, or as proof of a buyer’s remorse with regard to the leave vote and the end of freedom of movement, but I believe it is quite the opposite. It is precisely that sense of control and democratic accountability that has driven this change.
It is absolutely clear that delivering control of our borders, with regard to both the total numbers coming and the skills they bring with them, was something that the British people, and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, were asking for in both the 2016 EU referendum and the 2019 general election. The Government set out in their manifesto at that election that they would deliver a new points-based immigration system to attract the best talent from all around the world, as the Bill enables. The British people have demonstrated in two historic votes that they want an approach that returns control of our borders to this House—to them. We are listening to them, and we are delivering what they asked for.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab) [V]
I am afraid that the Bill is simply not fit for purpose, and I am proud to have co-signed the amendment calling for it not to be considered. The coronavirus crisis has shown that the people who really keep our society ticking are not billionaires or the super-rich but nurses, carers, cleaners, checkout attendants and many more essential frontline workers, yet these are the very people that the Bill brands as low-skilled. This reveals the fundamental hypocrisy of the Government.
It does not matter how many Cabinet Ministers applaud NHS staff in front of television cameras on a Thursday night if they then legislate to strip them of their dignity. Under this Government, citizenship rights have been deliberately obscured, and deportation and removal targets have taken precedence, yet the Bill makes no effort to end these hostile environment policies, which were found to be institutionally racist by the official inquiry into the Windrush scandal. It also will not end the abhorrent practice of indefinite detention, which has led to the inhumane treatment that has become routine in centres such as Yarl’s Wood. I cannot believe that, even during this pandemic, we are picking people up from their homes in Leicester East and putting them in barbaric detention centres, leaving MPs like me spending time trying to get them released. It is not as if there are any planes going anywhere, so why is that happening?
As MP for one of the most diverse constituencies in the country, I know only too well the hurt that my constituents feel when the Government legitimise the dehumanisation and marginalisation of African, Asian and minority ethnic communities with their deport first, ask questions later approach. Some 43% of Leicester East residents were born outside the UK, as opposed to 10% nationally. Our residents hail from more than 50 countries around the globe. That is what makes our city special, yet it also means that my constituents are more vulnerable to the predatory aspects of this legislation. For instance, a recent study in the Health Service Journal found that 66% of NHS workers who have tragically died from the virus were not born in the UK. Our health service simply would not function without the sacrifice of people from across the world, yet if a migrant NHS worker tragically dies because of work-related illnesses, it is their belief that the future of their dependent family members living in the UK is not guaranteed. That means that vulnerable individuals could face deportation while grieving for their loved one. Why wait until they die? Guarantee now the indefinite leave to remain for family dependants of all migrant NHS workers who are keeping our society going. I have written to the Home Secretary urging her to close this loophole in order to honour the dedication and sacrifice of all NHS workers, no matter their country of birth.
On that note, let me say how deeply disappointed I was that the Government have refused to reconsider the pernicious immigration health surcharge. Any charge that deters people from seeking medical treatment is not only inhumane but could exacerbate the spread of the virus. The Government have a moral and practical obligation to abolish the surcharge. I have also called on the Government to introduce an amnesty for all migrants, including residency rights, for the duration of the pandemic and to end the callous no recourse to public funds policy. At a time when hate crime has more than doubled since 2013, with more than 100,000 offences in 2018, it has never been more important for the demonisation of migrants to end. That means repealing the Immigration Act 2014, reversing the hostile environment, and shutting detention centres for good.
I will conclude with the worrying provision in the Bill that grants sweeping new powers to the Government to change immigration laws without proper scrutiny. This Government’s systematic mistreatment of migrants over the past decade, from the hostile environment to the Windrush scandal, is the ultimate proof that they are undeserving of this unchecked power. It would be a monumental mistake, to the detriment of too many vulnerable people in Leicester East and across the country, for this House to grant that power to them. I will be voting against this Bill.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. During the election campaign, I was on a street stall in Wantage when a woman from Zambia came up to me wanting to talk about Brexit. Wantage and Didcot was 54% remain, so this conversation could have gone either way, but she was in favour of Brexit. She told me that she had been working in the NHS for nine years, but that she could not get settled status, yet if she had come from Europe and been here for five years she would have been able to do so.
It is right that we have a settled status scheme for those in the EU. The fact that 3.5 million people have already applied for it suggests that it is working very well. That lady’s question to me was, “What about the Commonwealth countries? What about Britain’s relationship with those?” I agree with her and think it is right that we now have an immigration system based on what we need rather than on whether someone is from Europe.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the NHS and social care this afternoon, which is completely understandable. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a fast-track visa for doctors and nurses, and their extension of the health worker visa by a year if it is to expire before 1 October. I also think it is absolutely clear to all of us now, if it were not so before, what a vital role those from other countries have been playing in our social care system. We knew that for decades, but it has been highlighted in recent months. Where I part company from some Opposition speakers is in their thinking that because of that, we should continue to import our care workers from overseas. The answer to social care is in a cross-party solution wherein we properly fund and structure it and it is seen as a well-regarded profession; it is not to keep on doing what we have done for decades, because if we do, we will only put off into the future the solution that is really needed. It is worth saying that those from the EU who are currently working in our care system have probably already applied for settled status and are certainly entitled to do so.
I wish to make a similar but different point about higher education. I welcome our being a magnet for global talent. It is right that we continue to attract international students and that we have committed to a two-year work visa so that they can find work after they graduate, but I have watched with increasing despair as certain universities have chased a higher and higher proportion of international students, whom they can charge higher fees for low contact time, while those universities often neglect to widen access to their institution to young people who are under-represented in this country. Why are they so reliant on the international fee income and the international market? That is the fundamental question and it cannot be solved by changing the Bill.
I support the Government having lowered the income threshold from £30,000 to £25,600, and it is right that it is lower still for those occupations where we have a shortage of people. It is of great value that we are going to have a seasonal worker visa, which will be particularly important for a constituency like Wantage and Didcot, which has a lot of farming. It is completely correct that the House should continue to debate whether the income thresholds and occupation lists are right and whether we get the point system right, but the most important thing about the legislation is that these things will now be within our control. We will be able to adjust those income thresholds, occupation lists and points.
If one talks to the vast majority of British people, one will hear that they support immigration—they welcome it and can see the contribution that it has made to every aspect of our life—but they expect that the people they democratically elect should be able to control the flow and to increase or decrease it. Importantly, they expect that those people they elect will properly plan the infrastructure that needs to accompany immigration—that we will have the school places, GP appointments and houses we need. That is why they have supported the ending of freedom of movement and the move to the new system that we are going to have, and that is why I, too, fully support this change.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
It is now nearly four years since the EU referendum, and in those four years so much has changed. I will not go through all the Government’s gymnastics on this issue—I do not have all night and, of course, neither have you, Mr Deputy Speaker—but it is enough to say that where they are now is pretty far from those sunny, blustery days of promising the easiest deal in the world, that EU countries would come crawling to us with their prosecco and BMWs, and that they need us more than we need them.
So much now is so different. But of course some things never change, and one of them is the Conservatives’ obsession with immigration. Despite their failure to meet their own targets; despite the public revulsion at the little vans driving around telling good citizens to go home, the nasty posters and the shameless vote chasing; and despite being way adrift of public opinion—despite all that—they are still obsessed with immigration.
In the past few months, so much more has changed again. No one imagined that leaving the EU would be pushed almost out of sight by the worst pandemic in living memory. Our attention has been nailed on the value of all our communities. All of us—or nearly all of us—now appreciate the bonds that support us; appreciate the people who sustain us, care for us and risk their lives daily for us; and appreciate that we need them more than they need us.
This crisis would persuade any sensible Government to think again, but are this Government sensible to public opinion when a new Ipsos MORI study shows that since last summer most people are saying that they want to see more doctors and nurses coming to the UK from the EU—more, not fewer? And it is not just health workers that matter so much—it is care workers, so shamelessly branded as low-skilled. The Government could use this opportunity to ensure that the new immigration system is fairer and more humane, not just for EU citizens but for people from all around the world. But instead of taking a step back—instead of thinking again—the Government are rushing to bring EU citizens under the same hostile environment as imposed on others. They should take this chance to build a new immigration system that is fairer and more humane, not just for EU citizens but for people from all around the world.
That is why later Plaid Cymru will be calling for a report on a new immigration system. This must include looking again at recourse to public funds, unfair NHS charges for migrants, the huge application fees and, crucially for us, the devolution of immigration policy to Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly so that our needs steer our policy. It should also look again at giving key workers who have put their lives on the line during this crisis the chance of free, automatic British citizenship.
Now, more than ever, we have seen the value brought to communities all over the UK by people who choose to make their home here. This Bill now looks like something from the dim and distant past. It simply cannot be passed as it is.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome this Bill as a sensible, measured approach that delivers on our manifesto commitments to the British people to take back control of our borders and deliver a fair immigration system that means that those who want to come to the UK are judged not by their country of origin or by the colour of their skin but by the contribution that they can make to our country. It is undoubtedly true that many immigrants have made a huge and positive impact on our communities, so I am glad that over 1.3 million European citizens in the United Kingdom have achieved settled status already, including many in my constituency, and that reciprocal arrangements have been agreed for British citizens settled in the EU.
I would like to address two fundamental issues. I agree with the Migration Advisory Committee. Many of my constituents work in the health and social care sectors, as do members of my own family, Mr Speaker, in your constituency. Immigration is not the solution to our care crisis; a cross-party consensus is, as is upskilling, training and, crucially, valuing our carers.
The fact that Labour Members still do not recognise that shows that they are unwilling to listen to and learn the lessons of the last general election. This is about the only thing that unites them at the moment. They are united against the views of communities such as mine that they took for granted for so long. They remain an uneasy coalition of citizens of nowhere and right-on Citizen Smiths: two sides of the same coin. All sides of the Labour party remain committed to open borders. While the Opposition stick to this, it will be clear to the citizens of my constituency, from Consett to Crook and from Willington to Wearhead, that they have no interest in the concerns of my community.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Let us be absolutely clear that, contrary to what we are being told, this Bill does not set out a blueprint for a new immigration system. It does not tell us who will be allowed to enter the country or under what circumstances. Instead, with this Bill, Ministers are asking us to hand them a blank cheque to do what they want, when they want and how they want. Ministers insist that the Henry VIII powers enshrined in the Bill are standard practice, but since when did any Parliament trust a Government, be it Conservative or Labour, to implement sweeping reforms of the immigration system without parliamentary oversight? I think most colleagues would agree that immigration is an area of policy where we should be seeking greater scrutiny, not less. Given what Ministers are asking, we would assume that they had a plan for what their new immigration system will look like, but as far as I can tell—I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken—they do not have any such plan.
We are endlessly reminded of the Government’s plan for an Australian points-based system, but are provided with no detail on what this would look like in the British context. Reliance on the reputation of the four buzzwords “the Australian points-based system” does little to allay many people’s fears about the Government’s intention. History demonstrates the callous attitude of numerous Conservative Home Secretaries towards immigrants in this country, and the creation of the hostile environment and the ensuing Windrush scandal epitomise this cruelty. Despite being forced to apologise to the victims of the Windrush scandal, we are yet to see any attempt to roll back the hostile environment that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and her successors created. This Bill presents an opportunity to do justice, yet rather than dismantling the hostile environment, this Government have chosen instead to subject a further 3.4 million EU citizens to the inhumanity of their existing policies.
The unprecedented crisis we are facing at the moment, brought on by coronavirus, has shone a light on the critical role migrants play in our society. We have seen a new appreciation of so-called low-skilled workers, redefined overnight as key workers, and the people occupying these undervalued and underpaid roles are often migrants. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself was cared for by nurses from New Zealand and Portugal during his time at St Thomas’s. This crisis has shown that our country needs migrants, our health service needs migrants and our social care system needs migrants. The Government could and should use this legislation to recognise the service of migrants to our country, and ensure they are treated fairly and humanely by the Home Office.
Root-and-branch reforms of our immigration system are long overdue. It is high time we saw a 28-day time limit on immigration detention, a review of the health surcharge and visa costs, an expansion of refugee family reunion rules, and the protection of vulnerable and unaccompanied children to ensure that they are able to join family. However, the Bill does none of this. It is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. I hope Ministers will reconsider what they are asking of MPs and look again at this legislation.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak in support of it. The Bill delivers on the commitment we made to the British people when they voted to leave the EU that we would end free movement of people and take back control of our borders. This is something that people voted for: we said we would do it and we are now delivering.
The Government are committed to delivering a new and revamped points-based immigration system that will work in the best interests of our economy and society. The Bill is seeking to establish a framework that will be the basis of our future immigration policy. Sadly, too many speakers today appear to be trying to rerun the whole Brexit debate of four years ago, but it really is time that this House moved on from that. The British people have voted for us to leave the EU—I would argue, far more than once—and the Bill is a major part in delivering on that decision.
It is also important to note that, since the 2016 referendum, the way in which we discuss immigration and the tone with which we do so have changed in this country. It is sad that too often that change is not reflected here. There is nothing racist about wanting democratic control of our own borders, and it is apparent that the Labour party has learned little in the last four years. Many of the British people have moved on and since the referendum there has been a much more constructive debate about the issue. The pros and cons of migration have been better understood, and there is now a broad coalition of people across the country in favour of a more balanced approach to immigration, where our system is not only effective and robust, but fair on individuals and families, and compassionate to those who most need our help.
It is important to note that this Bill does not end immigration—far from it. It is important that we move on from the rhetoric of “anti-immigration”. I am not, and have never been, anti-immigration. All reasonable people recognise that immigration can make a positive contribution to our nation; it has done for many decades. What I am against, as are many others, is the uncontrolled immigration of the EU. What I am in support of is this House and, through us, the British people being able to manage immigration. That is the purpose of the Bill. It re-establishes the democratic control of and accountability for immigration. It lays the groundwork for us to begin harmonising our two-track immigration system into one, such that we no longer favour one group of individuals simply because they are from the EU and discriminate against another because they are from outside the EU. It enables the Government to put in place a points-based system that will allow us to attract the people with the skills and experience we need. To suggest for a moment that the Bill will be the end of our being able to attract the workforce our NHS and other services need is scaremongering of the worst kind. Importantly, the Bill enables us to have a flexible system that can respond to the changing needs of our economy, which is essential. Our immigration policy should not be set in stone; it needs to be able to flex and adapt as the economic and employment environment changes. The Bill enables that to happen.
One aspect of particular interest is our policy on so-called low-skilled workers. The current covid-19 crisis has demonstrated that many of those workers are essential workers for key parts of our economy. I am assured that, as the Home Secretary has stated, we will keep all aspects of our policy under review, and I am sure that we will reflect on the lessons we have learnt through this time. The coronavirus crisis is going to change the shape of our workforce in the coming months, and possibly years, but we trust and believe that we will recover from our current challenges. In the years to come, sectors such as tourism and hospitality, agriculture and food processing and retail are going to need access to labour that our own residents may well not be able to meet in the future. The Bill lays the framework to enable our future immigration policy to respond to our future needs, and I am very happy to support it this evening.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I will be supporting the Bill today because it is about delivery. It is about delivery of a manifesto commitment we made. It is about delivery of legislation that reflects the mood of the nation. It is about delivering the end of freedom of movement. It is about delivery of a points-based system, for which many people across this country have called for many years, and they have been ignored by politicians. It is about this Government delivering on that promise.
Many seem to have forgotten about the political tsunamis that the referendum and the 2019 election caused. Many from the Opposition Benches and living rooms have forgotten about those two elections. They were about the concerns, views and problems of working-class people being ignored for generations. People who had voted for politicians who ignored them for decades decided that they had had enough and replaced those politicians with a new generation of politicians in this place. People voted Conservative for the first time in decades in many areas, including in working-class communities in constituencies such as mine.
People are often confused and say that the immigration debate is based on race and people’s country of origin. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about jobs and services. I find it really frustrating listening to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and businesses when the only solution to workforce issues that they seem to be able to find is immigration. That is not the only way of solving workforce issues. Are we supposed to say that we are going to ignore the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people across this country who have talent and could contribute economically?
In my constituency there are more than 4,000 people who are economically inactive—people claiming out-of-work benefits—many of whom could contribute. Are we to tell them that we are going to completely ignore them—that they are beyond reach, that they cannot experience the benefits of work, that the security of a pay packet is beyond reach for them? I do not think so. Are some businesses and the Opposition really saying that we should not invest in the skills and the future of people across this country? I certainly am not. I see it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to ensure that we invest in skills and the contribution that people can make, and I think business has a key role to play in that.
Many people on the Opposition Benches would have us believe that the Bill is about closing the door to the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about opening it up for the best and the brightest from around the world, not just the European Union. It is about a sensible and common-sense approach to immigration.
A number of constituents have contacted me about their concerns about channel crossings and illegal migration. I say to them: “I hear you and I agree with you.” I share those concerns. If it were not for the inability of the previous Parliament to make a decision, we would have been well on the road to solving that issue. I have faith that this Government and this Home Secretary will solve this problem.
Many on the Opposition Benches say they do not trust the Government to deliver on this. Well, I am afraid we were never asking for their trust. They gave the electorate their ideas; they had their manifesto, and it was roundly rejected across the country. It was the Conservative party whose ideas of ending free movement and installing a points-based system were supported by the majority of this country. That is exactly what we are going to do and why I am proud to support the Bill.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Rebuilding our economy will be vital to the post-covid recovery. Immigrants to this country have long had an important role in our economic success, and we will need their efforts and talents again. I recognise, of course, that we will be in a very different situation in the coming months from the tight labour market of recent years. None the less, we can expect that some sectors will continue to struggle to recruit from the domestic labour pool.
That includes key sectors in my constituency, such as social care, hospitality, and retail and food processing, for which the £25,600 threshold will likely lead to significant and ongoing labour shortfalls, yet those sectors are essential to our recovery and our return to normal life. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Government’s proposed approach is causing concern to businesses in my constituency.
I particularly want to speak about the impact the Bill could have on children, starting with EEA national children who could be eligible for the EU settlement scheme. Home Office figures reveal that, at the end of March, 493,800 applications to the scheme for children had been received, 84% of which had been concluded. That is worryingly lower than the 90% of cases that have concluded overall and, very concerningly, includes only a small number of looked-after children who could be eligible, only 11% of whom, according to the Children’s Society, have secured status. I accept that those cases can be complex, but it seems that, despite guidance from the Government and the Children’s Society, local authorities do not give sufficient priority to progressing applications for looked-after children in their care.
The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit points to long delays for those children, even before an application has been submitted. Obtaining documents and securing advice is harder; contact with family members who confer the right to status may have been lost; during the covid crisis applications cannot be submitted by post; and the Government have warned that the crisis will create delays in processing them. Ministers have indicated that late applications will be accepted for children in such circumstances, but we need a guarantee that no child will be left without the legal status to which they are entitled.
I am concerned that more children will be subject to the “no recourse to public funds” condition as a result of a new immigration system, including some children born in the UK. Of course I recognise the support that exists under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, but that is insufficient. On 7 May, an eight-year-old British boy, supported by his migrant mother, won a ruling in the High Court that the policy denying families like his access to the welfare safety net breached article 3 of the European convention on human rights. The covid crisis has brought the vulnerability of families with no recourse to public funds into stark relief, and we need urgently to hear how the Government intend to respond to that ruling.
Finally, and harmfully to children’s wellbeing, too often the immigration system separates children from their parents. We know about the issue of family reunion and the way in which the income threshold keeps children apart from parents. Meanwhile refugee children cannot sponsor family members to join them in this country, and we are still waiting for certainty for separated children currently covered by the Dublin III arrangements, which enable children with family members in the UK to have their asylum claims transferred here to be considered. The Dublin arrangements will expire at the end of the year, and the Government have been indicating for some time that they want to replicate them post transition. We are none the wiser as to how they will do that, so I hope that tonight the Minister can update us.
I should like to make a point about clause 5. I simply do not see the justification for the sweeping powers that it gives to Ministers. If it is to rectify deficiencies and retain EU law, the Government already have the ability to do that under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. If it is to make new policy for the post-transition period, that will affect individuals’ expectations and rights, and have a potentially significant impact on labour mobility that should be debated and provided for in primary legislation. I therefore hope that Ministers will be prepared to reconsider clause 5 as the Bill continues its parliamentary passage.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
We are not in the business of limiting the potential of our country, which is exactly what our former immigration system did. As we solidify our departure from the European Union, I welcome the success of widespread participation in the Government’s EU settlement scheme. By protecting the rights of EU citizens in this country, we once again demonstrate that we are not leaving Europe, but rather the European Union. As many others and I have said, we wish to move forward and continue a close relationship with our European friends. We are levelling the playing field and creating an immigration system that does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, and instead rests on the foundation of skill and capability.
The Bill will enact the overwhelming will of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke in 2016 and, again, in December last year. The public want a more measured approach to immigration, and today we aim to deliver that. I would like to note, too, that immigrants contribute massively to our economy, as well as to our social and cultural fabric. The Bill in no way denigrates that but, rather, opens our country to the best and the brightest across the world.
We have been provided with an opportunity to rectify the disparity in access between nations, and make Britain truly global, by opening to people from nations who might previously have been overlooked or subject to greater bureaucracy merely on the basis of nationality. I reiterate the point that we want the best and the brightest, from wherever they may hail. I am proud to be part of a Parliament adapting to the times and altering legislation based on need. Covid-19 has presented us with an almost unimaginable reality, and I was pleased with the allowance of visa extensions announced in March for those seeking employment in our national health service. This will enable us to continue recruiting the very best from around the world, as we did in Stoke-on-Trent 18 years ago with Dr Chandra Kanneganti.
I further welcome the launch of the NHS visa. Applicants will see a large reduction in visa fees and will be fast-tracked, gaining a significant increase in points by offering to work for our NHS. I call on the Government to ensure that NHS recruitment remains protected and, wherever possible, to encourage and streamline those wishing to work in social care especially. With regard to those working or wishing to work in the social care sector, I stress that there must be as few limitations and restrictions as possible, including those pertaining to wages. As we have seen during this pandemic, social care workers are key workers and we must support them in every way we can. The Bill will allow the Government to identify understaffed sectors and make it simpler, easier and cheaper for workers in those sectors to start a life in the UK, which is a sensible balance and a mutually beneficial approach to workforce shortages.
This is an enormous change to the way in which our country works, and I completely appreciate the apprehension and uncertainty that some might feel. However, this is an excellent opportunity to broaden our horizons and make Britain a hub of innovation and development. I am confident that this system will attract the brightest minds, which is of special significance and importance to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. By implementing a fast-track visa route for elite researchers and specialists in science, technology, engineering and maths, we are sending a clear message that this country is open to, and ready for, invention and scientific advancement. I have been a vocal advocate for silicon Stoke, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and I have been busy liaising with universities, businesses, private investors, the council, tech start-ups and the local enterprise partnership to push forward tech advancements such as 5G provision and advanced ceramics. An influx of highly educated STEM specialists will propel the country and my constituency into the digital age and level up this country, as we as a party promised to do in December and as I promised to do when I entered this Chamber. I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and with the will of the people behind us, I shall proudly vote for the Bill this evening.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in these proceedings tonight. As one of the final speakers in the debate, I have had the opportunity—or perhaps the misfortune—to sit patiently and listen closely to the arguments of the Secretary of State and her colleagues behind her on the Conservative Benches, and it is safe to say that I have rarely felt so disappointed or downhearted. I say that because we have heard Member after Member of this House rejoicing at the fact that they are going to end the ability of future generations to enjoy the same freedoms that we have all enjoyed to travel freely across the continent of Europe. Indeed, the Secretary of State listed all the constituencies where she believed that people voted for her Government in order to end free movement. Unsurprisingly, she did not mention a single Scottish constituency, probably because she has finally accepted that the people of Scotland do not support her Government’s actions on this key issue.
Beyond that, we have heard an almost celebratory tone in respect of bringing to an end what the Government refer to as low-skilled migration. Such dog-whistle politics is unbecoming at the best of times, but given the fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, it is simply unforgivable. After all, it is those very migrant workers, whom the UK Government class as low-skilled, who have helped to prevent the UK from grinding to a halt. They are the people who have been working on the frontline in our care homes and our hospitals as nurses, cleaners and porters, and the people who have been working in our supermarkets and food processing plants and on our agricultural land. The reality is that they are the glue that has helped to hold our society together. They may be paid less than they deserve, but they deserve our respect and our appreciation.
The damage of this attack on immigration will be felt for generations to come, particularly in Scotland. I say that because, as things stand, Scotland faces a demographic time bomb. Our pension-age population is growing, while our working-age population declines. There are two solutions to this issue. The first is for people to have more children, and quickly. The second and slightly easier solution is that we increase inward migration. On that front, we have been clear that EU nationals are wanted and welcome in Scotland. Indeed, we have actively sought to encourage people to make Scotland their home. Aside from the obvious social and cultural benefits that they bring to our nation, the reality is that the average EU national living in Scotland adds £10,400 to Government revenue and over £34,000 to GDP each year. They contribute far more than they will ever receive.
It is for those reasons that the Scottish Government have sought proactively to engage with the UK Government on immigration to find a solution that meets the needs of Scotland. The clearest example of that was a proposal to introduce a Scottish visa, an additional route through which we could attract workers to Scotland. Such immigration variance has worked in Canada and Australia, yet the proposal was dismissed out of hand in less than 20 minutes. That should not necessarily come as a surprise, as it has been clear for a long time that the policies of this UK Government on immigration are not driven by a desire to meet the needs of Scotland. They are driven by the desire to play the role of little Englander, but the consequences of their actions will be great.
Locally here in Aberdeen, we are proud of our international outlook. There can be no doubt that workers from across the EU have had a key role to play in our economic success. One such success story is John Ross Jr, a company that processes and hand-prepares Scottish smoked salmon using traditional brick kilns. The company exports to over 30 countries and its staff are predominantly Polish, Latvian, Czech and Estonian. Its CEO is Christopher Leigh. On 27 February, he wrote to me about the importance of EU nationals to his company. He stated:
“The reality is that if it were not for freedom of movement afforded by the European Union, John Ross would not be where it is today.”
He went on to say:
“Closing the door on European workers now would be a case of the UK cutting its nose off to spite its face. It would also be disastrous for businesses, devastating for the communities in which they operate and catastrophic for the UK economy.”
“Catastrophic”. Just one word, but a word that should weigh heavily on the minds of the UK Government.
Ultimately—I think we can all agree on this point—the scale of the economic recovery facing all corners of the United Kingdom is going to be unprecedented. If we do not have an immigration system in place that attracts workers and meets the needs of businesses, we clearly run the risk of doing further harm. So I say to the UK Government: continue down this route and the people of Scotland will neither forgive nor forget.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I must pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). We are not closing the door on anybody. We are opening the door for many millions of other people from non-EU countries.
The United Kingdom is a world leader in industries such as banking, pharmaceuticals, and research and development. It is important that we are able to support the people in those industries to continue to lead the way in their respective fields. That is why I am pleased to see that the Government are building an immigration system that is robust, but also designed to ensure that we continue to lead the world in vital areas of economic and social development. The Bill before the House today puts the United Kingdom on the path to a fairer, more modern and more equitable immigration system that enables the brightest and best to come to our country regardless of their nationality.
The Bill delivers on our historic exit from the European Union, our exit being a process rather than just one event. By ending free movement, we are securing and taking control of our borders, and creating an immigration system that works for us as well as those who come here. My Delyn constituency, like the majority of our country, decisively voted to leave. It is right that we continue to deliver on the result of the referendum and start to move towards a more inclusive points-based immigration system.
It is important to note that the new system has been built, based on the independent report from the Migration Advisory Committee, on a fair and adaptable points-based system. Based on those recommendations, the Bill will allow us to create a flexible system that can adapt to the changing needs of businesses and respond to shortages in our labour market. That will be hugely important as we tackle the effects of the coronavirus pandemic both now and in the future. I recognise the importance of the system remaining flexible and needing to adapt to changing needs at different times in the future. I also recognise that putting every detail of every rule into primary legislation allows for no flexibility. That would inevitably be to our detriment in the future when the difficult situation in which we currently find ourselves unfolds, as we would not be able to be immediately adaptable to the challenges that may lie ahead.
It is important, too, that we recognise the contribution immigration has made to our economy, our businesses and, at times like this, to our NHS. I am delighted that the Government are doing so through the Bill. The former shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) was correct in what he said earlier. I recognise that those are words I never thought I would say in this House or beyond, but he was right—at least in a small part. He said that we should recognise those who keep things moving and who the real key workers are. It is right that we are prioritising a shining example of key workers in this Bill—the fantastic work of our frontline healthcare workers—by extending the visas of healthcare workers and their families and, more importantly, by creating the new NHS visa. The specialist fast-track visa for doctors and nurses will enable us to recruit the very best for our NHS from wherever we need to and to ensure our NHS staff are looked after and fairly recruited, as mentioned just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). We welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
In the latest ONS report, non-EU net migration has continued to increase, with current levels at their highest since 2004. Therefore, it is important that we recognise talent and skills from across the world equally. Wherever you come from across the globe, if you are prepared to work hard and contribute to our economy and to our country, our immigration system should recognise and reward that. That is why I am pleased that the Bill makes changes to our statute book to ensure that we recognise equally those with the skills and talents who want to come here from the rest of the world, as well as those who want to come from the EU.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill, as it is a significant move towards creating a better immigration system, which will value the skills and talents of all. It will help to build an inclusive forward and outward-looking country that is ready to take on the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century and succeed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We cannot hear Kate Osamor. We will move on to Natalie Elphicke and then come back to Kate.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Bill, which brings in a points-based immigration system to ensure that immigration is controlled and that we have the skilled workforce that we need not just from the European Union but from around the world. Yet, while it is important to gain immigration status for the people with the skills that we need, it is also important that we have effective border security, particularly when freedom of movement comes to an end.
Last December, I was pleased to accompany the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), the Minister on the Front Bench tonight, in our joint inspection of the Dover Border Force operations at the docks. I thank the men and women of our Dover Border Force together with all in Her Majesty’s Coastguard and the RNLI for the sterling work that they do day in and day out, putting themselves in harm’s way and saving lives.
As the sun sets this evening, I can look across the English channel and see the twinkling lights of Calais. France is fewer than 21 miles away—more than three times closer than London. France is our long-term ally, but it is also our nearest European border. Great Britain is an island, our waters are her moat, and the stretch that Dover guards to France is and always has been our most vulnerable point of entry. That is why Julius Caesar first tried to land at Dover, before he was repelled by doughty Dovorians of past times.
The challenges we face today are a different kind of army; it is the army of people traffickers—organised crime gangs who prey on the vulnerable and the less vulnerable, all of whom have made the decision not to use legal points of entry or to stay safe in France, and many other countries before France. These illegal entrants can pay the traffickers up to £4,000 to break into our country, knowing that there is little or no chance of being returned once they get in. This is an unacceptable situation and has been for a long time. I strongly welcome the robust work of the Home Secretary in working afresh with France to stop more boats leaving the French shores and seeking to return would-be illegal entrants to France. However, it is incumbent on us, as Members of this House, to give the Home Secretary the legal tools that will support her and the Government in their clear determination to put a stop to this criminal trade in people, and to ensure that we can attract the skills that our country wants and needs from across the globe.
This Bill is about restoring the legal powers to control our own borders, to set our own rules, to encourage and welcome those we invite to our country, and to send away those who engage in criminal activity, such as illegal entrants. In Dover, we know that it is only when people traffickers and migrants alike know that they will not succeed in breaking into Britain that we will bring an end to these small boat crossings—and bring an end to them we must. The Dover straits is one of the most important and busiest shipping lanes in the world. There has already been loss of life in the English channel through this illegal activity. Every day longer that the activity continues, it risks further loss of life.
I welcome the Bill, which brings in a points-based immigration system to ensure that immigration is controlled and that we have the skilled workforce that we need, not just from the EU but from around the world, together with a framework for effective border security, to stop criminal activity and to save lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go with audio only to Kate Osamor.
Kate Osamor
I am really grateful to you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on no recourse to public funds—[Inaudible.] I will make three important points today. First, the Government should be using the Bill to bring an end to the—[Inaudible]—does the absolute opposite. It punishes carers, nurses and others who have kept this country going throughout the current crisis. Many who have no recourse to public funds—[Inaudible]—particularly unjust in the light of the coronavirus. The Government should be playing a key role in changing their immigration—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Kate, I am terribly sorry. We gave it a good go, but the audio kept coming and going. I should have a word with your broadband provider. I am terribly sorry. We really did want to listen to what you had to say, but I am afraid we are going to have to leave it there, because you were the final speaker. We will go straight on to the wind-ups. I call Holly Lynch.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real shame that we could not hear the rest of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). She chairs the APPG on no recourse to public funds, and I know that she has done a lot of really important work. We will have to hear the rest of her contribution on another occasion.
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition on such an important piece of legislation—important not just because of what it will do but what it paves the way for. It is historic, in that it starts its passage through the House of Commons for the second time during a crisis that we know will shape this country, and what we need from legislation like this, for years to come.
With that in mind, as so many others have said, this country has never been more aware or more appreciative of the contribution of migrant workers to the UK. We can all agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) that the efforts of key workers have been the stuff of legend. To those working in our NHS, care homes and research labs, and in our fields and factories, keeping food on the shelves—to all those working right across the key sectors—we are truly grateful for all that they are doing, and we need legislation that recognises that contribution. As we have said, we all go out and clap for our carers and our key workers every Thursday, but today the detail of the Government’s approach says to them that they are not skilled enough and not paid enough to be valued in their proposed new immigration system. It is not as though the Government are proposing to work with right hon. and hon. Members to shape a better policy. Instead, the Bill grants sweeping Henry VIII powers to Ministers, diminishing the role of Parliament and MPs.
I am incredibly grateful to all those who have taken part in this important debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and others, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), made important points about indefinite detention, and we will be looking to work cross-party with all MPs on amendments to address some of those concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made the point that we are being asked to consider only half a Bill, with my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly saying that we cannot simply give the Government a blank cheque on immigration policy. They ask us to trust them on this, but the hostile environment is a very clear reason why I am afraid we simply cannot do that.
Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East, for Streatham, and for Wirral South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—and so many others—have raised concerns about the delegated powers contained in the Bill. The previous version of this legislation, which failed to complete its Committee stage because of the snap general election last year, contained an almost identical clause 4. As the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said in his opening remarks, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on that Bill articulated very clearly its concerns about this clause:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
The Committee expressed “significant concerns” about clause 4(5), recommending that it be removed altogether
“unless the Government can provide a proper and explicit justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power”,
as it
“confers broad discretion on Ministers to levy fees or charges on any person seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who, pre-exit, would have had free movement rights under EU law.”
This is bad not just for parliamentary democracy, but for our public services and the economy. Parliamentary scrutiny is the most effective way for stakeholders to work with MPs to shape legislation to respond to the needs of the country. It is not just Labour Members who are concerned about the delegated powers in the Bill, but the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the British Medical Association, London First, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, trade unions and the Children’s Society, as just a sample of the cross-section of organisations that share our concerns that a transfer of powers to the Executive is not the way to develop good-quality legislation. On that basis, we simply cannot sign off on this legislation.
So many others have said today that what we take exception to now more than ever is an approach that puts rhetoric ahead of the practical solutions that this country so desperately needs to find if we are to make it through the coronavirus crisis. Nothing is more important in this fight than the key workers in our NHS and in social care in particular. Given that some 29% of doctors working in our NHS hospitals and 12% of the overall health care workers in the UK are from overseas, the Bill has massive implications for the wellbeing and strength of the healthcare workforce.
The Government’s inability to address the systemic problems in the social care sector also extends, I am afraid to say, to their immigration policy. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently found that four out of five employees from EEA countries working full time in social care would be ineligible to work in the UK under the £25,600 salary threshold proposed in the Government’s immigration White Paper published in February. As much as hon. Members might talk about the ability to respond quickly through the shortage occupation list and the Migration Advisory Committee, special consideration for the social care sector in a future immigration system has already been ruled out, so how do the Government plan to respond to the shortage of workers, the impact of which we are already experiencing and which will only become more acute, given the demand for social care as a result of the crisis?
Across sectors, but particularly in the NHS, it is not just the NHS surcharge that does not seem fair: the immigration skills charge is another problem. It is paid by employers who recruit migrants on tier 2 visas and, come 1 January, employers will also have to pay for staff to come from EU countries as well as non-EU countries. The immigration skills charge is also paid by NHS trusts which, if they cannot find clinical specialists here in the UK, have no choice but to find them from overseas. I asked my local NHS trust, Calderdale and Huddersfield, how much the Government take back from it in immigration skills charges. In the last financial year, the trust had to pay Government just short of £163,000 out of its annual budget in immigration skills charges. So because we have clinical skills shortages in many specialist areas in the UK, and in the absence of any Government strategy to respond to that domestically, the NHS has to hire from overseas. The same Government then punish trusts for doing so by demanding those fees, taking much needed cash back from their budgets. That seems grossly unfair. It indicates not only that our immigration approach simply does not work for the NHS and social care, but neither does our domestic skills policy.
A number of other important points have been raised in this Second Reading debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke of his pride that Bradford is a city of sanctuary, and I share his pride as my constituency is part of a valley of sanctuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, a great music lover, spoke in his typically passionate speech of the contribution that migrants and visitors to the UK make to the music sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said that to assess a person based on what they earn is a blunt tool which masks their true value. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton reminded us that the Prime Minister himself understands the value of migrants working in the NHS, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made the powerful point that those who have died working in the NHS were from every corner of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is a passionate campaigner on the rights of children in particular and raised a number of important questions that we will return to in Committee.
In closing, I want to say to all those workers in the NHS who have had their visas extended for one year free of charge, it is not that the Government are doing them a favour—they are doing our country a massive favour by staying in our NHS and fighting on our frontline to save our lives. As others have said, we urge the Government to extend those visa extensions across the social care sector. We have heard the call from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and we will very much play as constructive a role as we can in Committee, but we cannot support legislation that transfers powers to the Executive and away from Parliament alongside proposals that will only put even greater pressure on the NHS, social care and a number of other key sectors. That is why we will vote against the Bill this evening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to formally welcome the new shadow immigration Minister to her post; I have not had the chance to do so before at the Dispatch Box.
The breadth of views expressed by Members today clearly demonstrates how important an issue this is, not only to our constituents but personally. Given the unusual circumstances in which we meet, I will not have time to give a detailed response to each point raised, but will seek to respond to the broad themes that have been brought out in the debate.
The Bill is before the House not only to deliver on our manifesto pledges, but to lay the framework for our new immigration system, which will be fairer because we will treat people from every part of the world equally, while respecting our historic links with Ireland and the Belfast agreement, and firmer, because we will have control of our own borders from 1 January and all migration policy will be in the hands of this Parliament. It will be skills led, because the system will be based on the skills, talents and qualifications that people can bring to this country, not two radically different systems based on where someone’s passport comes from.
Let us be clear: this is a framework Bill, not an immigration shopping list. In response to some comments, especially from those who wish to build an economic version of Hadrian’s wall, I emphasise that this Bill sets up the framework for a single, global points-based migration system, with the rights of Irish citizens protected and ensuring the ability of Ministers to respond to any agreement on social security co-ordination.
The detail of our migration rules will continue to be set in secondary legislation, to ensure that they remain flexible and able to respond to changing situations but always based on the key policy principles I have outlined. The reaction to the coronavirus emergency shows why that is necessary. Imagine our having to pass primary legislation to amend visa end dates, automatically renew NHS workers’ visas, grant waivers to in-country route-swapping conditions or allow tier 4 sponsors to move courses online. Hence this Bill, in common with those on this subject that came before it, does not replicate the immigration rules in statutory form, and neither should the House regret its not doing so.
We have already moved to create the first part of our new migration system with the creation of our global talent route. I saw at first hand at Glasgow University what this could result in and the strong offer it presents, clearing the path for some of humanity’s most complex problems, such as the fight against malaria, to be solved by teams recruited on a global basis and based here in our United Kingdom. The new graduate route, which will be introduced next summer, will help to retain some of the brightest minds coming out of our universities, giving a simple path to future residence and settlement. As our universities see an increasing number of international students arrive to study here, we know that more will be inspired to make their life and career in vibrant locations such as Glasgow, Belfast, Exeter, Cardiff and Coventry. Our immigration system should allow them to do so.
I hear the frustrations of those who see our migration and humanitarian protection system being abused by those who engage in human trafficking—as highlighted well by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) —and the risks being run by those using small boats to cross the channel. A key part of ensuring a fairer system is to tackle that type of behaviour. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration Compliance and the Courts is leading work on that, which is benefiting from the input of my hon. Friends.
The Migration Advisory Committee report earlier this year provided a strong and evidence-based view for our future points-based migration system. We accepted its key recommendations: a reduction in the general salary threshold for the key skilled worker visa from £30,000 to £25,600; moving the skills threshold from degree to A-level, to ensure that we include those with significant skills levels, such as senior carers; and tradable points, with a salary floor of £20,480 for jobs on the shortage occupation list or where significant potential is shown by holding a relevant STEM-based PhD. We are working hard to bring the new system into effect, and I thank the teams in the Home Office who have continued doing this in the extraordinary circumstances we have found ourselves in over recent weeks.
We will continue to work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee and its interim chair, Professor Brian Bell. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to advise on the future shortage occupation list. Its call for evidence has now been issued, and that will provide an opportunity to look at the skills needs of a range of sectors that Members have highlighted today. I encourage all businesses to take part and have their voice heard; no one should allow themselves to be silenced. Several Members have been keen to highlight groups with whom I can speak about this. For example, I look forward to a video conference with seafood businesses in north-east Scotland arranged by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). I know he shares my passion for ensuring that the new migration system serves our whole Union and the skills needs of Scottish businesses, rather than the political aims of Scotland’s separatists.
Talking of serving the needs of our nation, no organisation has done that more than our NHS and social care services over recent weeks. Our new system will not just allow but actively welcome a range of health professionals to the United Kingdom. This will be via not only the points-based system being based on national salary scales for roles such as doctors, nurses and physiotherapists, but an NHS visa, which includes discounted fees and fast-track application processes for those with a job offer from our NHS or for those providing services to it. This process will build on the dedicated team that the Home Secretary has already established in UKVI to process applications from those with NHS job offers. Our social care sector will benefit from simpler processes to recruit qualified medical staff and key roles such as senior carers on a global basis.
One area that has been regularly queried in the debate is our acceptance of the MAC’s recommendation that there should be no general route for employers to seek to employ temporary or permanent employees on the legal minimum wage with limited training and no requirement to speak a basic level of English. I gently say to Members that if the lesson they have taken from the events of the last two months is that paying the legal minimum to those working in social care who migrate to the UK from low-pay economies is the right approach, they have drawn the wrong conclusion. Similarly, those who think that the migration system is the go-to option for recruitment issues in social care, rather than creating career paths and increasing the value of such roles, should read the MAC’s specific rejection of this.
No one can deny the economic impact that the measures necessary to deal with the coronavirus will have. Many of our friends and neighbours will need to find new employment opportunities, and it is therefore vital that our migration system aligns with this goal, rather than providing an alternative to it. I have welcomed speaking to my hon. Friend the employment Minister about how we can ensure that our goals align and that those seeing migration as their first port of call are instead steered to the efforts being made to get UK-based workers back into employment and to the Disability Confident scheme, which helps to get unique talents into the workplace. There will still be some flexibility. For example, there is provision for the further expansion of our youth mobility schemes, through which 20,000 young people come to the UK for a period of work and travel each year, along with the adult dependants of those who come as skilled workers, who can also access the employment market. However, we will not create a minimum wage general migration route.
Alongside creating our new points-based global migration system, we are also taking the chance to work on a long overdue simplification of the immigration rules. I am grateful to the Law Commission for its thoughts on this area of work, and we will take most of them forward as we create the new system. Many will not be headline-grabbers but changes that will make it easier for those who need to use our immigration system to both understand the requirements and to comply with them. This will sit alongside moves such as the abolition of the resident labour market test, which will make it easier for employers to recruit skilled labour, and will remove some of the bureaucracy and time associated with doing so.
Finally, it was predictable that some would use this debate to re-fight the battles of Brexit, despite the clear result in the recent general election. The Bill delivers one of the key commitments that the Government made: a single global migration system. However, we are also delivering on our pledge to protect those who have moved here and made their life here in good faith under the current arrangements. The European settlement scheme is the largest documentation of immigration status in UK history. More than 3.5 million applications have been received, with more than 3 million decisions made, and only a tiny number of refusals by comparison. I am afraid that those calling for systems where rights are granted but not recorded do not seem to have learned the lessons of the past. The European settlement scheme means those entitled can prove their status easily for the rest of their lifetimes, while also ensuring that those who arrive in years to come cannot abuse the scheme’s provisions.
We recognise that immigration is vital to the social, cultural and economic life of this country. The new system will aim to create global equality of opportunity, giving everyone the same chance to live and work in this country. The Bill is the first step in ending free movement, establishing a fair and equal immigration system and upholding the scientific and commercial excellence of our country. Above all, it will help us to build a better future for this country and its people as we rebuild after the impact of covid-19. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the Question, I confirm that my final determination is that the Question on Second Reading should be decided by remote Division. There is therefore no need for me to collect the voices, or for those present in the Chamber to shout Aye or No.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division shortly. As the next Question is contingent on the outcome of this Division, I will suspend the House for five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division on Second Reading.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The Speaker announced to the House earlier this afternoon his provisional determination that remote Divisions would not take place on the following Questions relating to the programme motion, the money resolution, and the ways and means resolution. This is also my final determination.
IMMIGRATION AND SOCIAL SECURITY CO-ORDINATION (EU WITHDRAWAL) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 June 2020.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown, a government department, a person holding office under Her Majesty or any other public authority by virtue of the Act; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out money so provided.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any fees or charges arising by virtue of the Act.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 9th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 June 2020 - (9 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Members should switch off any electronic devices or switch them to silent. As in all Bill Committees, tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Obviously, I must stress the importance of social distancing in the Committee Room. I will suspend proceedings if at any point I am not satisfied that advice on public health is being observed.
The Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hochansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We will first consider the programme motion. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the evidence session. If there are any questions about our unusual procedure because of social distancing during that session, we can deal with them then. In view of the limited time available, I hope we can take these matters without too much debate. At 11 o’clock, there will be a minute’s silence in memory of the death of George Floyd.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was agreed at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 10.20am Federation of Small Businesses; London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 10.50am The Confederation of British Industry; Make UK Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 11.25am The Migration Advisory Committee Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 2.40pm British in Europe; Professor Bernard Ryan Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 3.20pm British Future; Policy Exchange Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 4.00pm Detention Action; Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 4.30pm the3million; The Children’s Society Tuesday 9 June Until no later than 5.00pm Fragomen LLP; No.5 Barristers’ Chambers
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 9 June meet—
(a) at 2.00pm on Tuesday 9 June;
(b) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 11 June;
(c) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 16 June;
(d) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 18 June;
(e) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 23 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 5, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 6 to 9, New Clauses, New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Thursday 25 June.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome my shadows, the hon. Members for Halifax and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from a representative of the Federation of Small Businesses, who is attending by audio link, and from a representative of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who is with us in the room. I welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. Before calling the first Member to ask the first question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee agreed earlier. We have until 10.20 am. Before we get to the questions, perhaps the witnesses could introduce themselves.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. May I first draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to financial support that I receive in my office for work on immigration policy?
The Chair
Thank you. Richard Burge, please introduce yourself.
Richard Burge: Thank you very much. My name is Richard Burge. I am the chief executive—fairly recent—of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Martin McTague: I am Martin McTague. I am the chair of policy and advocacy for the FSB in the UK.
Kevin Foster
Q
Richard Burge: With difficulty. The obvious difficulty they have is that they are surrounded by chaos at the moment. Many small businesses have furloughed a large number of members of staff, or they are operating on their own. They have only so much bandwidth, so this will be hard work for them, particularly as they do not know what the rules will be. If they employ EU citizens, their concern is that they will now be introduced to the world of having to register themselves and get themselves licensed, which, like customs documentation, is a completely new world for them, and they have six months to do it.
Martin McTague: Sorry, I could not hear that question very well. Could you repeat it? You are very echoey and quite distant.
The Chair
Just before you do, Minister, it would be helpful if when asking questions, Members said who they were directing the question to.
Kevin Foster
Q
Martin McTague: I just about got that; I think it was a question about small businesses’ experience of immigration. The reality is that 95% of small businesses have absolutely no experience of dealing with any kind of visa system, and the system has been largely designed for larger businesses with reasonably sophisticated HR resources. We have found that the biggest concentration of issues is to do with mid-skilled occupations; in other words, the debate tends to be very binary. It either refers to high-skilled and very sophisticated employment requirements or completely low-skilled ones, but there are a lot of mid-skilled positions that fall within the £20,000 to £30,000 bracket, and those are the ones that cause the most problems for small businesses in the UK.
Kevin Foster
Q
Martin McTague: I assume that was to me, was it?
Kevin Foster
My question to Mr Burgh is about the fact that he talked about the process of sponsorship and becoming licensed. He may be aware that the Home Office is looking to streamline that system. Is there a particular change, or changes, he thinks we could make to the sponsorship licensing system that would help address some of the concerns he outlined?
Martin McTague: [Inaudible] it is welcome. It is a change that we were keen to see, and there has been a welcome change in the Government’s approach.
Richard Burge: To add to that, first of all, I have great admiration for the Home Office team working on this. I have worked for Matthew Rycroft before, in the Foreign Office, and he is one of the most talented managers in the public service. I think umbrella licensing is a good idea: it has good precedents, and it would create a huge relief for small businesses if they felt they could go to an organisation that had the ability to provide umbrella licensing. It would provide reassurance to the Home Office and a workable solution for small businesses, and we would be happy to be part of that process.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Richard Burge: In two ways. One is relief that the threshold was lowered; it is now a much more realistic threshold. I have to say, though, that it is going to be a lot more workable within London than it is for my colleagues who run chambers in other parts of the country. A threshold of £25,600 is quite high in different parts of the UK, given the wage levels there, so while I think it is workable in London—not ideal, but workable—I also think we concentrate on income too much as an indicator of value, rather than skills, and that in parts of the country, the threshold is still probably too high.
Holly Lynch
Q
Martin McTague: There has been a broad welcome for that change. I think there was a strong feeling that the previously suggested £30,000 threshold was going to be far too high, so £25,600 is a really good move in the right direction. We actually think it should be lower, because there are quite a few jobs, especially in the care sector, that pay less than £25,600. That is why we have called for a care sector visa, because we think the requirements of that sector will always be uniquely different from most of the rest of the economy. However, the move to £25,600 is definitely welcome.
Holly Lynch
Q
Richard Burge: It would be quite complex. It would be a move away from worrying about what people are paid to worrying about their skills. Skills are not necessarily measured by qualifications, so we welcome the reduction down to A-level standard. However, for instance, you could look at a small coffee shop, where you pay with your credit card. No accountant, bookkeeper or partner in an audit company is physically involved in your paying your money and it appearing in the annual accounts of that company, but you still need a barista to serve your coffee, so the question is: what matters now—is it skills and competence, or is it qualifications and what you happen to be paid? I would like to see that change.
Martin McTague: The biggest thing for us is the bureaucracy of this system. We estimate that a typical business with fewer than 50 employees will probably have to spend about £3,000 per employee to get through this tier 2 process. That is made up of a whole series of different costs. The biggest obstacles to recruiting somebody through this system are simply the cost and the time required to do it. Many businesses that traditionally recruit on the open market and have never gone anywhere near this kind of tier 2 system will find it very off-putting, and may just constrain their ambitions and avoid doing it completely.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Martin McTague: I can see that there will be more incentive to look for indigenous employees, but the reality is that a lot of the shake-out, or the potential shake-out, that we are hearing is likely to happen will be among the least-skilled people. Companies are going to enormous lengths to try to hang on to the rare skills that they have. If they have managed to recruit somebody from, say, the European Union, they are going to enormous lengths to try to get them to apply for settled status and to reassure them about the covid situation. I do not think that a new influx of unemployed people, many of whom will have poor skills, will solve a lot of the problems for these companies.
Richard Burge: From a London point of view, I think the jury is out, literally. I do not think we really know what to expect as we come out of covid-19. The critical thing for London, and probably for all metropolitan areas, is the mobility of people, and the willingness of people to be physically mobile to go and find new work, possibly earning less than they were earning before. However, it is also about emotional mobility, too. Are people emotionally prepared to go and do new work, taking completely new tangents in their lives and probably earning less? That will be a real challenge. I think there will be greater opportunities, but not necessarily in a career path that people might have been expecting.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Richard Burge: I think it is inevitable that it is going to be more difficult for people from the European Union; that is the consequence of leaving the European Union and not having an immigration policy for people from there. It is no longer an internal market; it is now a normal external market.
I think what we need to do is to make the red tape manageable. I think part of that is umbrella licensing. Part of that will be border clearance that is rapid and smooth, so it needs to be digitised and there needs to be e-clearance, and that also means that it cannot get cluttered up with tourism. We hope that everyone from the European Union will be able to come without a visa and not get caught in that process. Part of this process is the mechanism, and I think that one of the big challenges for the Home Office is to ensure that, while there may be more bureaucracy, it tries to make that process as smooth and as digitised as possible, and that is going to be a big ask before 1 January.
Martin McTague: I am really sorry; I can barely hear the conversation. Is there anybody closer to the microphone who could just repeat the essence of that question for me?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I got the essence of your question. Most small businesses treated EU nationals just as part of the pool of labour; they would not even question where they originated, and it was just a very simple recruitment process. I think that the additional costs will act as a disincentive, but more importantly it is quite hard to persuade a lot of EU employees to stay in the country. They are leaving, and they are leaving with the kind of skills that are in really short supply.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Richard Burge: If I may start with that, certainly from a London Chamber point of view, and I think from the point of view of all my colleagues around the country, it was hugely disappointing to see that disappear completely from the Bill this time. It was a very sensible scheme. I think it demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to try to respond to helping people get through what will be a permanent change in the market. It is very sad to see it go. We would like to see the route for lower-paid workers—lower-skilled workers—being reintroduced in the same way as it was under the previous Prime Minister’s Government.
Martin McTague: I think I picked that up. We were disappointed to see the disappearance of the 12-month scheme; we thought that was addressing an important part of the labour market, and it is regrettable that it disappeared. Hopefully something can be done to implement something similar.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Q
Richard Burge: It is helpful, because it is creating bigger diversity in terms of availability and access to labour. I think most small businesses, though, or any business will be keen to employ UK-based labour if they can. That is simpler and easier. In the end you do need to have access to global markets. We have to remember that we are a globally trading nation and, in the 21st century, trading tends to be in the skills of individuals and their brainpower and abilities. It is mostly about people rather than things, although we tend to focus on trade as being about things rather than people. The more we can do to keep our borders—within the Government’s requirements in terms of immigration for other purposes, social purposes—as open to people for work as they are for goods and services, the better.
Kate Green
Q
Richard Burge: They are hugely important, particularly when you are talking about people whose skills are valued less in the marketplace of wages than those of others, so any complexity to that will be a disincentive to employment. I would ask that whatever we do in terms of social security payments and pension provision, we try to make that as simple as possible. They are potentially a huge attractant.
Kate Green
Q
Richard Burge: The first community I would like to talk about is overseas graduates who graduate from British universities. What the current Government have done to release the block on people who graduate from British universities and come from overseas being able to work is a hugely positive step, enabling people who have been to university here to stay on and work for a year. That is hugely encouraging and hugely exciting, and I think most businesses will be enthusiastic about trying to pick up that market.
In terms of people coming from overseas universities and institutions, I think it is very important that we move ahead on equivalence of qualifications—the transferability of people’s qualifications—particularly in vocational skills. I think we have to streamline that. Obviously, we have to make sure, particularly when they are in life-governing professions like medicine, that those qualifications are rigorously examined, but the more we can move towards a universality of qualifications between like-minded countries, the better. That will help hugely as well, and I think we in the UK should be leading on it. We have the best universities in the world and therefore it is in our interests to make sure we have inter-transferability of those higher-level qualifications.
Kate Green
Q
Martin McTague: I think the key is trying to make sure that graduates or undergraduates are attracted to UK universities, because once they are in that pool of the immediately graduating, they become a much more attractive group for small businesses in particular. It seems that a lot of the barriers that have been put up and are going to restrict the entry of undergraduates are the biggest worry for a lot of small businesses, because they think that therefore they will not have that pool of very skilled labour to draw on.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Richard Burge: The answer is that I don’t really know. A lot of companies that are already established in places such as Japan will find it easier; for the ones that have operations elsewhere in Europe, this will be a new world. This also comes down to the Home Office being flexible and agile in terms of making sure that we assume positive intent on the part of companies—that they are not getting people into Britain secretly to do full-time work, but that they are in fact part of the transferable market within their company.
We need to address that. It will be complicated, but there are precedents in companies outside the EU, so I think we will use that as an example. It will be more difficult for smaller companies. Increasingly, we find that international companies in London are actually quite small; they are not huge operations. You can find yourself to be an international company in London by dint of the first order put on your website, whereas in the old days you would have spent 20 years developing a domestic market and then you would move internationally. Smaller companies might find themselves potentially hostage to this without realising it. So yes, complex.
The Chair
I remind hon. Members of the scope of the Bill, which is EEA nationals, EU nationals and Swiss nationals, not the rest of the globe.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Richard Burge: I don’t know. We will look at that and provide you with some written advice on it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wanted to ask a follow-up to the question of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, about the income threshold. In some answers, we have heard about the effect that that might have on particular sectors, such as the care sector. Will you both say more about the regional impact of the provisions of the Bill? Do you have particular concerns for the regions? I understand that Richard Burge is speaking for the London Chamber of Commerce, but I am interested in what other chambers of commerce around the country might be thinking.
Martin McTague: We have made it clear that we think—if I heard the question correctly—that the care sector is a special case and should have a separate visa arrangement, because it does not fit neatly into any of the categories that we might like to define under normal immigration rules. It is clear from the experience that we have had over the last few months that this sector is under massive pressure. Any major changes would be disastrous.
Richard Burge: I would agree to the extent that I think that the care sector is a special case, but we need to make sure that the definition of the care sector—in terms of immigration—runs alongside what I hope is emerging in the Department of Health, which is a much closer definition of what care is, bringing it in. Certainly, the Health Secretary has been trying to say that care is as important as the NHS, so I think that it needs much more careful definition.
In terms of the regional perspective, we are a country of many parts. For instance, on the lower wage threshold, I am deeply worried that, particularly in essential services—care being among them, but also things such as porterage in hospitals—in many parts of the country this is not a sufficiently low level of wage to enable us to get people in who technically have lower skills but are in high demand. There needs to be a more nuanced approach to this in order to respond to the different economic circumstances in different parts of the country. My colleagues in other chambers think that I am quite fortunate being in London, where this wage level will get us through most of our problems but will not get them through theirs.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Martin McTague: The short answer is that the time available is far too little for most small businesses to adjust to what is a completely alien system. It is relatively easy for the larger businesses with HR departments to make this adjustment. They may already be recruiting tier 2 employees, but for most small businesses it will be extremely difficult and costly. I think that all it will mean is that most of them will decide to scale back their operations and make sure that they adapt to a new world that has fewer skilled people.
Richard Burge: My view is that most small businesses will be able to get through this, if they know the rules soon enough, if there is a process by which they can use umbrella licensing, and providing that new systems are put in place by the Home Office. I think that is the critical thing. As I said, I have huge respect for the Home Office under the leadership of Matthew Rycroft and his team, but they are dealing with things such as covid-19 issues on immigration, refugees arriving over the channel, the situation in Hong Kong, and the immigration surcharge. They have a huge job list to do—and this is the only one in which they have a choice about the timing. I hope that the Home Secretary will be looking internally at the Home Office and its capability to deliver things that will then enable business to respond in a timely manner. I am concerned about the pressure being put on them.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Richard Burge: It is slow and unwieldy and should be faster. One way of improving that is to involve businesses much more directly in analysing what a shortage occupation should be. We can rely on businesses who are asked to join, say, an industry body, to work alongside the Migration Advisory Committee on that work. We can rely on them to be forthright but not to plead special interest. It needs to involve business much more directly and that, it is hoped, will enable it to be much more responsive to the marketplace. The marketplace is going to change very dramatically over the next 12, 18 or 24 months, and we do not really know how it is going to change, so we have to be light of foot.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Chair
We seem to have a technical problem. While we are trying to sort that out, are there any questions to Mr Burge?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Richard Burge: It is up to you in this House to decide how you use legislation to maintain scrutiny of Government. We would ask that, whatever means are chosen—through primary legislation or regulation—it is done in a transparent way and involves us. Instead of us in business being told what is happening, we should be involved in those discussions and make them as transparent as possible. As far as I can see, employment and immigration are not a national security issue; it could be discussed much more openly and transparently. We can resolve differences through public dialogue rather than through private discussion.
The Chair
May I just check that Mr McTague is there? Apparently, he is not. We will try to get him back.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Q
Richard Burge: Just quickly, there is a thing called the British Chamber of Commerce, which is a hub body.
Douglas Ross
Q
Richard Burge: No, but individual chambers—the 53 member chambers across the UK—are members.
Douglas Ross
Q
Richard Burge: That is right. There are 53 accredited chambers.
Douglas Ross
Q
Richard Burge: No.
The Chair
Do we have Mr McTague?
Martin McTague: Yes, I am here. Sorry, the line dropped.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: The principle of the shortage occupation list is a difficult one for us, because it is a fast-moving situation and the shortage occupations can change from week to week and from month to month. It is better for them to be in a general category, but it is rather bureaucratic and clunky. It is a situation that we are prepared to stomach rather than appreciate.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: Sorry, I could not quite hear that.
Stuart C. McDonald
What improvements would you want to make to the procedure?
Martin McTague: I would like to see a much more active engagement with business representative organisations so that, if there are changes, they can be quickly implemented and we are not waiting for a long, drawn-out bureaucratic process to work its way through the system. It is about keeping as much flexibility in the system as possible.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I am really sorry, I can barely hear you. It is echoing and distant. Could someone closer to the mic help me?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I think the fact that the Home Secretary is in a position to vary it and respond to changes in market conditions is better than if it was written on the face of the Bill and we had to go through some sort of legislative process to get changes made. In terms of flexibility, my vote is for the most flexible system we can adopt.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: Sorry, can you say that again.
Stuart C. McDonald
Flexibility does not mean that you cannot have parliamentary oversight, does it?
Martin McTague: No, it is not that. I think the Home Secretary will be answerable to Parliament about the decisions that she or he has made. That would be a way in which Parliament could ensure there was proper scrutiny. There needs to be a system that can respond in real time to some of the really big changes in market conditions. They will be even more marked in the coming months.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Martin McTague: I’m sorry, I am struggling to hear you.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank Mr Burge and Mr McTague. These are not ideal conditions, but thank you for giving us valuable evidence this morning.
Martin McTague: Thank you for bearing with me.
The Chair
Good morning, Mr Fell. The Bill Committee will now hear your oral evidence. I am sorry about the technical hitches; you will be on your own, not with Make UK.
Thank you very much for agreeing to give evidence today. If you would like to briefly introduce yourself, we can move straight to questions. We have about 10 minutes.
Matthew Fell: I am Matthew Fell, chief policy director at the CBI.
Kevin Foster
Q
Matthew Fell: I think our members completely understand that free movement of people is ending. Business gets that, and it is ready to phase into a new immigration system. I think, with the proposed approach of a points-based system, it is entirely possible to design a system that works for business. There are many positives in it so far—the headline salary threshold changes that have been announced and the commitment to streamline and improve the system are all positives—but I would say that there are perhaps three areas of concern for our members at the moment.
One concern is the absence of any route at all below level 3, which will prove challenging for the care, hospitality and logistics sectors and so on. The second, from the Government’s perspective, is introducing this with a phased approach; I can perfectly see where they are coming from, but it means that business will be left with a reasonably cumbersome system from the off, with a promise of improvements to come. The third is that we are getting very close to the deadline for the system being introduced, and business is still looking for further clarity, time to prepare and assurances that the system will be ready in time. Those are the concerns, against a backdrop of an effort to really make this work and lean into it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Fell: There are a few things that we would like to see in the proposed new immigration system. We believe that a temporary route for people to come and work in this country would be a helpful addition to the system as it is currently set up.
Secondly, I would say to accelerate efforts to streamline the proposed approach. The vast majority of businesses have never previously had to engage with the visa system; something like only 30,000 businesses in the country have grappled with it so far, because we have lived and worked with free movement of people for so long. It will be a big change, so I would say to accelerate the changes to streamline and improve the system, reduce red tape and so on.
The final piece, just to reiterate, is to accelerate efforts to get clarity and detail out there and known to businesses as soon as possible, so they can begin to familiarise themselves, prepare and get ready.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
“restrictive, complex and burdensome system.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2019; c. 67, Q178.]
Could you say a little more about what you mean by that?
Matthew Fell: There are a couple of areas. It comes down to some of the red tape issues, and there are a few examples. The initial sponsor licence, businesses tell us, is very document-heavy, in their words—for example, on the HR practices side, having to evidence, track and monitor things that small businesses feel are perfectly obvious. If they employ 10 or up to 20 people and one person is missing, that is self-evident; they know if a person is not there.
There is quite a lot in the reporting requirements that could be streamlined. Lots of people say to us, “We have to report it if a migrant’s pay has increased, and we don’t quite understand why. If they were already given the green light because they cleared the salary threshold, why would we need to report that that has increased?”
Thirdly, people feel that the volume of documentation required to be kept on file, including details such as notes from interviewing candidates, is quite onerous. Those are some of the examples of red tape burdens that we would welcome efforts to streamline.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: There will be a significant uplift in cost, particularly for businesses that have never grappled with this before. There is an ongoing cost, but there is also a first-time familiarisation effort that will cost more, particularly for small businesses. Larger companies who deal with high volumes of people are likely to have in-house HR and legal expertise. That is much less likely to be the case for small and medium-sized businesses, who will need to pay for external advice to be able to navigate this new system.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: That is an issue. It is an issue that companies will look at, for example, if they were a multinational business and they were choosing the location of business, so it is true from a business perspective. From the employee perspective, it might be down to the speed with which they can get certainty—“Can I go and live there and know that it is okay?” Clearly, there are others who would speak more for the employee perspective, but that would be my perspective on the employee view.
Kate Green
Q
Matthew Fell: I think it is an important factor. It is quite hard to say exactly where the detail of that lands, particularly in the context of the EU-UK negotiations that are ongoing; we will need to see where they land. Social security measures and the issues that you have just described are really important for reciprocity—not just migrants coming to work in the UK, but UK workers overseas—and that reciprocity is particularly important for mobility of labour as well as for migrants coming to work in the UK.
Kate Green
Q
Matthew Fell: I think that bringing the skill threshold in the Bill down from degree to A-level is a positive change. That is a highly positive move that the CBI supported and which clearly broadens out the range of roles that can be addressed through that route. The issues are less about whether they can clear a threshold in terms of the work; they are more about the system costs and streamlining the red tape that I was describing. That is what would be most helpful.
Of course, even with that skills threshold reduced down to level 3 or A-level equivalent, that still leaves out many important roles for which businesses will find the transition and the adjustments quite hard to address in the short term.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Matthew Fell: The regional implications will be down to where there is a particular proliferation of types of sectors within a regional make-up. Some of the ones that we think are quite hard hit are care workers, general labourers in construction and the hospitality sector, as well as logistics. Hospitality is very much a regional industry, and that could be one that bears most of the brunt.
The Chair
Mr Fell, thank you very much for giving evidence to us. We found that very valuable. I am sorry about the technical difficulties we had getting through to you. We now move to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
The Chair
Welcome to the Committee. I apologise for the difficulties we had before. You will be on your own. First, can you introduce yourself to the Committee for the record, and then I will ask the Minister to ask you a question?
Tim Thomas: My name is Tim Thomas. I work for Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation. I am Make UK’s director of employment and skills policy, so I cover all work-related issues and a few political issues, including immigration policy.
Kevin Foster
Q
Tim Thomas: Sorry, could you just repeat that? It was a bit echoey. Apologies for the line.
Kevin Foster
I will say it slowly; it will sound weird. How do you see the manufacturing sector working with the new system?
Tim Thomas: In terms of how the manufacturing sector will work with the new system, it will be a considerable challenge to cope with the end of free movement. Around 95% of our members employ an EU worker and about 5% employ a non-EU worker, so the majority of Make UK members do not currently interface with the tier 2 non-EU migration system. There will be a considerable change for manufacturers’ recruitment practices with the implementation of the points system.
It is fair to say that the changes to the proposed points-based system for manufacturers will ease the route. The reduction in the qualification level from level 6 to level 3 and the reduction in the salary threshold will make things easier for manufacturers than they would be. However, manufacturing is a global business; about half of manufacturing exports go to the European Union, and they cannot export their British-manufactured goods to the EU without an exchange of people. People, and the cross-fertilisation of people between the UK and the EU, go hand in hand with trade in manufactured goods. There is a strong connection with the EU and global trade in the manufacturing sector, and the ability to recruit people from outside the UK is vital to that trade.
Holly Lynch
Q
Tim Thomas: At Make UK, we have responded over several years to calls for evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee, and we are preparing our response to the current call for evidence. If I may make one point before I come to your question, the call for evidence from the MAC has a very short window for Make UK and other organisations to respond. That is because the points-based system is being implemented on a very truncated timeline. In gathering the evidence for the MAC, Make UK and other organisations face a stiff challenge in ensuring that our response is evidence-based and provides a realistic forward look at the manufacturing sector and the jobs we will need in the future.
As for how realistic the MAC can be in its work and how realistic we can be, covid-19, the changes to the manufacturing sector and the difficulties it is in have presented a challenge in showing the MAC the true state of what occupations are in shortage in our sector at the moment. The manufacturing sector systemically suffers from long-term skills shortages—we are no different from any other western European economy in that regard—and that is not because manufacturers do not train. About 75% of manufacturers have apprenticeship programmes, and Make UK is an apprenticeship provider. We are investing in training the next generation of talent, but the fact is that there are certain skills, including digital skills, that are not available in the UK, and we need them to make sure the manufacturing sector is internationally competitive and productive. In terms of the work of the MAC, it needs to take a realistic view of what the UK labour market can provide, given those skills shortages and how long it will take it to adjust at the end of free movement, given that those skills can be brought in through the points-based system.
There are some key elements of the manufacturing sector for which workers tend to come from the European Union. One is new green technology. We all support the move away from an economy in which electricity generation is carbon-based, towards clean energy. Clean energy is something that our members are investing large amounts of resource in. A lot of those skills, simply because the technology has been deployed for longer in the European Union, exist in, for example, Germany and Denmark to a greater extent than they exist in the UK. Accessing those green skills—those environmentally friendly skills—and that new technology is something that most people would support. We just need to make sure the MAC captures the fact that those skills are in shortage in the UK at the moment.
The Chair
We have very limited time, and three Members are indicating that they wish to ask questions, so please make the questions and answers brief.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Q
Tim Thomas: With great apologies, I could not catch much of the question. Could you repeat it? Is it possible to come closer to the microphone?
Angela Richardson
In your first answer you said that 95% of workers in production are EU nationals. What percentage of that are UK workers?
Tim Thomas: Apologies—what I said was that 95% of our members employ an EU worker. Across the whole of the sector, we employ between 2.7 million and 2.9 million workers, of whom about 330,000 are EU workers.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Tim Thomas: I think that would simply lead to more uncertainty among manufacturers. We expect the UK Government to implement the new points-based system on the timeline that they guaranteed, and to provide businesses with the full suite of material—the statutory instruments and guidance—by the end of the summer at the latest so that we have a significant period to familiarise ourselves with it before January. If we delayed implementation, that would cause more uncertainty among businesses. Clearly, we need time to adjust and to see what the new system is. However, we naturally do not want a delay to the implementation date.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Tim Thomas: I understand the point that you are making, but our issue is with the type of skills that we need. I mentioned green skills, and we also need digital skills. We need a range of skills that are not available in the UK labour market. We are training domestic UK workers for them, but in the meantime there is a skills mismatch between what employers need and what is available in the UK labour market. There may be some mitigation, but I would say that we are still going to need non-UK workers for the foreseeable future, until we develop those skills in the domestic labour market.
The Chair
Mr Thomas, thank you very much for the full evidence that you have given. It is valuable and I am sorry about the technical difficulties that we had in getting through to you.
Tim Thomas: Not at all. Thank you for your time.
The Chair
We shall now hear oral evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee. May I take this opportunity, while the witness is coming in, to remind hon. Members about the scope of the Bill. It does not encompass a points system. I did not want to interrupt the previous witness, given the problems that we have had, but perhaps we can remember the scope of the Bill.
Examination of witness
Brian Bell gave evidence.
The Chair
Mr Bell, thank you very much for coming today. I remind members of the Committee that at 11 o’clock the bell will ring and there will be a minute’s silence for George Floyd. We will stand for that minute. Would you like to introduce yourself, Mr Bell, for the benefit of the record?
Brian Bell: I am Professor Brian Bell. I am the interim chair of the Migration Advisory Committee and professor of economics at King’s College London.
Kevin Foster
Q
Brian Bell: If you move to a system in which you take control of immigration and are no longer subject to free movement under the European Union, you essentially have to have a selective immigration policy, and the question is where you think that selectivity should be. All the evidence that the committee reviewed in its 2018 report pointed to the benefits to the United Kingdom being highest when we focused on high-skill immigration—often high-wage immigration—and the gains, to the economy as a whole and also the resident population, which is our key metric, as it were, being highest with those kinds of workers. If you are going to have any kind of selectivity, that is where you want to tilt the balance, as it were.
That does not necessarily mean that you do not have any access to workers at low wages and with lower training or educational requirements. There are other routes that are already available within the system for immigration. For example, the family route allows you to recruit people who come through the family route for immigration, and there is the asylum route—once applicants are granted asylum they can be employed in the United Kingdom without regard to their skill level. There are alternative routes, and in fact that is extremely common. There are an awful lot of non-EEA workers employed in British firms across sectors who would not meet the requirements of the new immigration system but still have a job because they can come through different routes.
At the end of the day, there is a crucial distinction that we draw. With jobs where the training requirement and the education, both academic and vocational, to begin that job are reasonably low, firms can actually compete against each other, and we sort of want firms to compete against each other for workers, because that is good for workers; whereas for more technical, highly skilled jobs with very high training requirements there is often a practical difficulty in getting a new supply if you need it. You cannot just turn on the tap, so migration is a more obvious response for that.
Kevin Foster
In terms of that general route for recruitment, the MAC made some specific comments on the care sector, again in the context of the Bill ending freedom of movement. It was very specific against a sectoral scheme. Could you explain some of the rationale for that?
Brian Bell: The first point to bear in mind when thinking about the social care sector is that it is often described as being dependent on migrant workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Something like 80% of those working in the social care sector are British, so actually it relies on British workers. The European Union is a relatively small fraction of the social care employment sector relative to the economy as a whole, accounting for about 5% of it, depending on which statistics are used.
We do not think there should be a particular route for social care because we think that immigration has historically been used as an excuse to not deal with the problems of the social care sector. The problems of the social care sector are fundamentally nothing to do with immigration. They are to do with the fact that, frankly, Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp the funding issue of social care. If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, “Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage,” first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with, and secondly it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers. You are saying that you are going to keep on allowing their wages to be held down by allowing employers to bring in workers at the minimum wage, whereas we want to see wages rising in that sector. That will not happen if there is a continuous supply of free labour from abroad willing to work at the minimum wage.
Kevin Foster
Q
Brian Bell: The Migration Advisory Committee has a key role in making sure that we keep a pretty constant view of what is happening across sectors, occupations and industries as the new system is rolled out, to see where problems are emerging. When you switch from a system that has been running for 40 years to a new one that incorporates all European Union countries as well, there will inevitably be teething problems. It would be surprising if that were not the case. We will be focussed on looking for the evidence: where is the system having problems? We will be highlighting those to the Government, and we can do that. We have an annual report that we will be publishing, and we will be highlighting to Ministers where the problems are, as well as potentially what solutions might be available.
Kevin Foster
Q
Brian Bell: We were asked explicitly to think about whether there should be regional variation in the salary thresholds that are a key part of the system. The easiest way to answer that is to think about the fact that the median wage in Edinburgh for a full-time worker is higher than it is in Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff and Belfast. Compared to Dumfries and Galloway, it is 25% higher. In other words, regional wage variation—if by that you mean either the nations of Britain or the regions of England—demonstrates that variation within those areas is much greater than variation across them. If you really wanted to go down that route, you would need an immigration system that set thresholds in every local community around Britain. I do not quite know how that would be enforced. You would be explicitly saying that low-wage areas should stay low-wage areas and that high-wage areas should stay high-wage areas. I am not sure that it is a very sensible policy.
Holly Lynch
Q
Brian Bell: I think I can answer that, hopefully. At the moment, the Migration Advisory Committee is being asked to report on the shortage occupation list for the new system. We will report in September and we are taking evidence at the moment. Senior care workers are eligible for the new system.
Holly Lynch
Q
Brian Bell: About 60% of the workforce are RQF3 and above. Again, in a sense it goes back to my first answer: if you are going to have a selective policy, you need to draw the line somewhere. To the extent that you say, “This sector should get an exemption,” you really need to say that what that means logically is that we are going to take away some of the other occupations and say they are not eligible any more, or we are going to make the system more liberal and expand the remit. In one sense that would be fine. Fundamentally, it is a political decision as to where you draw that line. You could have completely free movement for the entire world if you wanted it. No other country does that, but that is a choice. Our evidence was that if you are to draw that line favouring the higher paid and higher skilled, it is better for the UK economy and the public finances as well.
The one thing I can guarantee is that we will look carefully at what happens in social care going forward. To the extent that the system causes problems for them, we will report on that. There is not quite a knife edge. It is sometimes described as a knife edge, but it is not. Every single person who is a European Union citizen who is employed on 31 December will still be employed on 1 January. There is no requirement—the stock will stay the same. What will change will be the flow coming in. In the EU settlement scheme, some 3.5 million people have applied already.
Holly Lynch
Q
Brian Bell: Absolutely. If we identify an occupation that we think is in shortage, I consider that essentially a failure. You might not think it is a failure if there has been a big increase in demand for that sector, so the sector suddenly sees a large increase in the demand for its product. In the short run, there might be a shortage in terms of getting the appropriate labour for that—that is fine and makes sense—but often the shortage occupation list identifies a failure of the British education system to provide the people who are needed. A classic example of that is nurses. Nurses have been on the shortage occupation list since I can remember ever hearing of it. Every time they are put on the list, we hear statements along the lines of, “Yes, we know that they are in shortage, and we have a plan to increase the number of nurses who go through training so that we deal with the shortage in the long run.” They are still on the shortage occupation list. We should be using the shortage occupation list to signal both to Government and to employers that there are training needs that need to be fulfilled.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: The seasonal agricultural workers scheme is probably the only sectoral scheme that the MAC has recommended as a good idea. That is because it is truly unique. I think the statistic is that 99% of seasonal workers in agriculture are not from the UK, which makes sense. As it is directly seasonal, the job does not fit with people who live in the UK and who want a year-round job to make a living. Most countries have some type of seasonal workers scheme, and I would be surprised if there was any argument for why we would get rid of that. It is in a pilot at the moment; as I understand it, the pilot is going well.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: Actually, that is a good question. It would be a question for Government. If there is a seasonal workers scheme, and we have removed the special entitlement of European Union workers in terms of access, there is no reason why the seasonal workers scheme should not be open to people of any nationality, but that is a question for Government.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: One thing that we have done, which is particularly important for public finances, is think about different types of immigrants, such as a migrant who comes to the UK and then makes their home here. We often highlight how migrants in general are positive for public finances. When we see them before they get permanent leave to remain, they are often not bringing their family or they are only just forming a family unit, so they are not using public resources but they are paying in taxes. Once they have permanent leave to remain and either become British citizens or stay here permanently, they begin to cost the Exchequer because they tend to start using schools and the health service. From a purely public finance perspective, you would like migrants who just come, pay their taxes, do not use any of the resources and then leave. We have done that kind of analysis. We have done less analysis in thinking about the broader questions on what the benefits are to British society more generally of having migrants who come to the UK and stay for a long time.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Brian Bell: I certainly have not seen any evidence of that. It is a difficult one, because there has been a different rule up until this point in time. I have not seen any evidence that suggests European Union workers are more or less likely to stay on a long-term basis than non-EU workers. The data are not very good on that kind of thing, but it would be an interesting thing to look at.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: That is correct. Immigration is a reserved matter, so we were asked to report just on that.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: Yes, on the salary threshold.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: I agree it was certainly finely balanced, although there was an extensive discussion on the maths. It is fair to say that that was primarily driven by Northern Ireland. The differences in wages between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are more significant than in other devolved Administrations, and they had different issues because of the land border.
You are probably right that the majority of our respondents were in favour of it. That partly tells you that when you call for evidence, you get very interested parties on one side, and not many on the other. A classic example is that when we did our major report in 2018 on the impact of immigration from the European Union, we got some 450 responses, almost none of which were not in favour of freedom of movement. Almost all were kind of in favour, which did not properly reflect what the British people as a whole thought. That is the nature of a call for evidence.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: The reasoning was that we received reasonably strong evidence, not just from Scotland but from other areas, nations and regions of the United Kingdom, that there are rural communities that find it difficult to recruit in the way that employers can in more urban and suburban areas. Often those employers are key to that small community, so they are sometimes more important than your average employer in a big city. That was our thinking about that.
We suggested a small pilot—it is important to emphasise that we thought it should be a small pilot. Such a scheme has clear risks, two of which I suppose I should highlight. One is that you issue a visa to someone and say, “You have to stay in one small area, with one employer, and you cannot move, because it is a rural scheme.” We generally do not like the idea of saying to workers that they have to stay with one employer, because that gives the employer lots of power and does not give the worker much power. There is an uncomfortableness about that kind of scheme.
The second problem is our worry that it does not deal with why rural communities are losing population. As soon as you have this type of scheme, you might get an immigrant to go there, but as soon as they have freedom to move—for example, if they get permanent leave to remain and can go anywhere in the UK—if the reasons why people in those communities do not want to stay in the first place still exist, why would we not expect that migrant to move as well?
There are problems, but we recommend the scheme. As I understand it, the Government have not yet decided whether to have such a pilot or not. If I have to be honest, part of that is because an enormously complicated system is about to be introduced. You want to go in steps, so the Government are focused on the main work route at the moment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: We did not go as far as that. We said that we thought the argument was most compelling in Northern Ireland, but in the end we did not think the differences were quite big enough to justify having the more complicated system.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: There is a clear difference because of the border. To be clear, the shortage occupation list that we are reporting on at the moment has the ability to have a Northern Ireland SOL that is separate from the UK-wide SOL. If there are representations made to us that there are particular recruitment problems in Northern Ireland in some occupations, that are not true for the UK as a whole, we have the ability to recommend to the Secretary of State that they be put on the Northern Ireland SOL but not on the UK-wide SOL, as is true of Scotland.
Kate Green
Q
Brian Bell: It is both a good question and a very difficult question to answer. If you look at social care as a good example of this, something like 15% of workers in social care are non-EEA born. They can’t have been employed by the social care sector through the work route, as the work route is not open to the social care sector until next year because it has been RQF6 and that has excluded almost all such workers. Fifteen per cent. of the workforce has come through some other route. That is quite a big pool. Whether it is fully used—to be honest, we have not looked at that. We can do, because we have data on that, in the sense that we can see, to a certain extent, what all the non-EEA people in Britain are doing. Using the labour force survey, we can ask the question, “If you were born outside the United Kingdom and you are non-EEA, what is your current status? Are you in employment, are you looking for work or are you inactive but potentially available for work?” That is an interesting question. The one thing we cannot do—it just so happens we do not collect the data—is look at the visa you came in on. It would be nice to see whether asylum seekers are different than family route. I encourage the Office for National Statistics to ask that question.
That is an interesting question to look at, and we would be happy to do that—to think about whether there is a ready supply, potentially, of workers who are not actively looking at the moment but who, historically, have moved. There are an awful lot of people who would say they are inactive in the labour force survey but who, a few months later, have a job. We could look at that.
Kate Green
Q
Brian Bell: We were. That was another difficult decision we had to make. The difficulty is the following: for the worker route, the system works where you are sponsored by a principal employer—a main sponsor for your job. The question, again, is, where you would draw the line if you said part-time work was acceptable? We were given representations by some firms that said, “Lots of our workers almost have a portfolio of jobs, and they might do a day here, a day there and a day here.” That fits very badly into the system, because you need one employer. Frankly, I don’t think Home Office enforcement would be enough to really follow through every single worker and say, “When you add up all your jobs together, are you earning a sufficient amount that you are not burdening the Exchequer?”, which is one of the criteria we are focused on.
The issue became, if we did something like, “If you are willing to work at least 16 hours,” would that be okay? In the end, we concluded that the fiscal costs were significantly higher for that type of worker than for a worker who would come on a full-time salary. In the end, if you are going to be selective, we did not think that was an area you would be selective of.
I should say that we were mindful of the fact that that disproportionately affects women rather than men. Part-time work is, of course, much higher among women than men. In the end, we did not find that strong enough because, although that is true, the gender patterns of migrants as a whole are not that dissimilar between the sexes.
One thing that we discussed, and left open for Ministers to think about, is that, at the moment, tier 2 is quite restrictive, in that, if someone takes maternity leave, they are sort of supposed to go back to the full-time job as soon as they finish that maternity leave. We said that consideration could be given to whether, once someone is on a visa, there could be some flexibility for people who have a child to go back part time, and for that to still count. I think that might be worth considering.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Brian Bell: I should say that, if they have green skills at RQF3 and above, they are eligible for the scheme, so they will be able to enter the UK on a visa, so long as the employer is sponsored and they are paid the minimum salary threshold. I am not sure why green skills should be any different from normal skills. If there is a qualification or experience required for that job, and the person meets those criteria, the scheme is open for them. The scheme is not open for people who are at RQF1 and 2, which are essentially the jobs that either require fairly low formal qualifications or for which the training requirement to get that job is not very long. If that is the case, my response would be that we can recruit from the UK domestic workforce to fill those jobs.
The Chair
I cut off Stuart McDonald earlier, and I think he had another question. We have a little more time, so he may finish.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Brian Bell: Obviously, there is a difference between there being a UK-wide shortage and a devolved Administration shortage. For the second, we only look within the country. Broadly, we are looking for a broad shortage across employers. That is the first thing. As you say, it would not be very compelling to us if one employer said, “We find it difficult to recruit,” because our first response might be, “Perhaps you are not a very good employer.” We want to see, broadly within that occupational sector, that there is a recruitment problem. We want to think that it is more than just an extremely short-term problem. To be honest, this work route will not be ideal if you just want to fill a very short-term vacancy, for the simple reason that you have to pay fees and go through the process of applying. It is more suitable for permanent, long-term positions. We want to see that the shortage is likely to last into the medium term.
The final criteria that we use, which in one sense is the most important, is that we want to be convinced that migration is the appropriate response. In answer to your earlier question, we were talking about how skills are an important aspect of all this. One thing that we say to employers is that, if they want to be put on the shortage occupation list, and if they want us to recommend that, they need to show us evidence that they are going out and trying to train up British workers. They need to show that they have a training programme themselves, or that they are working with further or higher education colleges to try to increase the supply of British workers.
Either that takes time, which we understand, and which is an argument for putting it on the shortage occupation list until that has successfully come to fruition, or quite frankly, if they can show that they have done that kind of thing and it just has not worked, we also think that that is quite strong evidence. That suggests that there are structural problems in that sector or industry, so we perhaps have to accept migration as a response to that, and that British workers either do not want to do those jobs or there are alternatives that they would prefer to do.
Stuart C. McDonald
What do you say to those who have criticised the system for being too slow and not responsive? What is changing?
Brian Bell: Historically, it has been, because, as I said, we only ever reviewed the SOL when we were asked to. It was, frankly, probably low down in the priorities, so, often, it was looked at every three or four years. We will recommend to the Government how we should review it going forward. I cannot tell you what that will be, because we have not decided, but I will say that most other countries that have an equivalent, such as Australia, Ireland and Canada, usually have a regular review process about once a year. I think there is a trade-off. If you do it too often, you do not actually get any new information; the employer just sends you the same thing they sent you last time—
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 9th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 June 2020 - (9 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Good afternoon. This is the second evidence session, and it will be a mixture of people who are with us physically and people who are here virtually, so we will have to cope as best we can. Our first witnesses are a representative of British in Europe, via audio link, and Professor Bernard Ryan. We have until about 2.40 to take that evidence. I will go first of all to the Minister, then to the Opposition spokesman. Is anybody else desperate to ask a question at the moment? You can put up your hand and intimate to the Clerk that you would like to speak.
Those of you who are sitting at the back of the hall—you are very welcome, by the way—are equally members of this Committee. Apparently if you want to speak, you have to go to a microphone over there. Are we all happy to start the session? We have to ring our witnesses now, so please be patient.
We are ready to start with our first panel of witnesses. Thank you for coming today. This session will have to end at 2.40pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Q
Jeremy Morgan: The sound is not very good but I will do my best. The question was about social security provisions, is that right?
Kevin Foster
It was about what implications you see for British citizens in Europe regarding social security co-ordination provisions in the Bill.
Jeremy Morgan: May I start by thanking the Committee for asking us to give evidence, even in this rather strange way? The social security provisions are crucial for UK citizens in the EU. They govern pensions, pension increases, healthcare, other benefits, and the aggregation of the equivalent of national insurance contributions made in different countries, without which some people would fail to meet the minimum contribution period for pensions or other benefits. Those provisions are preserved in UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so there should be no impact. However, as is made clear in the briefing note that we prepared and that has, I hope, been circulated, we are worried about clause 5 because that clause creates a regulation-making power wide enough to modify rights under the withdrawal agreement. We entirely accept that in the explanatory note the Government say that they do not intend to have an impact on our withdrawal agreement rights, but we are worried about that on two grounds, and the concerns are twofold.
First, as a constitutional issue it is wrong to create a power in a regulation that might breach an international treaty. If that is to be done, it should be done by primary legislation after a proper debate. Secondly, and more practically, those social security provisions that are listed in the Bill are right up there with UK immigration law for complexity. It is Byzantine complexity, and that is no exaggeration. It would not be difficult for an unintended breach to slip through. Therefore, to prevent a breach of a treaty by mistake, it is important that any such amendment be made through primary legislation after a proper debate.
Kevin Foster
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I am sorry, I am having great difficulty in hearing the question.
Kevin Foster
A Minister cannot breach international law in regulations. Would you have any concerns if the legislation, for example, did not empower a Minister to quickly implement an agreement in relation to social security co-ordination if one was reached with the European Union before 1 January?
Jeremy Morgan: You are talking about the future relationship beyond Brexit, effectively?
Kevin Foster
Yes. Effectively, there are negotiations ongoing, and the issue is what happens if the Government reached an agreement and wished to implement it before that time.
Jeremy Morgan: I should start by saying that we were fairly careful in the representations that we made. We are a group that represents British citizens in Europe who are affected by Brexit and were there before Brexit. We have tended not to get into policy post the end of the transition period, simply because it is not within our remit to do so. It is for others to express views on that. Clearly, if a further agreement is made for rights that extend to others beyond those who are already in the EU, it is important that the Government should be able to implement that, but whether that is by primary legislation or regulations made at the time for that purpose is a matter for this Committee to decide. I do not think British in Europe would have a strong view about it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: Certainly. First, I thank the Committee and the Chair for the invitation.
The Chair
By the way, I do not know how our other witness is going to hear you. The acoustics are not brilliant, and I suspect that they are quite a long way away. They are already having difficulty hearing anyway, so speak up loudly, slowly and clearly. Sorry to interrupt.
Professor Bernard Ryan: I will do my best.
I obviously welcome clause 2. I see it as addressing a longstanding gap in immigration law, which is a lack of clear provision for Irish citizens, notwithstanding the fact that there has not been a policy or practice of placing restrictions on them. As I see it, the clause addresses the legal status of Irish citizens who enter the United Kingdom from outside the common travel area, so I wholeheartedly welcome it.
There are some finer points where one might point to potential problems down the road. I identified several in my evidence. First, in regards to family migration, it is still left open a little whether Irish citizens who will have the freedom to enter and reside will be in the same position as British citizens with regard to sponsoring family members in every respect. I think that is something that could be addressed.
There is also a difficulty relating to deportation and exclusion. I certainly would not argue that Irish citizens should be exempt from those. They are citizens of another state, as it were, so it should be possible to deport and exclude, but what is the threshold is going to be? We know that the general threshold is conducive to the public good, but in practice that is not the threshold that is used for Irish citizens because of the common travel area. There is a much higher standard, so could that be written into legislation or could commitments be obtained during the passage of the Bill about how those powers will be used in relation to Irish citizens in the future?
My third suggestion would be to consider the situation of persons of Northern Ireland, to use the recent jargon. The Belfast Agreement, of course, permits people from Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or both, so for a focus on identifying as Irish, is there really sufficient provision in immigration law for people to do that? They are not guaranteed full equality as regards to family sponsorship, but they do not have immunity from deportation and exclusion either unless they assert British citizenship. In the grand scheme of things, it is a detailed point, but it is important in the Northern Irish context—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Could you hold on a moment, Professor Ryan? Can we check the line, please? Let us carry on.
Holly Lynch
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: I am afraid I do not have an answer to that. I have been following it, as it were, in relation to the policy statements, not in relation to individual cases.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: That is correct. I believe it was in the Committee stage, in the light of the evidence, perhaps, that the Minister made that commitment. Those commitments are obviously welcome, from my perspective.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: It is obviously stronger if it is put in the Bill. If it is not, policy can always be changed. Going back to the wider clause, one strength of what has been done is that it gives clarity to Irish citizens on their position in the United Kingdom. That, in a sense, is the issue with deportation. What are the arrangements going to be? What are the standards going to be? Having things in legislation, rather than in policy, is obviously stronger, from the perspective of Irish citizens.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: My main concern regards Irish citizens who are not yet resident in the United Kingdom. It is the case that Irish citizens are treated as settled once they commence residence. From that point, as things stand, they will clearly be able to sponsor, but what about the Irish citizens planning to come with their non-British or non-Irish family? They will need entry clearance. How will it work for them?
Stuart C. McDonald
Is that because the fact that they are not in the UK obviously means that they cannot be treated as settled persons? Okay. I will ask Mr Morgan a question, if he is able to hear.
The Chair
Are you receiving us loud and clear?
Jeremy Morgan: Yes. I heard very little of the other evidence, but I heard that question.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I would like to highlight a particular hardship that UK citizens living in the EEA will face after March 2022. The background is that, in the negotiations over the withdrawal agreement, citizens’ rights were a first priority for both sides, and reciprocity was the watchword. In other words, whatever we got, they got, and vice versa. That was a clear, underlying consideration in the negotiations.
However, the right of citizens to return with their families to their country of origin was deemed outside the scope of the negotiations, and the result is a serious inequality between UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK, in which, perhaps rather perversely, the discrimination is by the UK against its own citizens. We put forward an amendment in our briefing paper, which has been picked up as amendment 14. This is not the place to analyse the issue in great detail, but I would like to look at the comparison that we draw there between two groups in the case study—a UK citizen living in the EU and an EU citizen living in the UK.
It is a familiar story: a young UK citizen gets on their bike and goes to find work in the EU. They meet someone there, they marry and have a family, and they settle there. At the time when the UK citizen leaves, they have parents in the UK who are in middle to late middle age and are perfectly healthy. The reassurance was there, both for the UK citizen and their parents, that should either parent or both parents become infirm and need to be cared for by their child, there would be no problem about the UK citizen returning with family to look after them.
Years later, say in 2030, one parent might be by herself and need that care. After March 2022, the UK national will be able to return with their EU partner only if their partner can enter under the new points-based system—we have yet to see it, but that is likely to be quite difficult—or if they can meet the minimum income requirement, which is £18,600, as I am sure you all know. It has already been estimated that about 40% of the people living in the UK would be unable to meet that requirement, but matters are complicated for those returning from abroad by the UK rules on what income counts for such purposes. The income of the partner—let us say, in this case, the EU partner—will not count unless they are already in the UK and have been earning that income for six months. So it is a Kafkaesque situation: you cannot get in unless you have the income, but your income counts only if you have already got in.
In practice, the UK national has to earn the minimum income requirement on their own, while at the same time caring for their parent. It will simply be impossible for many people—probably most. In practical terms, the other option is to move the UK parent, who is now elderly and frail, to an unfamiliar country where, for language reasons, they will be unable to speak to the doctors or anyone else. It is well established in the literature that any move, for someone of that age, is difficult. Think how much worse it would be in such conditions; for most people, it is not a serious option.
In practice, it means that UK citizens have to choose between their parents and the family they have made in the EU—a heart-rending choice that nobody should have to make. It is not a choice that a comparable EU citizen of the UK has to face, because they have an absolute right to return to their EU country with a partner they met in the UK, and it is not a requirement that the UK citizen now living in the EU had faced when they moved, because at that time they had a right to do so. It is a case of moving the goalposts long after the event. It is a real worry for many thousands of people in that situation. Be they young or old, most people who have left the UK will have parents back there. It is a worry in the sense that people worry about it; it may not become a practical reality, because who knows what will happen in the future? But it is a real concern, which could be got rid of by passing amendment 14 and removing both the injustice and the discrimination.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I think it would reduce such migration considerably, because the aggregation of contribution rules are absolutely vital. Most countries, including the UK, have minimum periods of contribution: unless you have contributed for the minimum period or contributed the minimum amount, you do not get any pension at all, so you are making your contribution, possibly without any benefit. The great advantage of the social security co-ordination rules is that they enable you to aggregate periods spent in different countries in the EU, including the UK, and you therefore overcome any such barrier, provided you have worked, in all, long enough to meet the requirements. In Britain, I think, the minimum contribution period is 10 years; in Italy, where I live, it is 20 years. These are substantial barriers.
Kate Green
Q
Jeremy Morgan: Concerns in the UK?
Kate Green
Yes.
Jeremy Morgan: All I can say, speaking as one of the many people in Europe who have taken advantage of the ability to move, is that we feel it would be a significantly reduced opportunity for young people in the UK now. Seventy-nine per cent of UK citizens living in Europe at present are of working age or younger. It is not a case, as some stereotypes have it, that we are all pensioners. I happen to be one, but I am one of the minority. Seventy-nine per cent are of working age or younger, who have taken advantage of the opportunities that the movement that we have been able to have has given to us personally but also, in terms of cultural exchange and awareness of practice in different countries, to Britain as a whole. They have established a considerable presence in Europe and it would be a pity for that not to be continued.
Kate Green
Q
Jeremy Morgan: Yes, it would, quite clearly. There are also questions as to whether they will be able to own property at all. Again, speaking of Italy, unless some bilateral arrangement is made, it will not be possible for British nationals to buy properties after the end of the transition unless they are resident in Italy. I am sure there are similar provisions in other countries.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: Thank you very much for bringing that up. One of the issues at present is that not only is there a lack of clarity about immigration status, but also it feeds into the lack of clarity as regards acquisition of nationality in two scenarios. One is British-born children—children born to Irish parents, and also Irish citizens wishing to naturalise. Because it is very often not clear on what basis Irish citizens are here, to the extent that it is not clear the question arises, “Are they without time limits and have they ever been in breach of immigration laws?” It is necessary also, from the perspective of the smooth working of British citizenship law, to absolutely tie down and clarify that Irish citizens are here, and on what basis. And yes, it will remove any possible question as regards children of Irish parents being British citizens and as regards access to naturalisation by Irish citizens who want it.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: I think you are bringing us into the question of the common travel area as such and its operation. That would be my interpretation of your question. One of the things I would expect to see in the future would be, if the United Kingdom does not stay within the Dublin system with the EU, that there will be an arrangement with the Irish Republic as regards asylum seekers, because of the open border. It would be logical to do that. I personally would prefer it if the common travel area, conceived as immigration control and co-operation between the two states, were on a more transparent, and maybe more statutory, footing—but that is a much bigger question. That is to some extent a different one from the status of Irish citizens, which is what the clause deals with. So, yes, in the end I would like to see the common travel area framed more transparently than it is at present.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Jeremy Morgan: I did not understand the beginning of the question. I think the question was: would this equalise the rights between EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU? The answer is yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Bernard Ryan: Yes. Actually, I am borrowing that idea to some extent from Alison Harvey, from whom I believe you are hearing evidence later on. She has written a paper for the two human rights commissions in Ireland on the birthright provisions in the Belfast agreement, and her eventual solution is that people of Northern Ireland should be granted the right of abode—the status given to British citizens—which takes away their need to identify as British in order to get the equivalent outcomes. Both the things I raised—family sponsorship and deportation/exclusion—would be addressed by that route. I come at it from thinking about Irish citizens or people identifying as Irish citizens and how they should be protected, so I would say that an alternative route is to focus on that and somehow put in additional protections for the people of Northern Ireland to address the Irish citizens within them.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That concludes our session with this panel of our witnesses, who I thank for coming here today or speaking via audio link.
Examination of Witnesses
Jill Rutter and David Goodhart gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to our second panel of witnesses. We are going to hear oral evidence from British Future and Policy Exchange; thank you very much to our witnesses for coming today. We have until 3.20 pm at the latest for this evidence session. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Jill Rutter: I am Jill Rutter from British Future.
David Goodhart: I am David Goodhart from Policy Exchange.
The Chair
You are very welcome. As we normally do, the Minister will start by asking you a couple of questions, and then the Opposition spokesman, and then other Members will come in. Perhaps other Members who wish to ask questions could intimate to the Clerk that they would like to ask a question.
Kevin Foster
Q
The first question is to Mr Goodhart. I noticed that the January 2018 report from Policy Exchange, “Immigration after Brexit”, welcomed the ending of free movement. As you will appreciate, the main provision of the Bill is to alter UK law to remove the provisions for free movement. I wondered how you saw that, and how you saw the system that will seek to replace it, which we confirmed in a policy statement in February.
My question to Ms Rutter is this: given, obviously, the area that she covers in her group’s interest, I wonder how she sees the working of the European settlement scheme, which has now had 3.5 million applications, in terms of securing the continuing rights of EU citizens in the UK, or EEA citizens in the UK to be exact, under the withdrawal agreement.
David Goodhart: A general comment on the Bill is that I think it is broadly welcome. Part of the motivation behind Brexit, and perhaps the 2019 election too, was a more moderate level of immigration. It is true that immigration has dropped down the list of things that people worry about, for obvious reasons, even before the covid crisis, but I think that was partly because people saw that the Government were actually doing something about it. And I think the Government have broadly got it right to focus very much on restricting lower-skill immigration.
I think the higher-skill immigration channels are probably somewhat more liberal even than the Migration Advisory Committee envisaged. I mean, there has been a big liberalisation both on the salary threshold and on the qualification threshold. Bringing the qualification threshold down from degree level to A-level is a big move, and it will be interesting to see whether those changes achieve the goal of an overall lower level of immigration. I think the perfectly reasonable and democratically willed goal is a lower equilibrium level of immigration without damaging the economy. That is the goal that the Government are hoping to achieve, and I think the measures they have introduced are likely to achieve that.
I think I would probably have gone for slightly tighter restrictions, perhaps keeping the degree-level qualification and then having more exemptions—the type of exemptions that we see in the agricultural sector and so on—because Governments have made promises about immigration many times in the last 15 years or so, and they have very clearly said that they want the overall levels to be lower. I think it is quite likely that in a couple of years’ time they will not really be significantly lower, and then that will set off a whole—but then we will have the levers, at least, to do something about that.
Jill Rutter: I would like to make some general points before coming to your question on the EU settlement scheme. I am going to draw from the National Conversation on Immigration, which is the biggest ever public engagement activity on this subject and included a nationally representative survey and discussions in 60 locations across the UK, including a good few of your constituencies.
Although public confidence in the ability of successive Governments to manage the immigration system has been and still remains low, most people are balancers who see the pressures and gains of migration. Generally, most people want immigration to be controlled, they want migrants who come here to make a contribution and they want everybody to be treated fairly. However, control means different things to different people. It can be about UK sovereignty, controlling numbers, a selective immigration system and enforcement.
There are two further points in terms of public confidence. Immigration is a national issue that people see through a local lens, so what happens locally is quite important, and people’s understanding of immigration policy is very top line. They do not know the details of our policy, such as the detail of the EU settlement scheme.
Treating people fairly is hard-wired into most people. Most people want to see fair play and humanity. They want immigration to be controlled, but that has to be fair, and you do not win support by sounding nasty. In terms of the EU settlement scheme, nobody wants people who are here to be sent home. Towards the end of the National Conversation, when Windrush was an issue, people also talked about the unfairness of the Windrush scheme.
In terms of the Bill, the devil is in the detail and policy will be set through immigration rules, but areas to look at perhaps include people who have been awarded pre-settled status being automatically granted settled status, rather than having to apply again, and also thinking about citizenship. The public find it very reassuring when people make the UK their home and then take up British citizenship. That can sound a bit counterintuitive, but there is a preference for people becoming citizens, rather than having guest-worker schemes. On immigration policy, you could look at how one can make the acquisition of citizenship smoother and easier—by reviewing the cost of citizenship, for example.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: As I just mentioned, it has certainly dropped down in terms of priority and level of anxiety, but pretty consistently over the past 20-odd years about two thirds of the public have said that immigration is either too high or much too high. That may have come down a little bit recently. It has certainly come down in terms of priority, partly because other things have been happening, even prior to covid. It is also because of a feeling that, with Brexit finally happening and the end of free movement from the European Union, we would be in control of it again, so a source of anxiety was removed.
Jill Rutter: To echo what David said, immigration has certainly dropped down of the list of issues of public concern. It is much less salient. Ipsos MORI has also tracked the same group of people over a five-year period, and has seen a slight warming of attitudes. That is evident in other polling data, too.
I think the reason for that is, first of all, as David said, that people feel that now we are leaving the European Union, the UK has control over immigration from the EU. But also the referendum itself enabled a much more open, public debate about immigration in pubs and among groups of friends. Inevitably, in that discussion, there is a kind of moderation of our attitudes. That is a reason, too. Again, there is a displacement effect: covid-19 has pushed immigration off the news agenda.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: One third of food manufacturing’s employees are from the EU. That went up from virtually nothing in 2004—it is extraordinary what has happened in food manufacturing. In hospitality the figure is about 20%. The NHS has some special exemptions, but overall its figure is about 5% or 6%—rather higher on doctors than on nurses in percentage terms. Hospitality will be in a peculiar state anyway because of covid-19, so perhaps that is not such a big issue.
Do not forget, these people are not disappearing; it is incremental as people leave over time. That will be interesting to see. It may be that covid-19 will prompt EU citizens to leave in larger numbers. I do not know, Jill, whether you know if there has been any research in the past few weeks on that. That could be a problem, I guess.
Assuming that that will not change things hugely, the whole point of ending free movement is that food manufacturers either invest more in automation or they have to make the jobs at the bottom end of the labour market more attractive to people who are already here, which does not seem to me to be a foolish goal. That means that they will have to pay the jobs better and make them more pleasant in some way. That is surely a good thing.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: I don’t quite get that, sorry.
Holly Lynch
If the MAC, as an organisation, is assessing where we have workforce shortages, that only informs our immigration approach. It should also be informing our domestic skills strategy.
David Goodhart: Well, there are lots of organisations that are constantly looking at recruitment problems. There is a whole industry of it, as you know.
Holly Lynch
Q
David Goodhart: We do not really have a skills policy in this country. Where do we spend most of our money on education and training, post school? On sending almost 50% of school leavers to three-year or four-year residential university courses, which they choose themselves, with absolutely no bearing on the needs of the economy or their own future employment needs. There is huge investment in the university sector; universities are private bodies that compete with each other. We do not have a national skills policy. We introduced the apprenticeship levy, but still less than 10% of school leavers go into apprenticeships—this is a different subject.
One of the potential upsides of the end of free movement is that it is going to help to concentrate our minds on getting better alignment of what we spend on education and training and what people and the economy need. Obviously, the covid-19 crisis will feed into that. I have been involved in some work at Policy Exchange on reviving the idea of the individual learning account and having a more ambitious version of it for people over the age of 21 who want to train or retrain in some area.
There is a very good case for suspending the apprenticeship levy and just having a much simpler system in which you have 50% of the apprenticeship paid for by the employer and 50% by the state, and extending it to much smaller employers, too. This is a slightly separate issue, I know.
Holly Lynch
Q
Jill Rutter: I fully agree that skills policy and immigration policy need to be much more closely aligned. Whether the MAC is the best instrument to do it, given its current remit, I do not know. There are arguments for extending the MAC and bringing in other expertise. At the moment it is very labour market economist-focused—its remit has largely focused on labour market impacts. There are arguments for expanding the MAC.
I also think it is worth looking at the migration skills surcharge, which is a very blunt instrument. It applies to non-EU migrants; employers who bring in non-EU migrants have to pay a surcharge. The money just disappears into the Treasury, and I do not think it incentivises training at all, so that is something to look at as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jill Rutter: A whole load of factors influence public opinion. Our national media and political debates obviously have a hugely important impact, but so does what happens locally and your own personal contact with migrants. If you have friends who are migrants and refugees, you have another reference point to add to what is going on and what is being played out on the internet or on social media.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jill Rutter: Absolutely, and that was very evident in the polling that we did: those with no personal contact with migrants and refugees as friends or work colleagues had more negative opinions. I think that that accounts for the difference in attitudes between some of our more diverse cities and our less diverse towns, but political discourse and media stories have an impact as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: I see what you are getting at. I think that there is some truth in the argument that when it is on the front pages of the newspapers every day, it generates a sort of generalised anxiety that is perhaps not justified. But actually if you look at the historic trend from the late ’90s, when immigration started really taking off again, it is remarkable how anxiety about immigration and actual immigration levels really do track each other very closely, although that may have diverged a bit recently.
I also think it is not really fair how it is often said in passing how xenophobic our debate about immigration has been. I do not think that our debate about immigration has been remotely xenophobic.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: Yes, really. Almost every time somebody talks about immigration and restricting it, they also say in parentheses how marvellous immigration is.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: “Go home” vans lasted about five seconds—
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart—and that was against illegal immigration. You are not in favour of illegal immigration, are you? You are in favour of illegal immigrants going home.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: No, I don’t think that was xenophobic.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: It was encouraging illegal immigrants to contact the authorities to get a grant in order to go home.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: Oh, the Nigel Farage—okay, there is a sort of xenophobic tinge to some of it, but this was a very minority part even of the leave campaign. I think there is an interesting point about opinion in Scotland, which is somewhat different, partly because there has been a somewhat different rhetoric in Scotland.
Actually, I think there is a very good case for having a different visa regime in Scotland once this Bill becomes law. I know that the Government rather set their face against that at the moment, but I think it would remove a source of antagonism between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it ought to be perfectly easy to manage, so long as we have a proper internal status checking system—something that is sometimes called the hostile environment. It is not the hostile environment; it is a system of checking people’s status. A separate system for Scotland works only if you have a reliable status checking system—by employers particularly, but also by landlords and others. There is a really good case for it but, as I say, it only works if you have a proper status checking system.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jill Rutter, may we come back to you? Is there not also an issue about the fact that, compared with other countries—Canada being a particular example—very little effort has ever been made by UK Governments on an integration strategy or on investing in smoothing over some of the challenges that arise because of migration in particular pockets of the country? We had a small fund—I cannot even remember the name—that Gordon Brown introduced, which was scrapped by Theresa May, only for her to introduce a small pocket fund called the controlling migration fund. At best, is that half-hearted compared with what other countries have attempted?
Jill Rutter: Absolutely. Our getting integration right is core to building public confidence in the immigration system. In England, we have an integrated communities Green Paper. Sajid Javid, as a former Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, Home Secretary and Chancellor, is a champion of that but, since his departure, unfortunately, we have not had high-level champions in Government. For a period, we had no integration Minister at all.
Much of integration, too, involves devolved powers—education and so on—and I think more needs to be done by the devolved Administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Scotland has a refugee integration strategy, but it is very much about refugees, whereas integration properly as a two-way relationship is an “everybody” issue. Certainly, more action is needed there, in all the Administrations.
As regards the Bill, making immigration and integration policy coherent is something that you should consider—making the acquisition of citizenship easier, allowing asylum seekers who have been here for a long time to integrate and work, and incentivising integration through the new points-based system. For example, more points could be awarded to people who speak English, whatever their job will be in the UK—so using the points-based system to incentivise integration.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
David Goodhart: Yes. That is something I have been interested in for a very long time. We should almost have an immigration and integration Department. The problem is, integration is very easy to talk about but, in a liberal society, it is very difficult to tell people where to live or to send their children to school. There are parts of the country where integration is a real problem; there are other parts of the country where it is not at all. You mentioned Canada, but it is a slightly special case; compared with comparable European countries, we do not do too badly.
The thing that I worry about at the moment is schools. Integration in schools is going backwards in most parts of England. In other words, schools are becoming less well integrated. In any given town, you are more likely to have a school that is overwhelmingly one ethnic minority, or ethnic minorities in general, and then another, almost entirely white school. That problem is getting worse, not better. That is something that is in our power to do something about.
We have ways of counting this, of measuring it. We have where people live and where they go to school, and we can measure that by different ethnic group. We can tell which areas are getting better, and which worse. It would be a really helpful thing, not necessarily every year, but every two or three years, to publish some kind of list of what has been happening in different places—some kind of integration/segregation list of local authorities. That would be a huge incentive for all the most segregated local authorities not to be right at the bottom—not to be the most segregated local authority in the country. There are things you can do, and I think we should focus attention on schools, because it is possible to play with boundaries and nudge people into a better school mix.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Jill, I note that you are a co-author of a document published in September 2018, “The National Conversation on Immigration”. I wonder how much that document reflected some of the feeling in the north of England and parts of the country that maybe do not see immigration as allowing somebody to make your coffee in the morning, clean your house or work as your au pair; those that, as we heard this morning, see it more as a limitless supply of Romanians and Bulgarians who can fill your job if you want a pay rise. Do we have a north-south divide on attitudes to immigration, and do you think that was a factor in the fall of red wall seats at the last general election?
Jill Rutter: It is not so much a north-south divide as an inner city-town divide, or a city-town divide. There are some differences in attitudes between the more diverse cities and the less diverse towns, and that can be partly put down to social contact, but there are other factors. In some of those so-called red wall towns, people have relatively little social contact with migrants, and where they do, people have perhaps come to do specific jobs in specific industries. For example, the distribution sector is heavily reliant on a migrant workforce, and poor management of some of those local issues has perhaps impacted on public concerns.
In England, we have the controlling migration fund, which is quite a successful way of dealing with those local impacts: I think its money has been well spent. However, that funding will end, and no successor to that fund has yet been announced. It is vital that that fund is continued, and that its funding is increased if we can manage to do so.
David Goodhart: One of the problems with free movement was that it was so difficult to plan infrastructure: you had huge waves of immigration, and then it fell. We had that experience in 2011-12, when immigration came right down—I seem to remember that the Government almost hit their 100,000 target; net immigration was about 130,000 or 140,000—and then went whizzing up again when the impact of the eurozone crisis hit. That may not be a huge amount when spread across the whole country or lots of big urban centres, but it makes it very difficult to plan your doctors’ surgeries, your school intakes and so on at a micro level. That has been one of the really big problems with free movement, and I think it ought to be more manageable in the future. That has been one of the really big problems with free movement, and I think it ought to be more manageable in the future.
Mr Goodwill
Q
David Goodhart: It will make flows more predictable, because they will be under our control. If, as I was saying right at the beginning, it turns out that the system is, in a sense, too liberal, it can be made less liberal and the numbers can be brought down, because people coming in need to have a visa; they are not coming in willy-nilly.
This also has an impact on the integration story. If your immigration going forward is overwhelmingly skilled workers and students—there will still be areas like asylum where this does not count—you are talking about mainly highly skilled people who will, at the very least, speak English well, which is a pretty important thing when it comes to integration.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Q
Jill Rutter: This is very much a skeleton Bill, and most immigration policy is determined in immigration rules. It is an issue in itself in that there have been thousands and thousands of immigration rule changes since 2010. The rules are presented to Parliament, which can only accept or reject them. No MP—even those well versed in immigration policy—can keep up with all the changes in the rules. We need to think about root-and branch-immigration reform. I do not think the current commission on simplifying the immigration rules will come up with the answer.
Perhaps we should look at what social security does. Social security is another complex area where most policy is determined in secondary legislation. There is the Social Security Advisory Committee—independent experts who scrutinise the law and make recommendations in plain English to Parliament—but we need a proper system of scrutiny. I cannot really answer your question about the Bill itself, because most of what will happen will be determined in either the rules or the operation of immigration law in the Home Office.
The last thing to say is that you cannot have an efficient immigration system on the cheap. Britain does very well in the speed at which it processes visas and citizenship cases compared with many other countries, but it performs badly when it comes to asylum cases. We need a properly resourced Home Office and for staff to be trained and supported, too.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Jill Rutter: The Government have invested quite a lot in terms of informing people about the EU settlement scheme. However, that information campaign needs to be extended, particularly when we come close to the cut-off date, and it must be methodical. There should be an information campaign, but we should also use employers and councils, people who actually have contact with EU citizens, to disseminate information. Employers could do a lot with their work force.
David Goodhart: May I make a point on this? One thing the Government should be looking out for down the road is that it is almost certainly the case that a few thousand people, possibly even tens of thousands of people, will not be captured by the EU registration scheme for whatever reason. The truth is that we are going to have a de facto amnesty for those people. That sets a precedent, and I imagine there will be all sorts of challenges, in that people representing the interests of non-EU illegal immigrants are going to say, “Well, these people are in effect illegal now, and yet you’re giving them an amnesty. What about us?” There are estimated to be about 1 million illegal immigrants in this country, so there is a potentially a legal minefield ahead of us on that one.
The Chair
Right. I think that ends our session. Thank you very much to our witnesses for coming and giving your evidence. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Bella Sankey and Adrian Berry gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon and welcome to this Public Bill Committee. We will now hear oral evidence from Detention Action and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Thank you for coming today; we have until 4 pm. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the sake of the record, please?
Bella Sankey: My name is Bella Sankey and I am the director of Detention Action.
Adrian Berry: My name is Adrian Berry. I am a barrister and chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.
The Chair
We will start with a question from the Minister, then the Opposition spokesman, and then other colleagues will come in as they wish.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: I do not think that simplifying the immigration rules has much impact on inbound migration per se. It is obviously a good thing from the point of view of good rule making and from a user perspective. The more pressing question is how you integrate the intention to create free trade agreements with the EU and with other countries, and the migration routes there, with the Home Office proposals from January 2020.
We have the Home Office paper on the future of immigration, and then we have a parallel universe where there are free trade agreements with other migration routes and mobility rates contained in them—not just with the EU, but the proposed ones with Australia, New Zealand and the United States, drawing on precedents from existing EU free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and Canada. There appears to be no joined-up thinking in Government about what impact those mobility routes have on the Home Office proposals of January 2020. It is very important and necessary and urgent to see how that joined-up economic migration regime is going to work, and I have yet to see a Government paper on that.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: On clause 5, you already have powers to amend ineffective retained EU law under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so you can make regulations under Henry VIII powers to deal with any deficiencies in retained EU law and social security. You have given yourself additional powers under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to make regulations for social security co-ordination, so you already have two sets of Henry VIII powers. You are currently negotiating a third social security treaty, annexed to the draft free trade agreement. If that is agreed with the EU, you will have another Act of Parliament that you will need to implement that. Why do you need a fourth set in clause 5? If there is anything left in social security law that you have not covered under the array of Henry VIII powers that you are arming yourselves with, primary legislation and the scrutiny of MPs in this room at the highest level is required.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: It is devolved because it is a devolved power under the Scotland Act 1998.
Kevin Foster
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, of course, but there needs to be primary legislation in whatever format, in my view, and not statutory instruments using the affirmative procedure.
Holly Lynch
Q
Bella Sankey: Thanks very much, Ms Lynch. For some time now, Detention Action has been working with a coalition of civil society organisations, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall and others, and with MPs across the divide—Conservative, Democratic Unionist Party, Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat MPs—to build a consensus around the idea that there needs to be a strict statutory time limit on immigration detention.
Immigration detention is a peculiarity of our public policy, in that there is no time limit. Unlike the criminal justice system or the mental health system, you can currently be detained indefinitely for months or years, and redetained indefinitely for months or years, without any statutory time limit in place if you are subject to immigration control.
It is a sweeping power that was introduced in 1971, when a series of immigration Acts acted to limit immigration from Commonwealth countries with the explicit intention of trying to reduce black and brown migration to the UK. The system was set up then, and has not been properly amended or looked at by Parliament. From the 1970s right up until the 1990s, a handful of people were detained, but it is now the case that thousands and thousands of people are detained each year. At present, as we sit here, 12 people in immigration detention have been there for more than one year.
The system is arbitrary and cruel. There is a crisis of self-harm in the system. Every day, my caseworkers speak to people who have suicidal ideation as a result of the indefinite nature of their detention. That is what everyone who has experienced the system will tell you: it is the indefinite nature that creates psychological torture and uncertainty. That means that people begin to lose the will to go on and live. We are seeking to implement a time limit through this Bill.
The Chair
Order. Can I just say that this is a Public Bill Committee, not a Select Committee, so we have to be focused laser-like on the Bill? I remind witnesses and questioners of that very important point. We do not need any general discussion of the issues around it; we are just talking about the Bill.
Holly Lynch
Q
Bella Sankey: Absolutely, and even if there is a very small error rate and there is perfect communication in that system, which I think we can all accept given the scale of the challenge is going to be very unlikely, those people will be subject to indefinite detention under our system. The link with the Bill is that the Bill does not put in place any time limit at all for EEA nationals or anyone else.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry, you have already outlined some of your concerns about the sweeping Henry VIII powers in the Bill. Would it be fair to say that not only does that restrict the ability of Parliament to scrutinise further developments in immigration policy and immigration law, but that it provides a great degree of uncertainty for immigration lawyers, who are working with people in the system about what those future policies and approaches might look like?
Adrian Berry: Yes, that would be fair. What has happened—to give you an example—is that EU law has been domesticated and retained under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then there are clauses in the Bill that say that the law continues to apply, except in so far as it is inconsistent with immigration functions or immigration Acts. So you end up with law, which is good law in this country, but it may not apply if someone judges it to be inconsistent.
We look to the law to know what it means. We look for legal certainty and for good administration. In clause 5(5), and in paragraph 4(1) and 4(2) of schedule 1, you find the same legislative drafting technique used—retained EU law applies except in so far it is inconsistent with—and then a general statement—immigration Acts or an immigration function or regulations made. How is the ordinary person, never mind the legislator, to know whether the law is good or not in a particular area if you draft like that? You need to make better laws. Make it certain, and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions. There must be a laundry list in the Home Office of these provisions and it would be better if they are expressed in the schedule to the Bill.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, because service users—us, the citizens—need to know what the law means. We are entitled to understand that. People who are affected by it need to know what it is. It is not good rule making to do it like this.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: They might be leading disordered lives. They might have things happening in their lives that concentrate their minds elsewhere—family difficulties, work difficulties. They might be affected by coronavirus. They might have mental health impairments. They might be long-term sick. They might be old. They might be demented. There is a whole host of reasons that are part of the ordinary warp and weft of life why somebody might miss a deadline. Not everybody has my focus on the interests of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and its implementing provisions. Ordinary people do not. There needs to be a benevolent regime that allows them to make late applications.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes. You apply late; they grant it. It is that simple. Why would you not do that? Somebody wants to regularise their status and they have withdrawal agreement rights—why muck around?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: The Government set their own Executive policy for making immigration rules anyway; the Bill does not change that. What the Bill does do is take away your powers to make primary legislation and give them to Ministers by way of regulations. If you want to reverse the way in which powers are distributed in the constitution, that is a matter for you, but personally speaking I think it is a bad idea.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: The Bill does not change the situation that immigration rules are laid before Parliament under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. That continues anyway. What the Bill is doing is something discrete and different. It gives Ministers the power to amend primary legislation and retained EU law, which are two separate things. At the moment, the Home Secretary lays immigration rules before Parliament, and they deal with executive policy, not with laws. So, although they are called immigration rules, strictly speaking they are not legislation. The difference here is that this is a paragraph on legislation.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: The Home Office position and the UK Government position is to draw on precedent-based treaties that the EU has with Canada, Japan and South Korea, and those treaties have mobility routes that reflect General Agreement on Trade in Services mode 4 commitments for persons who are coming here as short-term business visitors, key personnel, key senior staff and specialists, and also routes in free trade agreements for independent professionals, contractual suppliers and so on. All of those routes would be for 12 to 24 months; none of them would lead to settlement or permanent residence for short-term business visitors.
The UK’s ambition is that it will attract highly skilled people in that way, but only on a temporary basis, and if you are creating an economic migration regime in the Home Office paper, as was trailed in January, and you make no mention of that, it is some omission in the overall scheme, because you need to understand how it works.
The second thing that you really need to clearly understand is that the UK is like a little moon next to the planet Earth of the EU on this. There is a 450-million person territory next door to us that is setting its own economic migration rules and it is competing with us, and if you do not bear in mind what will happen in terms of economic migration in the EU—that you can come in for service provision or for work and have a route to settlement—and you are still creating this inbound regime into the UK, then you are not thinking about the impact of living next door to a much larger jurisdiction, and it is critical in the national interest that you do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Bella Sankey: Thanks very much for the question. The Bill will mean that, for the first time, EU citizens will have the deportation laws that currently apply to non-EU citizens applied to them. Those rules are blunt, they are harsh and they are dehumanising. In 2007, the last Labour Government brought in a power of mandatory deportation for anybody who receives a sentence of 12 months or longer. In 2014, when Theresa May was Home Secretary, the coalition Government introduced additional legislation that meant that if somebody was seeking to resist deportation on the grounds that they had a loving parental relationship with a child in the UK, or a child who was a British citizen, they would only be able to do so if the effect of their deportation would have an unduly harsh impact on that child.
The Home Office defines “unduly harsh” as “excessively cruel”, so at present it is insufficient, if you are a non-EEA national, to show that the impact on your child would be cruel; you need to show excessive cruelty. The effect of that provision means that child cruelty is legislated into our primary legislation. It means that the courts, when they are making these decisions, are forced to allow a deportation to go ahead even though they may find on the evidence that serious psychological harm will be done to a child. The courts are clearly very uncomfortable about that and have said explicitly, in terms, that immigration law can no longer be reconciled with family law principles, because family law principles require the best interests of a child to be taken into account in all public decision making.
That is the situation as it stands. The impact of these laws over the past decade or more has been to cause untold trauma and pain, particularly to Britain’s black community, who are disproportionately impacted because, as is well-known, they are a community that is over-represented in the criminal justice system and subject to social and economic deprivation.
The issue from earlier this year that you mention was, of course, a charter flight to Jamaica. The majority of the people booked on to that flight by the Home Office had drugs convictions—a lot of them when they were teenagers or a long time ago. The law as it stands did not allow any of that to be taken into account, because of the automatic and mandatory power to seek deportation of those individuals.
A number of our clients were victims of modern-day slavery, grooming and trafficking, but again, they found themselves in detention without an opportunity to raise the fact that they had been subjected to that, and of course the large majority of them had been in the UK since they were two or three years old and had been in primary school here and secondary school here. I see the Minister does not seem to be agreeing with this account.
Kevin Foster
No.
Bella Sankey: But it is all there on the public record. As I say, the law as it stands has applied in a blunt and discriminatory way against the black community, and this Bill now proposes to extend those harsh provisions to all EU citizens.
I spoke only recently to a woman who was actually removed to Poland on 30 April, leaving behind an 11-year-old child here. She felt that the system had already become unbearable. She was taken into detention following a conviction for theft, and when she was in Yarl’s Wood, without legal aid and without help and assistance, she decided that it would be easier for her and less traumatic for her 11-year-old son if she just went back to Poland. This Bill is going to bring about thousands more Sandras, thousands more family separations, in completely unjust circumstances.
Mr Goodwill
Q
If, at the moment, the law is being used to actually frustrate the legal process of removing people who have no right to be in the UK, do we need to improve the law to make that work better? I am sure you would agree that it is not unreasonable to expect people who have committed serious criminal offences and have no right to be in the UK to be removed under the law of the land.
Adrian Berry: I believe in the rule of law. I think it is a good thing if we have judicial scrutiny of executive decisions, including deportation, removal and detention decisions, in order to ensure that they are lawful and consistent with the values that we have embedded in our Human Rights Act provisions and in our civil liberties provisions and statutes.
To answer your question directly, a lot of judicial reviews are settled on issuing, because the Home Office realises that it has made a mistake and it compromises on them. The second stage at which they are settled is when permission to apply for judicial review is granted and the Home Office realises that it has made a mistake and it compromises; it settles and pays the costs, on a polluter-pays principle. Very few judicial reviews go the distance to a substantive hearing, so you have to be very, very careful in measuring the data between the number of claims lodged and the number of claims that are determined at a final hearing.
What we do know is that judges routinely grant injunctions against removals, on the basis that they see a point in holding the ring in order to determine the true and lawful position in the situation. Whatever someone has done, all their interests—including the public policy interest in their expulsion and, on occasion, the public policy interest in their retention—are to be weighed up before a lawful decision is made. Judicial review is one check on it, in the absence of a proper full range of appeals, that allows that to take place.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Bella Sankey: The thing that is striking about this Bill is that it is being brought forward following two previous Immigration Bills, in 2014 and 2016, that implemented the hostile environment. Since those Bills came on to the statute book, of course, the Windrush scandal has come to national attention, yet in spite of that, every single aspect of the hostile environment remains in place, and there is nothing in this Bill to address that. Worse still, the Bill now extends the hostile environment to EU citizens. The hostile environment has been found in terms, in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, to lead directly to racial discrimination. Yet, as I say, there is no effort in the Bill to deal with the fact that, as things stand, we have imported immigration control into the country—employers, bank managers and landlords are all expected to be immigration officers—and we have made this country a much less pleasant place to live if you do not look British, if you do not sound British, or if you do not have a British name.
It is quite shocking that, following the Windrush scandal, this new piece of immigration legislation has been brought to Parliament without any attempt to deal with the very clear problems in the existing immigration regime.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Bella Sankey: I welcome the sentiment to use this moment to level up protections for people in the UK regardless of their skin colour. Unfortunately, though, what the Bill does is level down protections. As things stand, EU citizens have protections against deportation that have not been transferred into the Bill, so will no longer apply to EU citizens and will not apply to non-EEA nationals—predominantly black and brown people.
Similarly in our immigration detention system, there is nothing in the Bill to provide the kind of safeguards that EU citizens currently have against detention. We know that the system discriminates. If you are Australian and you are detained, 90% of Australians will be released before 28 days. If you are Jamaican and you are detained, only 40% of Jamaicans will be released before 28 days. You are right: there is direct racial discrimination hardwired into our immigration system at present, but nothing in the Bill actually deals with that. It only downgrades the rights of non-British citizens in this country.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Q
Adrian Berry: On the right of appeal, you will be aware that in section 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 there was a provision for making a right of appeal by way of statutory instrument, and that that was exercised in the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
Order. I know it is unnatural, but you have to face us, or the microphones will not pick you up.
Adrian Berry: Sorry. There is a power in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to create a right of appeal for those who are refused under the settlement scheme. A statutory instrument was laid and came into force on 27 January in the form of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which covers most of the terrain but, to deal with your point, does not cover invalid applications that are made under the EU settlement scheme, because they are not considered to have been properly made. There is no appeal right for those people. That would be a welcome amendment.
Briefly on a declaratory scheme, given how many people have been registered under the EU settlement scheme, there is a need to encourage maximum compliance and to make sure that deadlines are extended, if necessary, beyond June 2020 next year. There may come a point when the full merits of a declaratory scheme, which I would have supported at the outset, become more manifest to deal with the remaining cases, but at the moment we need to ensure compliance and a full subscription take-up of the scheme.
Bella Sankey: It is deeply problematic that there is not a declaratory scheme for EU citizens. Again, the echoes of Windrush should be considered. Wendy Williams, in her report published last month, found that the Windrush scandal was entirely “foreseeable and avoidable”.
At the time that the Immigration Act 2014 was passed, I worked for Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, and we warned the Home Office that the Windrush scandal, and other scandals, would happen because of the hostile environment that was being introduced. I say again in 2020 that there will be a similar scandal, this time for EU citizens, because the very same problems that the Windrush generation encountered will be real and evident for EU citizens who do not manage to apply for the EU settled status scheme in time. Of course, they will often be people who are more vulnerable and in harder-to-reach groups, and will be made more marginalised by the fact that they have become essentially undocumented.
One of the other big problems with the Bill when thinking about redress and natural justice is that, at present, legal aid is not available in immigration cases. That was one of the many reasons why, during the Windrush scandal, people found themselves being detained and wrongfully deported. There was no access to lawyers for that generation that came to the UK post war to help us to rebuild. Similarly, there will be no access to lawyers for EU citizens who are seeking to regularise their status after the applications close. That is why one of the other amendments that Detention Action is proposing to the Bill is to bring civil legal aid back within scope, at the very least for article 8 cases where people’s private and family lives and human rights are at stake.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Q
Adrian Berry: The flexibility that you need to make individual rules about economic migration you get from the immigration rules, which are of course not the subject of this Bill. If you want to change part 6A, which contains the current points-based system for economic migration, the Secretary of State can lay new or amended immigration rules, with the assistance of the Immigration Minister.
Clause 4 here is designed to deal with primary legislation and retained EU law, not with the immigration rules, so if the FSB thinks the clause is changing the economic immigration rules system, it is wrong in that respect. It is changing primary legislation about the administration of immigration control, not the specific rules for economic migration, which are made under the immigration rules.
Kate Green
Q
Adrian Berry: The draft social security treaty is attached to the draft free trade agreement, which is available on the Government website now, from last month. It includes short-term healthcare coverage for people who are travelling for short-term purposes, such as tourism and temporary work contracts, to receive what we call the EHIC card scheme. It also includes a system for old age pensions to be paid overseas in other EU member states and uprated to be equivalent to home pension rates here.
What is missing, and what we are losing, is disability pensions being paid overseas, and healthcare, which was attached to old age pensions and to disability pensions under the EU co-ordination regime, will no longer be attached for pensioners who retire in Spain, Cyprus or wherever, from 2021 onwards. At the moment, it is a bonus ball. If you get a pension paid overseas, healthcare coverage is included under the EU co-ordination regime and the bill is paid by the UK Treasury. In the new proposed UK treaty, that is going; it is just your old age pension uprating.
The UK has split the interrelationship between healthcare and social security and pensions, which is contained in the EU co-ordination regime, into two silos: social security and pensions in one silo, in this Bill, and healthcare arrangements under the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019. There is no draft healthcare treaty attached to the UK’s draft free trade agreement at the moment, and no healthcare provisions included in this draft social security treaty. Both of those are missing.
Additionally missing is the S2 scheme, which we have at the moment, for people to make arrangements, prior to travel, to receive hard-to-find treatment in EU member states, if they cannot get NHS treatment in the UK. There is no S2 scheme for British citizens to go and receive that form of healthcare—healthcare that is unavailable here—and to get it in EU states. The cross-border health directive, which allows people to have their prescriptions and pick them up in EU states, will effectively be repealed. There is no provision for that in the draft social security treaty.
Who loses out? The disabled. They will not be able to get private health insurance to travel on holiday. It will have a direct and differential impact on people with physical and mental impairments. It will also have an impact on anybody who thinks they are going to be retiring to Spain, Italy or France. They will not have healthcare insurance there, even if they get their pension uprated. It is a big loss.
Kate Green
Q
Adrian Berry: It is, but it would be in an international treaty arrangement. The problem is that it is certainly differential treatment. It impacts on them directly because something that they would have had, which has been protected under EU law and under the withdrawal agreement, will not be available to them. New movers—disabled people who move for the first time in 2021, at the end of the transition period—will not have that. Travel for them will become very problematic.
It is interesting that even for the new EHIC card scheme in the draft treaty, the really expensive stuff is now carved out. In the new EHIC card arrangement, which is in the draft treaty, if you want chemotherapy, dialysis or oxygen therapy, you have to get prior authorisation from the UK Government now, even if you are going on holiday. You do not have to do that at present. It is clearly a rationing device that will further impact on British citizens with long-term health needs who, frankly, deserve a holiday. They will find it very difficult to have that because they will not be able to have the necessary insurance and comfort that they need, in order to travel in safety.
Kate Green
Q
Adrian Berry: It is interesting. In part 1 of schedule 1 they repeal some retained EU law, which is to be expected in the provisions on the workers regulation. That is a political choice. What is more unclear is that other retained bits of EU law, which relate to victims of trafficking or victims’ rights where people are victims of crime, remain on our statute book, but may be disapplied by this provision, if they are judged to be inconsistent with the provisions that are to be made in respect of immigration. We do not know whether they are or they are not. We do not even know the exhaustive list of these parts of retained EU law that help vulnerable people, such as victims of trafficking, because they are not spelled out on the face of the Bill.
At the very least, there needs to be a schedule spelling out the parts of retained EU law that may be affected by paragraph 6. Better than that, if you are going to repeal these parts of retained EU law, because you think they are inconsistent with the Immigration Acts, say so and put it in primary legislation, if that is your choice. Make a better law.
The Chair
Thank you for coming this afternoon. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witness
Luke Piper gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Mr Piper. I am Edward Leigh, Chair of this Public Bill Committee. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman will ask questions. We have only 15 minutes. Minister, would you like to begin?
Kevin Foster
Q
Luke Piper: First, thank you for allowing me to attend by telephone. In general, it is true that the EU settlement scheme is there to provide people with their status and their rights to live in the UK under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It is a great achievement of the Government’s to set the scheme up. Our concern is about those that do not apply in time and fail to acquire the status by the deadline of June next year. The worry is that those that miss the deadline will face the problems that some of the previous witnesses have spoken about—the risks to jobs and homes, and access to healthcare, welfare and so forth. Although there have been over 3 million applications to the scheme, it is not a reflection of the numbers of people that have applied or have succeeded, or of the types of status that are under it. This is more about an issue of recognising that there is a potential problem here. Yes, freedom of movement will end and there is a new status that people can acquire, but it is about creating safety mechanisms and ensuring that there is a safe passage for people to move from their old status to their new one. That is what we would like to see amended in the Bill to ensure that that security is there.
Kevin Foster
Q
Luke Piper: I will defer to the points that Mr Berry made in his presentation previously on the issues of social security co-ordination. Our central concern is that at this stage much of the rights-based provisions of the withdrawal agreement, both under title II and title III, have been delegated away by the Bill and the previous European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act to various Ministers, and there is a lot of legislation and regulations that we have still to see to fully understand how those rights and obligations will be implemented.
Holly Lynch
Q
Luke Piper: Yes. There are clear points as to why we feel physical documents will help people in their day-to-day lives. First, it is the No. 1 ask of our members and people that we speak to who are EU citizens in this country. They would like physical proof of their status to live here. It is something that unfortunately has not been followed through.
Indeed, the House of Lords European Union Committee made the point that there are real worries that those without physical proof will face similar problems to those faced by the Windrush generation; there is a risk that they will face discrimination because they do not have physical proof of their status. We also had concerns about the availability of an online status; there may be instances when the status is not available for IT reasons. Also, online systems can be hacked. There are real security risks.
Finally, we also have concerns about the newness of the digital-only scheme. It is essentially being tested on over 3 million people. A digital-only identity system like this has never existed before in the UK, and it is being rolled out for a massive cohort of people. We had rather hoped that there would be an opportunity to trial the scheme substantively before people were pushed into a digital-only set-up. Those are the key reasons why we desire a physical document.
Holly Lynch
Q
Luke Piper: The Bill brings freedom of movement to an end at the end of this year, but it is not clear what legal status people will have between the end of the transition period, which is at the end of the year, and the end of June—the end of the grace period. There has been no clarity about, or understanding of, what legal rights people will have. We have simply been told that certain checks, such as on the right to work, will not be undertaken, but it is not clear to us or our members how people will be distinguished, both in practice and in law.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: I caught the majority of the question, but let me repeat what I think you are asking: do we have an understanding of the number and type of people who will not apply on time? Is that correct?
Stuart C. McDonald
Exactly.
Luke Piper: Much as with the number of people due to apply for the scheme, we do not know. We have no idea of the exact number of EU citizens who need to apply under the EU settlement scheme, so we will not have an understanding of the number of people who miss the deadline. An illustration is the way we look at Bulgarian citizens in the UK. Their population has been estimated at 109,000; however, as of the end of March, over 171,000 Bulgarian nationals had submitted applications. It looked as though Bulgarian residents had already applied, yet more applications keep coming. We do not have a clear indication of the exact number of people who will not apply on time.
As for the type of people, we know that those most at risk and who are marginalised and disenfranchised are very likely to not apply, purely for the reasons that Mr Berry set out—various issues to do with connection to society, disability and so forth. Our concern is that the most marginalised and vulnerable in our society will be at risk, and that has been corroborated by a lot of organisations. You will hear from a representative of The Children’s Society after me, who will set out the particular risks for children and young persons. Conversely, we have significant concerns about older people, particularly those with issues such as mental ill health and dementia.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: That is a very important point. The most successful UK scheme that involved people signing up to certain policies was the digital-only scheme—the switch by everyone to digital TV. That was successful, as 97% of people had signed up by the time analogue TV was switched off. If you place that projection over the estimated population of EU citizens, and say that a remaining 3% will not switch, you are looking at more than 100,000 people who will lose their legal right to live in this country and will face all the problems that we talked about of not having a home, losing their job, and potentially facing detention and removal from the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: The declaratory model is what we have advocated for. If we follow through with a constitutive system, which is what is being proposed, simply improving awareness of the scheme will not be sufficient, as is demonstrated by even the most successful campaigns, which do not achieve 100%. There have to be legal mechanisms in place to ensure that people have the safety that they need to transition to their new rights.
In particular, we suggest that amendments be adopted, including amendments setting out clear definitions of who cannot apply after June 2021, as opposed to who can. We feel that it will assist both Parliament and the Home Office if we can clearly pin down exactly who we do not want applying after the deadline. Furthermore, we could introduce mechanisms through which we could extend the grace period if necessary. We should understand what extending the grace period may look like, and what factors will be taken into consideration. We need to recognise that those who apply after June 2021, who will have no legal basis to be here, will need some form of retrospective mechanism, so that when they do secure their status, their previous periods of unlawful residence are secured.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: I think that unfortunately misrepresents our proposal. The declaratory system is a safety net. We are not advocating for a system where people should not have a deadline by which they must register. Indeed, we believe that there should be incentives and encouragement for people to register. The problem is the consequences for those who do not register in time. Under the current model, if you do not apply, you essentially become illegal in the UK, and you face immense amounts of problems, whereas under a declaratory model, the consequence is that you face inconvenience.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: You were a little muffled there, but I think you were pointing to the issues surrounding having pre-settled status, as opposed to settled status. Is that right?
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes.
Luke Piper: On the ratio of those acquiring pre-settled status to those with settled status, the trend is not looking great. The estimates that we have been working to suggest that the number of people acquiring settled status is a lot lower than it should be, and indeed the number of people getting pre-settled status is too high. That will, in effect, mean that rather than there being one deadline—June 2021—there will be lots of deadlines for lots of different people, at the various periods when their pre-settled status expires.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Luke Piper: It does, yes. It has quite significant implications for a person’s rights. Those with settled status have complete access to welfare benefits and housing support, which is vital at a time when a lot of people are struggling to retain their employment and their home. Those with pre-settled status do not have an automatic right to access those services and that support; they have to go through further tests and bear further burdens to access that help. This is causing significant problems for people whom we represent; we have seen a significant increase in the number of people experiencing problems in getting help and support because they have pre-settled status as opposed to settled status.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Q
Luke Piper: We would like a deadline, but want the consequences of missing the deadline minimised, hence our preference for a declaratory system. Of course there needs to be some kind of deadline by which people need to have put in an application; the issue is more what the consequences are for people who miss it.
Let me paint a picture for you of the inevitable problems with missing deadlines. Some people are under the misapprehension that they are fine—that everything is sorted. In my practice, and in speaking to many organisations and colleagues, I regularly come across people who believe that they are “safe”—that there is nothing else that they need to do. After the deadline, when the hostile environment bites, it is they who will feel the problem the most. It is a mis-characterisation to say that we are talking about permanently extending the deadline; we are looking at this in a holistic way to identify clearly, through good evidence and with the Home Office, what the groups are, what the issues are, and what can be done to the law to make it as safe as possible for people to get their new status.
The Chair
I think that concludes our evidence. Thank you for joining us online.
Luke Piper: You are welcome. Thank you for your time.
Examination of Witness
Lucy Leon gave evidence.
The Chair
I take it that we have on the line Lucy Leon, immigration policy and practice adviser for The Children’s Society. Minister, you have a question.
Kevin Foster
Q
Lucy Leon: I am sorry; the line is really unclear. I heard that you were trying to ask me a question about automatic status. Would you be able to repeat the second part of the question, please?
Kevin Foster
You talked about automatic status—granting something under a piece of legislation to someone. Under your suggested system, how, in decades to come, would an adult evidence the status that they were granted as a child?
Lucy Leon: The line is not very clear, so apologies if I have misunderstood the question, but are you asking what it would be like in decades to come if we granted children automatic status?
Kevin Foster
Yes. If they had to evidence their status many years later, how would they do it? How would they be able to define their status, as against someone who arrived in March 2021, for the sake of argument, and was not entitled to that status?
Lucy Leon: We have put forward an amendment about automatic status for vulnerable children, particularly those who are in care or are care leavers. We are not just looking to give them automatic settled status; we want local authorities to be given a duty to identify those children, and a timeframe in which they need to be identified and offered settled status. This would enable a financial burden to be lifted and pressure to be taken off the overstretched local authorities that are struggling right now.
We are not suggesting that children do not go through the scheme. We are saying that they still need to go through the scheme, but should be given indefinite leave, as opposed to pre-settled status, because children are falling through the net and social workers are struggling to understand their roles and responsibilities under the scheme. They do not know the processes, and they are struggling to locate documents for young people.
Kevin Foster
Q
Lucy Leon: Sorry, it is really hard to hear you. The line is really not very clear.
Kevin Foster
Okay, we will leave it there. I think you have made the points that are needed.
Holly Lynch
Q
Lucy Leon: At the moment, this is a significant burden on social workers. We welcome the guidance that has been issued, the funding that has been put in place, the prioritisation of this issue, and the fact that the Minister has taken time to write to council leads to ensure the issue is seen as a priority. However, we know—because we see it in our frontline services—that the information is not trickling down, and many social workers are unclear about what they are meant to be doing and how to help young people.
In the current pandemic, with helplines and embassies being closed and people being unable to travel, it has become even harder for social workers to support young people in locating the right paperwork to help them through this process. Social workers are also not always aware of who needs to apply, and some of the cases are very complex. Some children and young people are entitled to British citizenship, and the struggle to access legal advice and helplines at this time has made that very problematic for social workers. We see the proposal as not only taking the pressure off local authorities, but taking the stress off young people.
We see young people who have been incorrectly given pre-settled status, when they are entitled to settled status. We want to enable automatic settled status at this pivotal moment in young people’s lives, when they are planning their future, thinking about their education and thinking about pathways to work, so that they know that they can have indefinite leave to remain and can stay in this country, which is their only home. We are talking about children in care who would have had a history of abuse and neglect. It is imperative that, as corporate parents to those children, we give them as much stability as possible in the long run.
Holly Lynch
Q
Lucy Leon: I didn’t at all. I’m sorry, Ms Lynch; you cut off.
Holly Lynch
No problem. The Minister had presented a conundrum, but we are saying that if those children—bearing in mind that they have had a very difficult start in life—were granted settled status in a declaratory system through the local authorities, and they had both digital confirmation of that and physical proof, it would resolve the problem that the Minister put to you.
Lucy Leon: Yes. We are very much in agreement. That is why we support the 3million recommendation on physical documents as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Leon: Yes, that is what we are suggesting.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Leon: Sorry, I did not get that full question.
Stuart C. McDonald
I was just trying to draw a parallel with the status of kids who are born British citizens. Their rights come from a statute, just like you are proposing with these kids getting their rights in a statute, but they still end up—at some point, if it is convenient for them—applying to have proof of that status. But the rights come from a statute.
Lucy Leon: I am sorry. I cannot hear the question; the line is not very clear at all.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Bill may mean that we end up with EU citizens and children stuck with “no recourse to public funds” conditions on their visas in years to come. How difficult do “no recourse to public funds” provisions and conditions make life for children and their families?
Lucy Leon: Sorry. It seems that the microphones are now moving around. Were you asking how difficult the NRPF conditions are for children and their families?
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes.
Lucy Leon: We have worked with children and families with no recourse to public funds for well over 10 years. We have a lot of experience through our services, and recently published a policy report called “A Lifeline for All”, which highlights the impact of this condition on children and families. One of the key issues is that families with no recourse to public funds have no access to mainstream services, or to housing and local welfare assistance schemes. Many of those who are fleeing domestic violence cannot access most safe accommodation either.
The policy has been continued under successive Governments, but that really does not mean it is the right one. It is hugely detrimental to children’s welfare to have a childhood characterised by deep poverty throughout, with the family stuck in a cycle of poverty, vulnerability and abuse, and the child at real risk of exploitation because they have no other lifeline to turn to. We also see the hugely detrimental impact that it has on children’s and young people’s mental health and emotional wellbeing to grow up in such long-term poverty.
In terms of educational opportunities and chances, we also see a higher prevalence of special educational needs among those children in families with NRPF that we have worked with. It is more than just financial support that these families need and are missing out on; it is the access to wider services and support.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Leon: We have significant concerns about those families. They are families who are already paying into the system. Most of the families we work with are single parents, often in jobs that are now seen as key worker jobs—working in hospitals, in cleaning, in catering or as delivery drivers. They are working families already; it is just that their income does not meet their family’s needs. They are also paying immigration application fees and the immigration health surcharge, so on top of living with no access to any mainstream benefits or extra support, they continually have to try to save up for the next tranche of fees that they will have to pay every two and a half years. They are stuck in an ongoing cycle of debt.
We have seen families lose contact with their social networks because they have had to borrow money, because that is their only means of survival. We are calling for a reduction in immigration fees to at least cost price, and for citizenship fees for children to be waived, because we are doubly penalising children in those families by increasing the levy charged on them, on top of their restricted access to public funds.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence. I am sorry that the sound quality was not very good, but thank you for making the time and effort to come.
Lucy Leon: That is fine. I apologise for missing some of the questions. We are more than happy to submit further documentary evidence on the questions that I have been unable to answer.
The Chair
I think you should do that. You will be able to see the record, and if you have missed any question, you can always put in supplementary evidence. Thank you for joining us on the line.
Lucy Leon: Thank you for the opportunity.
Examination of Witnesses
Ian Robinson and Alison Harvey gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon and welcome to our session. We have until 5 o’clock. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record?
Alison Harvey: My name is Alison Harvey. I am a barrister at No5 Chambers in London.
Ian Robinson: I am Ian Robinson. I am a partner in Fragomen, the immigration law firm.
Kevin Foster
Q
Alison Harvey: Essentially, it does not have anything to do with that. There has been a lot of talk about the Bill setting up the new points-based system. It does not; it gets rid of the free movement law, and that is all it does. Although I have not sat on it yet, the Bar Council has appointed me its representative to the simplification committee on the rules, and I gave evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee about this a while ago.
If you look at what the Law Commission and the Home Office have published on the rules, it is simpler but not simple. We will not get to a simple system or anything like one until we consolidate the primary legislation. Let us remember that our immigration legislation is built on the Immigration Act 1971, which came into force on 1 January ’73, when we joined the EU. Before that, we had only had four years in this country, in all its history, without free movement. If you go back to 1066 and beyond, you have everyone within the King’s allegiance and dominions moving freely within the allegiance and dominions, subject to the limitations in place in 1066, but they were not legal limits. The passport that you have from Hull is the same as the passport that you have from Bangalore.
We then had the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which cut off free movement, but we were bigger then. As well as our current overseas territories, we had the associated states in the Caribbean, from which people came. That period of March 1968 to 1 January 1973 is the only period in our history when we have been as small as we are going to be from June, so the change is massive.
We are managing with a rickety old Act that desperately needs changing. The problem with immigration law is that every time you change it, you have to deal with the people under the old regime and make transition provision, so change always results in complexity.
Ian Robinson: The simple answer is that we are going from two immigration systems to one. Right now, we have reasonably simple arrangements for free movement and complex arrangements for non-Europeans. We will have one complex arrangement for everybody. In some areas, it will become slicker, I suppose, but it will remain complex.
In an international context, my clients will quickly recognise that the UK has a simpler, more transparent immigration system than many countries. That is great if you are a multinational, but if you are a small or medium-sized enterprise dealing just with the UK immigration system, that does not really help you, and the complexities can still trip you up. Likewise if you are an individual.
Kevin Foster
Q
Ian Robinson: In terms of the skilled part of the system, we will have one of the better skilled immigration systems in the world, in terms of much of the policy and the speed as it relates to skilled people. Where that falls down is the cost. I suspect that there will be more questions about that later, and I can cover them. We are wildly more expensive than other countries. What businesses want is speed. Singapore and one or two central African countries aside, no one can issue visas as quickly routinely as the UK does. We are very good at that. There are on-entry arrangements in Canada, but we are very good at issuing visas.
If I were talking to an American or Canadian audience, they look for predictability. We can offer certainty. It is a fairly tick-box, prescriptive list for a work permit, which is good. In that respect, it is a good system. It becomes more difficult again when you look at cost. It becomes difficult when you look at lower-skilled workers and the fact that the tap will be turned off, unless we have a youth mobility scheme.
My clients are not quite sure where they stand on that at the moment. On the one hand, if you had asked me three months ago, they were very concerned. Covid changes things, but they are nervous about taking the gamble now that there will be enough people in the labour market after the pandemic is cleared.
The final point that I would make is that if you are an established user of the system, used to working with Indian, US and other non-European migrant workers, you are going to experience a much better immigration system when we have a lower skill level, marginally lower salary, and one or two other changes, particularly when the new technology comes in for sponsorship.
But if you have never used the immigration system in that way before, and if you do not already have a licence, there is a real risk that you will have no idea and no time at the moment to apply for a licence. You probably will not have before the end of the year, so you will realise you need to too late, at which point, unless a concerted effort is made not only by the Home Office, but by trade bodies to push employers to apply for licences, we will be back to six-month delays before a company can even begin to make a visa application, which is not great. Steps need to be taken to make sure that employers know what will be expected of them, and that they can, as easily as possible, get the tier 2 sponsor licence.
Kevin Foster
Q
Alison Harvey: You have heard this afternoon—I did not manage to hear his evidence—from Professor Ryan. He has a grasp of the issue that is second to none. Clause 3ZA is very useful and important. I do think that it lowers the protection from deportation for the Irish. The Irish do not deport Brits at all. I think we ought to address that.
My own work has been around giving effect to the Good Friday agreement in the work I have done for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about looking at the Good Friday agreement. I would like to see, as a bedrock that would deal with some of the concerns about deportation and the question of identifying solely as Irish, a right of abode given to all the people of Northern Ireland, whether they identify as British or Irish or both.
A right of abode protects you from deportation. It is as close as you get to citizenship. You get the whole packet of rights. From the point of view of the Administration, the Government, the country, and the people in benefits offices, if you know that if you were born in Northern Ireland, you have a right of abode in the UK, it becomes much less problematic whether you identify as British or Irish or both. You essentially know what your social security entitlements and your health entitlements will be. I think that is the bedrock on which we build the flexibility in identification.
Kevin Foster
Briefly, because I am conscious that others want to come in, there has been mention of the deportation of Irish citizens. Can you think of an example—not of an extradition, I have to say, because that is a different provision?
Alison Harvey: An example where someone was deported?
Kevin Foster
An example where an Irish citizen has been deported from the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland.
Alison Harvey: I was looking at this recently for an article and I think there were examples at the time. I think they fall parallel with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, where we were confining people to Northern Ireland or to Britain or not letting them in, so you have rules on third-country nationals, but they also have the potential to affect citizens of the two countries. It was in that period, and there was an overlap between the security powers that were being used at the time with the roll-over of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the control orders and deportation—
Kevin Foster
They are historical pieces of legislation.
Alison Harvey: Yes, they have totally gone now.
Holly Lynch
Q
Alison Harvey: Very much the concerns that Mr Berry expressed about certainty. If it is said that provisions of retained EU law are not compatible with the Immigration Act, please can we have a list? Tell us what they are. You must know, Home Office, otherwise you are not going to be able to operate the system. As he said, we had the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, both of which essentially give us powers to save EU law. They also give us powers to knock out retained EU law bit by bit, so what is the point of the Bill at all, in substance terms?
I think the point must be, because immigration is a sensitive area and because it involves people, to give you the opportunity to put in place safeguards. I suppose the Bill goes beyond the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act in that it would allow you to build a new system. There are wider powers of delegated legislation. I think most of the repeals could have been done under those Acts. If you want to test that, you go back to March, when the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were passed. Look at some of the things that they do: “Let’s give all Gibraltarians a right to apply for British citizenship.” There are big chunky powers in those regulations that are not in the Bill.
The Bill is an opportunity to put some brakes in. What is astonishing is that the Bill looks almost the same as it did last time it appeared; yet last time we did not have a withdrawal agreement. All the wait and see markers that justified not putting something in primary legislation have gone. Similarly, although the Home Office delegated powers memorandum has got longer it has produced, for example, absolutely no more substance on why the powers on fees are needed. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that this is so unsubstantial you cannot even say it is a skeleton.
There really is no justification to explain why there possibly need to be those powers. It creates tremendous uncertainty. It certainly creates lots of opportunities for litigation; to go in and argue that, no, something is not incompatible. That does not seem to me helpful at all.
Ian Robinson: Alison has said everything that I could and more.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: We have two groups. Proposed new section 3ZA to the Immigration Act is about the Irish in Britain, wherever born—all the Irish; anyone who holds an Irish passport—and it gives them protection wherever they enter the UK, so that if they come from Belfast and go for a weekend in Paris they have not lost all their rights just by spending a weekend in Paris, which technically in law at the moment they have.
The other group are the people of Northern Ireland, who are the people born on the soil of Northern Ireland. Those people, under the Belfast agreement, have the right to identify as British, Irish or both. The question is how you give effect to that right, because at the moment it is argued that you give effect to it by going through a renunciation process, which costs money and makes it very difficult for somebody to identify solely as Irish.
We have provided in the EU settlement scheme for the people of Northern Ireland—those who are born there—to be treated in the same way for family immigration purposes as EEA nationals. That is a fairly short-term right—not a short short-term right, but obviously one that is on the way out because we are leaving the EU and that advantage will disappear over time; it will not apply to new arrivals and it will not apply to the people of Northern Ireland who form subsequent relationships.
So we have said that we will make it not matter whether you are British or Irish, or both, because you will not be at a practical disadvantage. But what people would like to be able to do is identify as Irish without having to give up a British citizenship they never felt they held. That was a point made by Emma DeSouza in her litigation. That litigation ended because it was a case brought by her partner about his EU law rights. So although their arguments were about her ability to identify as Irish, that was not the crux of their case; their case was an EU case, so it died with the changes.
I have put forward in my paper a series of proposals as to how we could fairly simply amend the law to give effect to that aspiration, without in any way damaging the aspiration of those in Northern Ireland who say, “I in no way want to be treated any differently from anyone else anywhere else in the UK”. I think we can square that circle.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: With any change, you have to decide what you do; it takes five years to get to settlement. What perhaps worries me most when I look at the points-based paper and those proposals is that rather than saying, “This is where we want to end up—how do we get there?”, they are all about what we are going to do next. Therefore, the fear is that we will never get where we want to end up, because we are rushing things, in a way.
As I say, this is a massive change. When Vivienne Stern of Universities UK gave her evidence to the Committee, she said, “Universities will recover from this. The question for us is, what is going to happen in the short to medium term?” I think it is very similar for the immigration system. In the short to medium term, maybe the recessionary effects of covid will mean that there is less need for people, but the short to medium term is the bit that that paper does not even regard as a problem; it just says that this is what we want, and I think that is not realistic. The attention has been focused, for good reason, on the stock of EU nationals—the people who are here—but what will really hurt business is the flow, or the cutting off of that flow.
Mr Robinson has made the point that our system is quicker than that of many countries, but employers are used to it being a lot quicker, and the employers who have the least difficulty are the global multinationals, which have the persons already employed in one part and can move them across. The solely British business, which does not have an overseas branch, has the most disadvantages. It is a bit like the recovery after the pandemic, and the supermarkets have actually done really well during it and the corner shop has closed. It is that sort of thing—this change will advantage the very people who you would have thought, given the Brexit ideology, were the people who were supposed to face a bit more competition from the Brits.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: Yes, that is spot on. If I were to have two conversations,
one with an established tier 2 sponsor and one with a new employer using the system for the first time, the first conversation would be to say, “Okay, the systems that you have will become simpler and quicker, because there will be no advertising, no cap and so on. You will be able to bring more people through sponsorship, because skill level is going down.” It will be more expensive and it will be slower than free movement, but overall, frankly, they can absorb it.
If I then pick up the phone to an employer who has never used the system, they will probably spend between two and four weeks collecting documentation in order to put together an application. The application right now is typically taking four to six weeks, against an eight-week service standard. If we have a rush of employers applying for licences, it seems quite possible that, towards the end of the year or the beginning of next year, that lead-in time will become much longer, during which time they could miss out on an opportunity or a worker.
Then you get to the kicker: if you are sponsoring Stuart, who is single and coming in for three years, for an SME that would cost about £4,000 and for a larger employer it would be about £5,500. If you were coming in with a partner and three children for three years, that would be £17,000 in Government fees, not including the other associated costs.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: Yes, that is fair. If you are coming in as a single person and you are covering your own fees, it is broadly £600 for a three-year visa. You will be paying an extra £624 a year for the health surcharge. You get to indefinite leave to remain, which is about £2,200 or £2,300, and then citizenship is about another £1,200. If you add that up, as I am about to attempt to, it would be not far off £10,000 just to get through to citizenship. If we assume that you are on £26,000 a year and clearing however much of that, it is a hell of a cut. If you also have children, you have to pay another £10,000 each.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: We made several suggestions on simplifications for employers and individuals in Scotland: lower salary requirements, faster routes to settlement and so forth. The headline finding was that if the political will were there, it would be quite possible to continue free movement in Scotland after free movement ended for the rest of the UK. I appreciate that that may seem counter-intuitive to some people in the room, but the rationale is that, if you were to continue to operate free movement in Scotland, people would be able to move there and live and work on the structure of their European passport. The obvious challenge is what happens if they subsequently want to move to the UK, as some may, because at that point they would need to have permission to live and work in the UK, just as any other migrant would.
One of the challenges we have had is whether that would turn Scotland into a back door for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is hard to make that argument when you consider that the front door is open, given that there will be no visit visa requirement for Europeans coming to the UK. If you were a German who wanted to work in the UK and were content to do so illegally, there would be no incentive to go through Scotland first. You would jump on an easyJet flight into Stansted, maybe not even see an immigration officer and start work if you were so minded.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: Yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Ian Robinson: No. The Government is content that the compliance environment/hostile environment measures that we have in place are sufficient to stop illegal migration and working from tourists. It would be equally capable of stopping that sort of migration from Scotland.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: It is partly that and partly that we are small, so you can travel a long way quickly. If you give someone a visa for one part of Australia, it works very differently. I remember asking the Australian Minister about that, and he said that it was salary that glued people to the Northern Territory.
In our current points-based system, a tier 2 skilled worker works for a particular employer, so it is not that much of a leap to say, “You must work for the employer in X, Y and Z offices.” Applying it generally may be more complicated, but applying it to workers who work for an employer—whether they are highly skilled or low skilled does not matter—is easier. If you are someone who is on a payroll, it is easier to envisage it working. It becomes more complicated to stop people moving around outside the paid employer—they must be employed by that person.
Ian Robinson: A very quick point: right now, you sponsor a particular person to work for a particular employer in a particular location. If that location changes, the Home Office must be notified. I could not say how much scrutiny they give to that—I do not think it is a great deal—but employers are already reporting on that sort of thing.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Alison Harvey: I think Wendy Williams has given you an excellent blueprint in the Windrush lessons learned review. Although those recommendations emerged from Windrush, what she is saying is that you get a Windrush when you have a lack of understanding of your own laws. Complexity makes that understanding so difficult to achieve, as happened with Windrush. She recommends the consolidation of legislation. It is obvious. We need to do that through a consolidation Bill.
We have to have a self-denying ordinance so that no one is trying to change it—not the Government, not the Opposition—and we just get in and consolidate what we have got. Then we go in and change it afterwards. It is difficult enough to consolidate it. It can then go through the consolidated Bill procedure in Parliament, which is the only way you would ever get a consolidated Bill through Parliament without abandoning all other business in the Session to deal with it.
If the Immigration Act 1971 was our “going into the EU” immigration Act, we now need to start again and build up from the top. We need to think much more teleologically about where we want to be and what we want to achieve, rather than start with the how. The problem with the current paper is that it starts with the how and ignores where we are. It cannot cope with pressure such as from the pandemic and its effects on the economy. It is a rigid system full of teeny little routes. We do not need that; we need an idea of what the end result looks like, and then we can look at how to get there. We need a lot more sensitivity to regions, so we need to devolve down a great deal to regions such as Scotland, where immigration is needed. In Somerset, where I come from, the agricultural crisis is going to be huge.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I am afraid that it is 5 o’clock, and the rules state that I have now to ask the Whip—it is his moment of glory—to move the adjournment motion.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 11th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 June 2020 - (11 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “, or in connection with,”
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out “this Part” and insert “Schedule 1”
This amendment seeks to limit the scope of the power in Clause 4 to matters concerning the ending of retained EU law rights that currently preserve free movement and immigration-related rights.
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
‘(1A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may only be exercised within the period of one year from the day on which this Act is passed.
(1B) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after a period of two years from the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would restrict the use of the Henry VIII powers contained in Clause 4 to a period of one year from the date of the Act being passed; and would prevent any changes to primary legislation made by exercise of these powers having permanent effect unless confirmed by primary legislation.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if satisfied that the regulations would have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
(5B) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (5A).”
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under subsection (1), in relation to persons to whom the regulations apply under this Act, shall be made in accordance with the following principles—
(a) Promotion of family life, particularly that between children and their parents and that between partners;
(b) That persons in the United Kingdom should have a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against any decision to refuse leave remain, to curtail leave to enter or remain or to make a deportation order;
(c) that where leave to remain is given—
(i) on account of a person’s long residence in the United Kingdom; or
(ii) to a person whose continuous residence in the United Kingdom includes five years of that person’s childhood; or
(iii) to a child who has lived in the United Kingdom for a period of seven continuous years;
that leave is given for an indefinite period;
(d) that leave to enter or remain given to a person for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom is not subject to a condition restricting work, occupation or recourse to public funds; and
(e) ensure that no change to immigration rules or fees is made—
(i) unless sufficient public notice has been given of that change to ensure any person affected by the change who is already in the United Kingdom with leave to enter or remain has reasonable opportunity to adjust their expectations or circumstances before the change takes effect; or
(ii) that would require a person given leave to enter or remain for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom to satisfy more restrictive conditions for the continuation of their stay than were required to do so at the time the person was first given leave for this purpose.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that exercise of the delegated powers in clause 4(1) is guided by certain principles.
Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section 4 and section 7(5) expire on the day after the day specified as the deadline under section 7(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. This group of amendments raises important issues about the scope of the regulation-making power in clause 4. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for speaking to his amendments and for the effort he has put into them. I know that he has a strong interest in the use of the power in clause 4, as he had when the Bill was previously in Committee, in 2019. However, despite the explanations given to him then, he appears still to be misinformed about how the Government are planning to use this power, and I hope that my response will help. A lot has been said today and in the evidence sessions about this power granting Ministers a blank cheque. That is not the case, and if you will permit me, Mr Stringer, I will set out how we intend to use the power and respond to the hon. Member’s amendments as I do so.
The power is intended to enable three broad things via regulations. The first is to ensure that our laws operate coherently once freedom of movement ends and the relevant provisions in schedule 1 are repealed. There are references across the statute book to EEA citizens, their free movement rights and their status under free movement law, which need to be addressed through regulations made under this power.
For example, regulations made under section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 list the documents that must be provided in support of various types of immigration application. One type relates to applications under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which implement the free movement directive. That reference needs to be removed because those regulations are revoked by schedule 1, so there will no longer be applications under them. It is therefore important that the power is wide enough to ensure that all references to the EU and free movement rights in primary and secondary legislation can be amended appropriately as a consequence of, or in connection with, the ending of free movement.
That is why the Government do not and cannot accept amendments 2 and 3, as they would prevent us from meeting our manifesto commitment of ending free movement and introducing a new, fairer points-based immigration system. We also do not want the provision drafted so narrowly as to lead to challenge and uncertainty about whether an amendment is “appropriate” or “necessary” “in connection with” or “in consequence of” the end of free movement. Such an amendment would enable those who oppose the principle of ending free movement, which I accept the Scottish National party does, to seek to achieve that through the courts by challenging these regulations, since they were not able to achieve it at the ballot box in December.
The second reason that the power is important is to align the immigration treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens for those who arrive from 1 January 2021, after the end of the transition period. That will enable us to deliver the new global points-based immigration system under which everyone is treated equally—for example, by removing EEA citizens’ exemption from the immigration skills charge. We also intend to use the power to align the rules on access to benefits, so that EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens are treated the same under the new global points-based system. It is worth me clarifying that the detailed requirements for the future points-based immigration system will be set out in the immigration rules made under the Immigration Act 1971 and subject to parliamentary scrutiny of those changes, not through regulations made under clause 4. Control has been taken back by Parliament and will be there.
Thirdly, the power will enable savings and transitional provisions to be made—for example, to protect EEA citizens’ existing appeal rights under the EEA regulations. That is in addition to the protections to be delivered for EEA citizens resident in the UK by the end of the transition period through statutory instruments, which the Government will bring forward under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
I understand that clause 4 is a complex, technical power. That is why the Government have already produced information to help the Committee understand the power, through the factsheet published on gov.uk. I have also given examples of changes that we intend to make under the regulations. It is absolutely right that Parliament pays close attention to delegated powers such as these. I noted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the report on the Bill in the previous Parliament.
Amendment 4 would remove the provision to make changes in relation to fees and charges. Regulations made under this power may only modify legislation relating to the imposition of immigration fees and charges where that is as a consequence of or connected with the provision in part 1. That enables the application of fees and charges to EEA citizens, who are currently exempt from them, such as the immigration skills charge, which is paid by the employer.
Amendments 20, 21 and 22 would further limit the scope of the regulations made under clause 4. Let me set it out again that we need this power to ensure that our laws operate coherently once free movement ends, to align the immigration treatment of newly arriving EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens from 1 January 2021, and to make relevant savings and transitional provisions for resident EEA citizens that cannot be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
Amendment 20 would prevent the regulations from being used to make amendments that are in consequence of or in connection with clause 2, which protects the unique position of Irish citizens in the UK once free movement ends. I understand the queries about that point. To be absolutely explicit, we intend to use that power in a very limited way to amend provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 that cover entering the UK via the common travel area. We will not use them for wider changes. As I said this morning, the Belfast agreement is fundamental international law, as well as a fundamental part of our constitution.
Amendment 21 is intended, first, to sunset the power in clause 4 by setting a deadline for its use of one year after the Bill is passed and, secondly, to ensure that regulations made under the power expire after two years. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is, I suspect, aware, regulations will need to be made under clause 4 to coincide with the repeal of free movement law by part 1. We have endeavoured to ensure that they make all the changes required by primary and secondary legislation, to come into effect by the end of the transition period. Beyond that, I assure him that we would make further changes under the power only if that were required, and Parliament will be fully engaged whenever it is used.
The power cannot be used to make amendments relating to the consequences of exiting the EU more generally; it can be used only in consequence of or in connection with ending free movement and the clarified status of Irish citizens. Changes cannot be made indefinitely, as they would not be in consequence of or in connection with that purpose. For example, the powers cannot be used to amend future primary legislation or general immigration policies.
The second limb of amendment 21 provides that any regulations made under clause 4 would expire after two years. That would mean that the legislation that had been amended reverted to its former state, creating confusion for the public and leading to a partial revival of elements of free movement, which I suspect is the outcome that the hon. Gentleman is partly hoping for. This is not an outcome that we can accept.
Amendment 22 would require that regulations made under the power in clause 4 complied with a specified set of principles. It would have the effect of continuing to treat newly arriving EEA citizens differently from non-EEA citizens. That is not consistent with establishing a new global points-based immigration system focused on the skills and contributions that people have to offer the UK, not where their passport is from.
Amendment 12, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), is also intended to sunset the power in clause 4 by setting the end date for its use as the day after the end of the grace period, on 30 June 2021, by which time EEA citizens and their family members resident in the UK by the end of the transition period must have applied for status under the EU settlement scheme unless, as we constantly repeat, there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members concerning the important limitations on the use of the power in clause 4. I emphasise that it cannot be used to make amendments that relate to the consequences of exiting the EU more generally, but only in consequence of or in connection with ending free movement and the clarified status of Irish citizens provided by clause 2.
We will endeavour to make all the changes required to primary and secondary legislation in the forthcoming regulations to be made under clause 4 later this year. However, should we identify the need to make further regulations related to part 1, it is important that we have the power to do so, subject to the full scrutiny and approval of both Houses.
When a power to make regulations expires, so do any regulations made under it, so if the amendment were passed legislation that had been amended would revert to its former state, creating confusion for the public and leading to a partial revival of elements of free movement, which may have been the intention. However, that is not an outcome that the Government can accept.
Amendment 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, would ensure that children of EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK were not adversely affected by the ending of free movement rights. She asked specifically about numbers, and I had an opportunity over the break to get the figures for the period up to 31 March 2020—they are published quarterly. Of the under-18s who have applied to the European settlement scheme, and where a decision has been taken, by 31 March, 261,880 were granted settled status and 150,940 were granted pre-settled status. That compares with just 20 refusals of applications from applicants aged under 18. Those refusals may well be on grounds purely of eligibility—that is, not having proof of living within the United Kingdom.
Given the hon. Lady’s specific query, I thought it would be helpful to give that clarity. It is not possible to say exactly how many people may be eligible, because free movement rights and rights relating to those who become eligible to apply to the European settlement scheme still operate up to 31 December. It is impossible to say exactly who will arrive tomorrow, for example, and be entitled under the withdrawal agreement to apply to the European settlement scheme. I hope that gives her some reassurance on where we are. It is worth saying that the overall level of applications to the European settlement scheme is now over 3.5 million and the number of decisions taken is over 3 million, which puts the numbers we are talking about into context.
Amendment 15 would create a two-tier system of family migration, with one set of requirements for the children of EEA and Swiss citizens and another for children of non-EEA citizens. It would lead to EEA citizens potentially being given preferential treatment inconsistent with the new points-based immigration system and with our aim of having a new single approach to migration rules, regardless of where a passport comes from.
The Home Office has, as the hon. Lady touched on, a very clear statutory obligation to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK when carrying out immigration functions. That extends to all children, not just the children of EEA or Swiss citizens. This is contained in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That, together with article 3 of the UN convention on the rights of the child—part of international law, as she pointed out—means that consideration of the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in immigration decisions affecting them.
The amendment could create a separate and preferential family migration system for the family members of EEA or Swiss citizens compared with the family members of non-EEA citizens. The proposed condition under clause 4—that the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on the children of EEA or Swiss citizens—could lead to non-EEA citizens with children and the children themselves being treated less favourably for no reason other than their nationality and with no justification for that, given that the United Kingdom has now left the European Union. This is not a basis on which a new global immigration system can be founded.
The Bill’s core focus is to end free movement. The design of the new points-based immigration system will be developed consistent with our international and domestic obligations to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. For that reason, as set out in our published policy equality statement on the immigration measures in the Bill, we have committed carefully to consider all equalities issues, including the impact on children, as these policies are being developed, but not on the basis of a two-tier approach between non-EEA and EEA children.
It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, and I welcome this, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU and this clause is an essential part of delivering that. It will be used to deliver a clear and coherent statute book and level the playing field for future migration by removing the preferential treatment of EEA citizens and their family members under EU freedom of movement rules.
In future, the UK’s immigration system will be firmer, fairer and global, rather than one based on where someone’s passport comes from. I suspect that I might not have been able to fully reassure Opposition Members on the power under clause 4, but I ask them not to press their amendments, which the Government cannot accept.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for his extensive response, but he is right in one thing, which is that he has not fully satisfied me about the need for these powers. Much of what he said related to how the Government propose to use these powers or what they are planning to do, but that is not how we should go about assessing whether the scope of the powers is appropriate. We need to assess what the scope of these powers would, in theory, allow the Government to do, and that goes way beyond what he set out.
We do not hand powers to the Government on the basis of assurances that they are going to do only a, b and c. Listening to the list of proposals the Minister made, I am utterly unconvinced that that could not be done very simply with a much more narrowly drawn clause and power. Nothing in any of these amendments would stop the Government bringing free movement to an end—sadly.
The Minister alluded to the fact that some of this is about trying to limit the scope for judicial oversight. I am trying to keep MPs in a job here scrutinising legislation, but I am also trying to make sure the judiciary is not excluded from the proper review of the use of Executive power. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that these are “significant” powers and also used the word “disturbing” at one point, so I am afraid I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation that they are justified.
On amendment 22, I am disappointed that the Minister did not engage with the principles themselves, because other amendments have been tabled with respect to the principles of immigration law and we are constrained by the scope of this Bill to limiting these amendments to dealing with EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. Although that does not mean we think we should be confined in this way to them, it is in the Government’s gift to extend this much more broadly, so I am very disappointed that he did not engage with what those principles are. I hope we will have a fuller debate when we come to other amendments. On that basis, I shall press amendment 2 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that EEA nationals, and adult dependants of EEA nationals, who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded.”
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again this afternoon, Mr Stringer? The amendment would give European economic area and Swiss nationals who apply for asylum in the UK the right to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to work if a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it is recorded as having first been made.
The amendment is the legislative outcome of the Lift the Ban campaign, a movement headed up by Refugee Action and with the support of more than 200 organisations, including the likes of Oxfam and the British Red Cross; trade unions, including the National Education Union, Unison and the TUC more broadly; industry players such as Ben & Jerry’s and the Confederation of British Industry; and organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute. We worked on the drafting of the amendment with Refugee Action, as well as with legal professionals, and we are of course truly grateful, as ever, to the Committee Clerks. The proposal is limited to EU nationals to ensure that it falls within the scope of the Bill.
This amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston in the Bill Committee on the previous version of this Bill during the 2017-19 Parliament. At that point, the Government argued that the UK is allowed to treat an asylum claim made by a citizen of an EU country as automatically inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply, and that a claim made by a non-EU EEA national would be considered on the basis that it is likely to be clearly unfounded. The implication was that there would be no one who would benefit from the amendment, and in any case treating asylum seekers from the EEA differently from those from the rest of the world on the grounds of their nationality was not only illogical but discriminatory.
The Minister and I know, though, that the amendment sets out the proposal in principle, within the bounds of what is permissible in respect of the scope of the Bill. It gives us the opportunity and the platform to outline the case for change, and I am delighted that it also has the support of SNP Members.
In August and September 2018, the Lift the Ban coalition conducted a survey with a group that had direct experience of the asylum process and found that 94% of all respondents said they would like to work if they were given permission to do so. We have all met asylum seekers: they are people not dissimilar to ourselves who have often had to flee their own countries when faced with immediate danger. They are often skilled, able to work and want to work. Rose is one example. She is currently in the asylum system, so I appreciate that she is not an EU national, but hers is the experience that we could start to change and transform if the Government accept the merits of the amendment.
Rose has been waiting for a decision on her asylum claim for three years. Not having the right to work while she waits for a decision on her asylum claim is not only putting pressure on her family life but damaging to her children, who are unable to understand why she cannot work. She said:
“Not being able to work, it cripples you…As a parent, you feel that you are not good enough…When you have kids, their daily needs—there are things that you need to give them. If I were working, I would not have to go to charity shops all the time to get hand-me-downs for my kids.”
Rose wants to be given the opportunity to be productive and show what she is capable of. She said:
“I want to work so I can prove myself to my children.”
The amendment would give people in the future asylum system from EEA countries the opportunity to use their skills and make the most of their potential. It would improve the mental health of people such as Rose in the asylum system by giving them a sense of worth and purpose, and it would enhance the opportunities for integration into their new communities, as well as allowing them to satisfy the strong work ethic that Rose clearly has and wants to pass on to her children.
The impetus for this change has only been intensified by the coronavirus pandemic. The brilliant campaigning and advocacy from the group Freedom from Torture has shone a light on the pittance that asylum seekers receive in support rates. At present, people in the asylum system receive a little over £5 a day per person in allowances. While at the onset of the crisis the Chancellor increased universal credit by £20 a week to “strengthen the safety net”, no proportional measures have yet been introduced for asylum support rates.
The uncertainty and rise in demand for specific items due to the pandemic has only exacerbated the difficulty faced by asylum seekers in finding the supplies they need to keep themselves and their families healthy and safe. Even before the onset of coronavirus, 52% of Refugee Action survey respondents reported having to use a food bank at some point within the last 12 months. If the Government are not minded to increase asylum support rates, it is both moral and logical to grant asylum seekers the right to work after six months. To forbid both options is to back some of the most vulnerable people in our society into an unescapable corner.
The Government could transform the financial health of a vast number of asylum seekers by accepting the amendment. Additionally, it would allow asylum seekers to play an active role in getting the British economy moving again, following the immense disruption caused by the pandemic. Refugee Action estimates that this change in policy could benefit the UK economy through net gains for the Government of £42.4 million. This would also be an overwhelmingly popular policy. Refugee Action carried out a survey of the public where 71% agreed that people seeking asylum should be allowed to work.
Accepting the amendment would help to fix the structural and deeply entrenched problems that exist with the current system. People seeking asylum in the UK can only apply for the right to work after they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year. The UK is the global outlier in time taken to give people in the asylum system the right for work. Ireland, Hungary, France, the United States and Poland, to name just a few, all have a much swifter process.
Even then, the few people who are granted such permission are rarely able to work in practice because their employment is restricted to the list of professions included on the Government’s shortage occupation list. This is the equivalent of putting square pegs in round holes, and disregards the skills and potential of many people in the asylum system. Refugee Action found that 74% of survey participants had secondary level education and 37% had an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. People in the asylum system can and should work in a wide variety of jobs that are hugely beneficial to both the UK economy and public wellbeing.
My involvement with the campaign is largely thanks to two amazing women in my own constituency. I pay tribute to Veeca Smith and Florence Kahuro, who set up the wonderful and incredibly effective local campaign group Sisters United. I am sure they would be delighted to meet the Minister in the not-too-distant future—I am sure he would struggle to get a word in edgeways. They are absolutely brilliant. They both sought asylum in the UK and founded the group to offer peer support to others in their situation and campaign for simple things such as accommodation that is not plagued by health and safety issues, and the right to go out and earn for themselves.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate the broad consensus that exists behind this amendment and accept the multitude of benefits that adopting the amendment would bring. It is time we treated people in the asylum seekers with dignity and as people with unrecognised potential to contribute to our society.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I rise in support of amendment 13 and lifting the ban. As with any legislation, there is a requirement to strike a balance between addressing the issue at hand, in this case our withdrawal from the EU, while also being practical and compassionate to ensure that people are not hard done by. The reality is that thousands of asylum seekers in the UK who came here for refuge are unable to work—unable to properly provide for themselves and their children and possibly loved ones, and unable to make what has been a difficult life a reasonable and normal one. Instead, as the Refugee Council highlights, these people must live on as little as £5 a day, which many of us here in this Room could not even countenance. That is £5 a day to feed themselves and loved ones, buy toiletries, pay for transport to go about their everyday lives, and do any other thing that a normal person would do.
Stuart C. McDonald
I echo entirely the comments of both Members who have spoken so far, the hon. Members for Halifax and for Coventry North West. In short, people who apply for refugee status in this country should not as a result be trapped in poverty for months on end, if not years, simply because they made that claim, but that is the situation that far too many asylum seekers find themselves in.
All the arguments in favour of lifting the ban have been set out very well. We all know that an absence from the job market for several months, if not years, can be hugely detrimental to people’s long-term prospects, regardless of all the other challenges that asylum seekers face in terms of integration. This change would provide a route out of poverty, saving money for the Government, given the savings that they would make on asylum support. It is a popular proposal among the public as well and would bring this country into line with many other countries in Europe and beyond.
This proposal should also be popular with MPs right across this House, and I think there are MPs in every single party who support it. While I do not expect the Government to make any major announcements today, I would be interested to hear the Minister say at least something about his thinking on this issue and whether he and his colleagues are giving serious consideration to doing something to stop people being left for months on end without any prospect of work or being able to get themselves out of poverty.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I, too, endorse the speeches we have heard in relation to this amendment. I only want to make two points to the Minister. First, the long delays in processing asylum applications and then appeals is, I think we can agree, a real concern for everybody in this House. The problem with having a ban on asylum seekers working is that there is very little incentive for the Home Office to make rapid progress in dealing with those cases. Indeed, given that 45% of appeals now succeed, it seems that we are taking a very long time to fail to give the chance to work to people who will ultimately obtain it.
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister a question that follows on from the one asked a few moments ago about his personal attitude towards lifting the ban on asylum seekers’ right to work. In the last Parliament, the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), undertook to carry out a review of the policy and to give consideration to whether it needed to be revised. I do not think we ever heard the outcome of that review. It would be helpful to know whether the Home Office continues to conduct that review, when we might hear the outcome of it and whether evidence to support such a review is being sought from civil society and from parliamentary colleagues who might wish to submit ideas. It has been a long time since that commitment was made to the Home Affairs Committee, and it would be good to hear the status of that review.
Kevin Foster
I could make this a very quick response by saying that EEA citizens’ asylum claims are inadmissible, but given the constructive nature of Opposition Members’ speeches, I will respond more fully than the strict wording of the amendment allows me to. To my knowledge, there is literally no one with an outstanding asylum claim from an EEA country because they are inadmissible and therefore would not have to wait six months for a determination.
To be clear, our rules on the inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU citizens derive from the so-called Spanish protocol—part of the treaty of Amsterdam, dealing with this specific issue—which allows EU member states to treat an asylum claim by a citizen of another EU country as automatically inadmissible, unless exceptional circumstances apply. Those will, by their nature, be very rare. Claims from EEA citizens who are not part of the EU are considered by the UK, but on the basis that they are likely to be clearly unfounded. All EEA citizens, including those not in the EU, are considered to be from safe, democratic countries and are highly unlikely to suffer a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm there. For those reasons, and because we do not foresee a change in these circumstances given the nature of the countries concerned, we intend to continue our policy on inadmissibility for EU citizens and rules regarding EEA citizens post the transition period. As a consequence, amendment 13 would be inconsistent with our broader policy on asylum claims from EU and EEA citizens.
Turning to Members’ wider remarks, our current policy allows asylum seekers to seek permission to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list—to use one example cited by the hon. Member for Coventry North West, a doctor—which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. We have recently commissioned the MAC to advise us on the shortage occupation list under the new points-based system. As Members will know, the required skill level is going from RQF6, graduate, to RQF3, A-level, which will potentially expand the number of posts that are available. Given the type of countries and education systems, it is likely that we will have more, for example, skilled chefs, who would be considered to be at level RQF3 and not RQF6.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive tone of his response. We heard in evidence from the Migration Advisory Committee earlier this week that there is quite a significant delay in determining which jobs are on the shortage occupation list. We may well have skills that could be put to good use but have not yet found themselves on that list. Is there not a more dynamic way that we can have another look at that?
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the sentiment. Traditionally the MAC has only operated on commission, when the Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister asks it to look at something. We are in the process of appointing a new chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, and we are looking at how it can work on a more predictable cycle. The call for evidence on the shortage occupation list is open, and with the skills threshold changing, we need to update the list for 1 January 2021. I would certainly encourage any organisations that the hon. Member is in contact with to make submissions, given the quite significant change, which will allow a wider range of practical skills, not just the purely academic skills that the list inevitably reflects by setting the bar at degree level. Senior careworker is a good example of a position that we expect to be between RQF3 and RQF6, rather than not qualifying, and it is worth remembering that that list will apply on a global basis.
Returning to the amendment, it is important to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules. Our wider immigration policy could be undermined if there was an incentive for individuals to try to bypass the work visa rules by lodging wholly unfounded asylum claims in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, unrestricted access to employment opportunities may also act as an incentive for more people to choose to come here illegally, rather than claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach, particularly within the European Union. We cannot have a policy that increases that risk, even though it has to be said that clearly an EEA citizen would not be fleeing war or persecution.
Kate Green
I understand the fear that the Minister is expressing, but does he accept that all meta-analysis of countries that offer asylum seekers a right to work shows that they experience no increase in asylum-seeking, or no relatively higher rate of asylum-seeking, than countries that do not offer such a right?
Kevin Foster
As I touched on, there is some ability to work for those whose claims have been delayed for a significant period of time, but we are not satisfied, given what we have seen with past attempts to use parts of the migration system to avoid the restrictions or avoid having to come through the appropriate process to work here, that what the hon. Lady said would not be the case. We cannot readily dismiss the impact that removing such restrictions would have, nor its impact on our capacity to support genuine refugees who are in need of our protection, given that our system also has to deal with those claims that are unfounded and are more about intending to acquire a right to work in the United Kingdom.
I will take this opportunity to make it clear that I acknowledge the well expressed concerns of Opposition Members. The Government are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay, to ensure that individuals who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible and can start to rebuild their lives. As the hon. Member for Halifax will know, once someone is granted asylum they are given immediate and unrestricted access to the labour market.
I heard the points that were made eloquently by the hon. Members for Coventry North West, and for Stretford and Urmston about the time that it can take to make some of these decisions. That is also a concern for me as a Minister and for the Government, because if people have a founded claim, we want it brought to a resolution as quickly as possible, so that they can move on and rebuild their lives. Similarly, if a claim is wholly unfounded or based on—if I might put it this way—inaccurate information being provided by the applicant, we want to come to a speedy decision to facilitate their removal from the United Kingdom, to ensure that our system is fair as well as firm.
The new service standard for asylum applications, which is intended to try to bring back some balance to the system, is currently being developed. UK Visas and Immigration is engaging with stakeholders as part of these plans and considering any insight that those stakeholders offer as it tries to shape a new service standard, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Coventry North West, as a start in attempting to tackle some of these issues.
Finally, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked about the review commissioned under a previous Home Secretary. We are in the process of reviewing the right-to-work policy, with officials looking at the body of evidence available. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further until that review is complete, other than to say that that process is ongoing.
Having made those comments, the Government cannot accept the amendment and we hope that it will be withdrawn.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful for the Minister’s constructive response, but as I am sure he will appreciate, I am also a little disappointed by it.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West and congratulate her on what I think was her maiden Bill speech, which was an excellent contribution. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] Very well done.
We accept that the spirit of the amendment would not be able to be delivered as intended through this particular measure. However, we will continue to work with Members across the Benches, in coalition, to move towards the change that we would very much like to see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if satisfied that the regulations would have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
(5B) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (5A).”—(Kate Green.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out “other”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out from “(1)” to “is”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 8 will ensure that all regulations made under Clause 4(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment, along with Amendment 9 will ensure that all regulations made under Clause 4(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Stuart C. McDonald
We are back to the nuts and bolts of delegated legislation. This time, rather than considering the scope of the powers, we are looking at the procedures that should be used when they are exercised. Amendment 5 is designed to keep MPs in a job: we should be ensuring that we maximise our role in scrutinising what the Government do with their power to make laws.
Clause 4(6) to (10) sets out the procedures for making these regulations. I apologise in advance, Mr Stringer, if I get some of the terminology wrong. Even after five years in this place, I still regularly confuse my made affirmative, affirmative and negative procedures. As I understand it, the most extreme made affirmative procedure is allowed for the first set of regulations that would be made under the clause. That means that the Government would be able to bring rules into force immediately, before MPs had the chance to scrutinise the proposals. MPs would then have 40 days to pass an affirmative resolution to keep the rules in place. No good parliamentarian should ever be comfortable allowing the Government to bring rules into force before we even have the chance to look at them.
The more usual affirmative procedure would apply to subsequent draft statutory instruments through which the Government were amending Acts of Parliament. That too is a really drastic power, but it would mean that nothing came into force until we positively approved it. Although I object to Henry VIII powers for rewriting Acts of Parliament, if they must exist, that should be the method for regulation making here.
Other regulations that do not directly impact on Acts of Parliament would use the much less satisfactory negative procedure. Although a draft of those regulations would still be tabled before they came into force, they would almost inevitably do so unless, exceptionally, Parliament prayed against that negative resolution. All these amendments do is ensure that MPs have their say, and have a proper role in scrutinising the Government before regulations come into force, which is important given the very important subject, and the effect that these provisions could have on immigration law. I hope the Committee will be sympathetic to what we argue for.
Holly Lynch
As the SNP spokesperson says, this group of amendments, like most of those in the previous group, continues to seek to limit the transfer of powers to the Executive and away from Parliament. We have gone over the arguments against such sweeping Henry VIII powers in principle at length, so I will not repeat those. This group largely seeks to ensure that regulations made under clause 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and to leave out subsection (6).
Martin McTague from the Federation of Small Businesses was I think the only witness who said in his evidence on Tuesday that he actually did see some merit in the powers in clause 4, yet when asked further, he was keen to stress that
“the Home Secretary will be answerable to Parliament about the decisions that she or he has made. That would be a way in which Parliament could ensure there was proper scrutiny.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 14, Q29.]
However, as the Bill stands, proper scrutiny will be missing.
As has been said, proper scrutiny is exactly what we are in the business of in this place. It is why the Government say they have thrown caution to the wind in returning to a physical Parliament when we could have been undertaking our duties from home, as is still the public health advice. If the Leader of the House is such a big fan of parliamentary scrutiny, why are we going to such lengths to avoid it with these powers? Putting changes through the affirmative procedure has to be the way forward if we are to shape legislation for the better and deliver on parliamentary democracy. That is why we support this group of amendments.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for speaking to his further amendments on clause 4. Amendments 5, 6, 8 and 9 deal with the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under the clause 4 powers, as has been outlined. The made affirmatory procedure is needed in the event that there is a short window between the Bill’s Royal Assent and the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. This is why the provision for the affirmative procedure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Halifax have suggested would not work. Free movement must end on 31 December at the end of the transition period, and it is important to ensure that regulations made under this power align the treatment of European economic area and non-EEA citizens who arrive in the UK from 1 January 2021.
To clarify, under the made affirmative procedure, Parliament will be asked to approve the regulations within 40 days of their being made to enable them to continue in force, so Parliament does have scrutiny of the use of this power. If either House does not approve the regulations, they will cease to have effect, but subsection (10) preserves the effect of anything done under these regulations before that point to ensure legal certainty—in essence, for someone who is granted immigration leave after applying under a rule that would come into effect on 1 January.
Using this power does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. The secondary legislation to be made under this power is still subject to full parliamentary oversight under the established procedures, although I expect the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East may actually be disappointed at just how limited and benign they end up being. It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU, and this clause is an essential part of delivering that and ensuring that it can be done, with the new system in place, on 1 January 2021. We therefore cannot accept these amendments.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am not convinced that there will be a time problem between the Bill coming into force and the end of the transition period, so I insist on pressing amendment 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for admission of EEA nationals as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons.
(12) Regulations made under subsection (1) may require that the EEA nationals entering as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons can be ‘maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds’ but in deciding whether that test is met, account must be taken of the prospective earnings of the EEA nationals seeking entry, as well as an third party support that may be available.
(13) Regulations made under subsection (1) must not include any test of financial circumstances beyond that set out in subsection (12)”.
This amendment would ensure that UK nationals and settled persons can be joined in future by EU spouses and partners and children without application of the financial thresholds and criteria that apply to non-EEA spouses, partners and children.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 34—Visa requirements for certain family visas: coronavirus—
“Section E-LTRP.3.1 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules will not apply to persons who have lost free movement rights under section 1 and schedule 1 until the Coronavirus Act 2020 expires as set out under section 89(1).”
This new clause is designed to ensure EEA and Swiss nationals are not prevented from qualifying to remain in the UK as partners, merely because they cannot meet financial requirements in the Immigration Rules during the coronavirus pandemic
Stuart C. McDonald
I have put amendment 1 at the top of my list because the subject is very close to my heart. It is on a huge issue with our so-called family migration rules. I call them anti-family migration rules, because they have been responsible for splitting apart tens of thousands of families; they have some of the most draconian requirements in the entire world. I cannot believe that most Conservative MPs are not at least uncomfortable with the rules, if not downright embarrassed and ashamed. Theirs is the party of the family, for goodness’ sake.
By imposing the financial threshold on our constituents, we say to many of them—half the population, in fact—“You do not earn enough money to live in your home country with your family if you were to marry somebody from outside the EU,” and in future it will be anybody outside the common travel area. We are saying to them: “You have to choose between your country and your family.” That is absolutely barbaric. The impact of the rules will grow every year if we pass this Bill as it is, because the rules that apply to those in relationships with non-EEA nationals will for the first time extend to those in relationships with EEA nationals.
I want to start with a neat summary of the issue in a statement made by Bishop William Nolan and Bishop Paul McAleenan, the lead bishops for migrants and refugees from the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of Scotland and of England and Wales respectively:
“The minimum income threshold for family visas unjustly separates tens of thousands of couples, parents and children. Without reforms, the end of free movement will result in even more families being kept apart by this policy. Some key workers who have played a vital role during the Covid-19 pandemic are among those who cannot be reunited with their families because they do not meet the minimum income threshold. This separation not only has serious implications on family life, but also has a direct impact on the development and wellbeing of children who are isolated from their parents in another country.”
That is the issue in a nutshell. There are other egregious features of the rules that I will come to in a minute.
The Children’s Commissioner for England prepared a report called “Family Friendly? The impact on children of the Family Migration Rules”, which is a review of the financial thresholds that the amendment and the new clause focus on. It was published in 2015 and it concluded:
“the financial requirements introduced in 2012 have been responsible for the separation of thousands of British children from a parent.”
Such requirements
“cannot be met by almost half of adult British citizens, including many in full-time work, particularly the young, the retired, women, ethnic minorities and those living outside London and the South East.”
What we usually get back by way of defence from the Government is, “We asked the Migration Advisory Committee and it came up with the threshold of £18,600.” It is true that that committee was tasked with a bit of work, but it was not asked to come up with a general view of how the family migration rules should be formulated. It was asked to come up with a figure at which it could be said that people could support a family without becoming a burden on the state; that is how it was put. That is a perverse way to pose the question, given that when people come here on family visas, they are not allowed to become a so-called burden on the state because they are prohibited from accessing public funds.
As the MAC made clear, in doing its work, it was not in any way making recommendations that gave consideration to what is required of the UK under its international and domestic human rights obligations to respect private family life or consider the best interests of children.
Holly Lynch
We are enormously sympathetic to all the points that the Scottish National party spokesperson has just made on amendment 1, but I want to focus my comments on new clause 34, which we support. It would ensure that EEA and Swiss spouses of UK nationals were not ineligible for visas because of job cuts and furloughs resulting from the coronavirus. For many families, the coronavirus crisis has already led to loss of livelihood and prolonged separation. Now, families of British citizens with EU spouses fear that they will be permanently separated if their partner cannot secure a visa because their job security has been affected by coronavirus and they no longer meet the income threshold to settle in the UK.
We feel strongly that we should at this time give families as much security as possible. In the crisis, unemployment has crept up significantly, and there are limited work prospects. A recent publication for the Institute for Public Policy Research, using data from the labour force survey, found that migrants to the UK are far more likely to be working in industries affected by the crisis, including accommodation and food services. Migrants are also more likely to be self-employed and in temporary work, which puts them at particular risk of losing income, or having diminished income, as a result of the crisis.
We can foresee a ruthlessly competitive job market in the aftermath of the crisis. The new clause seeks only an appropriate grace period for the duration of the crisis on the minimum income requirement, for those who were working hard to ensure that they met it. It seems entirely appropriate to use the expiration of the Coronavirus Act 2020, as set out in the new clause, to set that.
A constituent of mine who worked at McDonald’s needed to meet the threshold so that his wife could stay in the country, and will fall short, having been furloughed. Another woman who contacted me has a one-year-old and is pregnant with her second child. Having been furloughed, she has had to get a second job to top up her income, to meet the minimum income requirement for her partner to join her. A raft of visa issues have been exacerbated by coronavirus, and I do not think that I am being unreasonable in saying that the Government have not been particularly swift in offering clear, effective advice about the status of citizens throughout lockdown. That is causing huge additional and unnecessary anxiety for affected families at what is already a worrying time.
We have heard that there has been ambiguity about information on the Government website this week. The Home Office issued information for those on furlough, announcing on 9 June that if someone had earned enough to meet the minimum income requirement in the six months before March 2020 but their salary had dropped on being furloughed, they could still apply as if they were earning 100% of their income. That is welcome, but are the Government minded to extend consideration to those who lost their jobs entirely, and to grant them a grace period of some kind?
I should be grateful if the Minister responded to those points and considered the new clause as a way not to pile further worry and uncertainty on to families who are looking to reunite.
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the intention behind amendment 1, which is to create a means whereby, in future, EEA citizens would be able to join a spouse, partner or parent in the UK who was either a British citizen or settled here, without being subject to the current and established financial requirements for family migration. I also appreciate the intention behind new clause 34, which is to extend the concessions that the Government have already put in place for people subject to the minimum income requirement who are affected by covid-19 and the measures necessary to tackle it.
So that those subject to the requirement will not be unduly affected by circumstances beyond their control, a temporary loss of income during the pandemic will be disregarded. I hope that members of the Committee will appreciate that it would be difficult, and probably not appropriate, for me to go through an exhaustive list of circumstances that we might consider. However, new guidance is certainly online; I have just checked. I have summarised some of the details at least in one answer to a parliamentary question this week. It is my clear understanding that if someone is furloughed and, under their contract of employment, their potential earnings at 100% would be over £18,600—there are a couple of caveats to that, but we will stick with £18,600 for now—but the 20% furlough effect takes them below that figure, that drop in income will be disregarded. It is their substantive income that we will take into account, if they are still in their job and able to return to it when furlough comes to an end. For convenience, I will write to the Committee setting out the guidance we have given so that Members have it to hand, given the concern and interest that has been shown.
Let me be clear from the outset that the effect of amendment 1 and new clause 34 would be to create a separate and preferential family migration system for EEA and Swiss nationals and their families when compared with the situation of British or settled people’s family members who are non-EEA citizens. That is the intention of the amendments. That would lead to a perception that non-EEA family members were being discriminated against for no reason other than their nationality and would likely be regarded as unlawful for that reason, given that we have now left the European Union and the basis for having a two-tier immigration system has fundamentally been removed. I accept that Members would argue that they would like to change the rules overall, not just for EEA citizens, but the focus of the Bill is EEA citizens; it is not a general migration Bill.
Holly Lynch
Does the Minister not accept, however, that the difference for British citizens in EU countries is that when they took decisions to form relationships and families elsewhere in Europe, they did not envisage that the rules would change and that free movement rights would be taken away from them? The immigration rules have changed for them in a way that they have not for other British citizens in other countries around the world.
Kevin Foster
When anyone takes the decision to go and live abroad, there is no guarantee that migration rules will not change while they are living abroad; rules have changed over the years for British citizens living outside the EEA. However, we have put in place a longer transitional period, which I think will be to 2022—it will be nearly six years after the referendum by the time that is implemented—for those who have moved abroad on freedom of movement. Even then, they will still have the ability to move back under the family migration rules, the same as UK citizens living anywhere else.
It is also worth noting that someone who might apply for a spousal visa could also apply under tier 2. To touch on the point about potential earnings in this country, someone who qualified for a skilled work visa would be able to apply through that route if they were not able to apply through the spousal visa route. They would not, for example, be barred from settling with a UK citizen here because they were on a tier 2 visa rather than a spousal visa. Actually, under some of the provisions, particularly if they were a healthcare worker, they would potentially be quicker to settlement overall if they took that opportunity. I know that is a point that has been raised about those who might have an earning potential.
Let me go into some of the details of why we do not think amendment 1 is the right approach. The amendment seeks to replace the minimum income requirement for British citizens and settled persons to sponsor EEA family members with a test that has three separate components: being able to maintain and accommodate the family without recourse to public funds; taking account of the prospective earnings of the EEA nationals seeking entry; and taking into account any third-party support available. Let me address those in turn.
The first component—the simple ability to maintain and accommodate without recourse to public funds—would take us back to the policy that was in place before the minimum income requirement was introduced in 2012. It was partly because the test for whether a family could maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds was difficult to apply consistently that the minimum income requirement was introduced. The minimum income requirement provides certainty to all by ensuring that family migrants are supported at a reasonable and consistent level that is easy to understand. As Opposition Members have alluded to, the minimum income requirement has been based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.
I turn to some of the points about differentials across the United Kingdom. The Migration Advisory Committee found no clear case for differentiation in the level of the minimum income requirement between the UK’s countries or regions. A single national threshold provides clarity and simplicity. Data also show that the gross median earnings in 2018 exceeded the minimum income requirement in every country and region of the United Kingdom.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I will not press either amendment 1 or new clause 34 to a vote, but for slightly different reasons. On new clause 34, I am grateful for the assurances with regard to the impact of the coronavirus shutdown on incomes, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter, which I will obviously look at closely, and the scheme that is being put in place. We will no doubt return to that issue in the weeks and months ahead.
I will not press amendment 1 to a vote because I may wish to revisit it on Report. I do not think that people fully grasp the impact that this issue is having on families out there. The tier-2 alternative is not realistic for lots of families. My recollection of the test of maintaining and accommodating one’s family without recourse to public funds was that it worked perfectly well but, as I said in my original submissions, there are other ways in which we could do it: we could have a lower threshold, such as the minimum wage or the living wage. We could do things differently and still provide certainty.
On the subject of certainty, it is no reassurance to someone if their only certainty is that they cannot live in this country with their loved ones. The Minister said that the threshold had been set at a suitable level, but it excludes almost half of the country from being able to be joined by their husband, wife or partner from overseas—in Northern Ireland, I think, it even excludes more than half, because of the different wage levels.
The so-called “exceptional circumstances” route just does not work; that was the bare minimum that the Home Office had to put in place because of a Supreme Court challenge about how awful these rules were. In terms of public confidence, I think that the more members of the public find out about these rules, the more they will be horrified at how the UK Government treat UK citizens.
These are miserable rules. I hope people will go away and think again, even if they do not want to go back wholesale to the position as it was before 2012. We cannot let this continue—more than that, we cannot let it escalate. Tens of thousands of families are already impacted, and in the next decade there will be tens of thousands more. They will all come to our surgeries. The Government have been warned. But I will keep that point for Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision enabling UK citizens falling within the personal scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement or the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement to return to the UK accompanied by, or to be joined in the UK by, close family members with whom they lived while residing in the EEA or Switzerland.
(12) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as at the date of this Act coming into force.
(13) References in subsection (11) to the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This amendment would mean UK citizens who had been living in the EEA or Switzerland but wish to return to the UK, could continue to be accompanied or joined in the UK by close family members who would otherwise lose their rights (under the Surinder Singh route) because of this Act.
I am being kept busy this afternoon. I am pleased to move amendment 14. Once again, it is all about family. We are talking about what became known as the Surinder Singh route, because of a judgment of the European Court of Justice. I talked in my previous contribution about the unfairness of separation that immigration rules can cause; in the case of the Surinder Singh families, that is coupled with a real sense of unfairness and the loss of a legitimate expectation.
We are talking about UK citizens who have gone to live somewhere in the EEA at a time when the rules were quite clear that the UK was part of the European Union, so there would never be any conceivable difficulty about being able to return to this country with family that they may have settled down with in another EU country.
To my mind, we should say that they had a legitimate expectation when they left that they would be able to return to this country at the appropriate moment with their EU family members. The problem now arises that if they return after the transition period that the Government have put in place—it is better than nothing; that is absolutely true—they will face the £18,600 threshold, which I previously alluded to.
There are folk over there with huge dilemmas to address. The briefing we have had from British in Europe sets out a very typical example. Sarah is a 48-year-old British national living in Germany with her 52-year-old German husband and children. She is the only child of an elderly mother in the UK. Career and schooling reasons mean that she cannot realistically return to the UK by March 2022. What happens if Sarah’s mother becomes so frail or ill that she needs the care of her daughter in five years’ time? Sarah will have a huge decision to make: either to uproot her family at a hugely disruptive and inconvenient time, to come back to look after her mother, or to leave her family behind and come back to look after her mother. Alternatively, she will just have to hope that her mother is able to cope.
Sarah was not negligent in going abroad without taking this future prospect into account when she made the decision to travel and live in Germany, because it just did not arise. We were part of the EU and free movement was always going to be there.
I am grateful for and welcome the fact that the Government have reviewed the immediate cut-off, but 2022 does not give enough time. Why do we not have an open-ended cut-off for the people from this country who have made their lives in other parts of the European Union or the EEA, and let them return here under the regime that was in place when they left? That is the purpose of amendment 14, and I hope it will have a sympathetic hearing.
Holly Lynch
Once again, we are very sympathetic to the amendment. As we have already heard, it is not dissimilar to amendment 1, and it would offer reassurance to the 1.2 million British nationals who live in EU countries. Failure to implement measures such as those proposed in the amendment would show the Government’s indifference to British citizens who decided to make their homes and lives in Europe and, as in the example we have just heard, could force people to choose between loved ones there and loved ones here.
The example provided by British in Europe paints a picture of something that is affecting thousands of people and has the potential to affect thousands more in future, as family members age and their circumstances change. The amendment characterises the significance of forming laws and policies; what is discussed and decided on in this building has far-reaching implications and consequences affecting vast swathes of people in their day-to-day lives.
Until March 2022, any citizen going to live in an EU 27 country did so with the security of knowing that if they were to form a relationship and/or have a family, they would have the right to return to the UK with their partner and family, with no or very few conditions attached. That was the point I made to the Minister in challenging and seeking further clarification on some of his points about differences being potentially discriminatory against returning UK citizens and spouses from other parts of the world, not just EEA countries.
As I am sure we can all appreciate, families and relationships can be complex. The provisions afforded to British citizens through freedom of movement would allow any citizen to return to the UK with their partner and family if a situation arose where they needed to do so, potentially at quite short notice. If the UK citizen returned to be either employed or self-employed, there would be no conditions on their return; if they returned to be a student or to be non-economically active, they would have to have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the UK, and have comprehensive health insurance.
In comparison, under the proposed new immigration rules, spouses and partners who wish to enter the UK with their British partner will have to meet the minimum income requirement of £18,600, and the figure is increased if the family have children. That is a wholly restrictive requirement that will severely deter families from returning and coming to the UK. In some cases, it may stop British citizens returning to the UK altogether.
As highlighted in evidence by Jeremy Morgan, the right of citizens to return with their families to their country of origin was deemed outside the scope of the UK-EU withdrawal negotiations, resulting in a serious inequality between UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. Bizarrely, the UK Government are discriminating against their own citizens in this instance, since nationals continue to enjoy their right to return to their countries of origin with their non-EU family members.
Furthermore, EU citizens resident in the UK and covered by the withdrawal agreement also have an unconditional lifelong right to bring in family members, including non-EU members, to the UK, provided that the relationship existed before the end of the transition period. The amendment tabled would address that discrepancy.
The coronavirus pandemic has only heightened the need for the Government to carry out their basic duty to support UK citizens living abroad. What if the pandemic had occurred after 29 March 2022? As countries began lockdown, British citizens in Europe would have been faced with the unenviable choice of remaining or hastily returning to the UK. The minimum income requirement would have meant that many British citizens and their families would have been simply unable to return, despite both global and personal crises.
Kevin Foster
I again thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and his colleagues for tabling amendment 14 and allowing us to have this discussion. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the amendment would require the Government to include in regulations, made in consequence of this Bill ending EU free movement law, lifetime rights for UK nationals to bring their close family members to the UK on EU free movement terms, where the UK national was resident in the EEA or Switzerland in accordance with EU law by the end of the transition period at the end of this year. Those family members would thereby continue indefinitely to bypass the immigration rules that otherwise apply to family members of UK nationals.
I will set out the Government’s policy for this cohort of family members before I explain our reasons for rejecting the amendment. In certain circumstances, family members of UK nationals who have resided together in the EEA or Switzerland are able to come to the UK under EU free movement law. That applies where a UK national has exercised free movement rights in the host state—as a worker or self-employed person, for example—for more than three months. That is sometimes referred to as the “Surinder Singh route”, after the relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Surinder Singh family members are not protected by the withdrawal agreement, as was said. None the less, as a matter of domestic policy, the Government decided that UK nationals resident in the European Economic Area or Switzerland under EU free movement law until the end of the transition period, which is the end of this year, will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child or dependent partner—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 unless the child was born or adopted after that date, and it must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK, for obvious reasons.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I will have to go and look at the drafting of my amendment. While it may not be technically correct, I absolutely stand by the principle of what it is trying to achieve.
The Minister and the Department have listened to UK nationals living in Europe and the EEA, which is why they put in place the transition period and the cut-off point of March 2022. However, I listen to those very same people, who say to me that that will leave an awful lot of them with a huge dilemma. I just do not understand why the UK Government insist that it has to happen like that. There is no need for a balance to be struck or for any cut-off point.
This is not, as the Minister expressed, a question of people bypassing domestic immigration rules. The aim of the amendment is to help people who moved abroad and formed family relationships in good faith at a time when there was no prospect of their right to return to this country with a family being impeded; they could have done so at that time, on the basis of free movement rules. With your leave, Mr Stringer, I will withdraw the amendment. In the meantime, I will go away and work on it, but I stand by the principle and intention behind it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(11) Subject to subsection (13), regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for ensuring that all qualifying persons have within the United Kingdom the rights set out in Title II of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and implementing the following provisions—
(a) Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (Issuance of residence documents);
(b) Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (Issuance of residence documents); and
(c) Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (Issuance of residence documents).
(12) In this section, “qualifying persons” means—
(a) those persons falling within the scope of the agreements referred to; and
(b) those eligible under the residence scheme immigration rules, as defined by section 17(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
(13) Notwithstanding subsection (11), regulations must confer a right of permanent, rather than temporary, residence on all qualifying persons residing in the UK prior to 5 March 2020.”.
This amendment would mean that EEA and Swiss citizens residing in the UK would automatically have rights under Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (and equivalent provisions in the EEA EFTA and Swiss citizens rights agreements) rather than having to apply for them, and ensure that for the overwhelming majority, that status is permanent.
I feel a little like somebody who has been banging his head against a brick wall, and I am sure other hon. Members feel the same. This is a return to the debate about whether the European Union settlement scheme should be a constitutive or a declaratory scheme. That sounds quite technical, but it is not really. The Government say, “We’ll give you a right to remain, and you can retain your rights, if you apply.” That will inevitably mean a—hopefully small—percentage missing out and losing their rights in this country. Scottish National party Members say we should put it into the Bill that EU and EEA nationals automatically have these rights. Doing so would fulfil a promise made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the referendum campaign, when they said quite expressly that everybody would retain their right to be in this country, and that there would be no need for any application at all.
Before we go too far into the debate, I want to say that Ministers quite often stand up and tell us about the success, and fairly so, of the settlement scheme so far. Opposition MPs obviously asked questions, such as about why it was not working on the Apple iPhone or whatever else, how the numbers were progressing or why so many people were given pre-settled status. However, I am happy to say, as I have many times before, that it has exceeded my expectations. The Home Office has reached more EU and EEA nationals than I anticipated. It does not have a wonderful record with IT over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, but on this occasion it has done a decent job.
However, the fact remains that—with the best will in the world, even if the Home Office gets to 95% of its target crowd—that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people who will fail to apply in time. I have asked repeatedly what estimate the Home Office has made of how close to 100% it will get, and what the implications of that are, in terms of dealing with the 100,000 folk who will overnight be without rights this time next year. We really need to get to the nub of this.
Other amendments offer alternatives, exploring different cut-off points and different solutions as to how to treat applicants who come to the Home Office after the cut-off date, but we still insist that the much simpler solution would be to say, in this or another Bill, that if someone meets the criteria, they retain their rights, even if they do not apply.
The Home Office seems to suggest that folk will not apply. In fact, during an evidence session on Tuesday, the Minister asked a question on how looked-after children would prove that they had rights. It is simple: they would apply to the EU settlement scheme. We are not saying, “Just ditch all the work that has gone on for the past 18 months to two years.” We are saying, “Keep that work, but make it so that it is not the digital whatever you get that gives you the rights, but that the rights come from the legislation, and you get that document”—if we have our way—“or a digital code to prove your rights.”
Probably the best way to explain this would be with reference to British citizenship, which is the most obvious example I can call to mind of another declaratory system. No one in this room gets their rights as a British citizen from their passport or from any other document; we have our rights to British citizenship declared in law, in the British Nationality Act 1981. It does not cause us difficulties if for the first few years of our lives we do not have proof of that; indeed, if we do not go abroad on holiday, we can actually go through until we are perhaps 14, 15 or even 18 years old without having to access that proof. That is not a problem.
That works perfectly well for British citizenship—it becomes convenient for lots of people, at a certain time, to get a passport or wherever else to prove that they can exercise their rights—and it would be exactly the same with the EU settlement scheme. All these people will want to work or to access social security or housing, if they are subject to the right-to-rent scheme, so they will still have every incentive to apply to the EU settlement scheme. The amendment would just mean that if, for whatever reason, they did not apply, their rights were protected.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether perhaps one reason some people, particularly in Scotland, would not apply for the scheme is because, despite his having praised it today and said it has exceeded his expectations, SNP politicians in Scotland have encouraged people not to apply? I raised this issue when he and I were members of the Home Affairs Committee. The messaging that comes out should be far clearer. Does he accept that, whether or not he agrees with the scheme, the advice not to apply that some SNP politicians are giving is unhelpful?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have had that intervention before, and I think I answered it. There is one individual who would be expected to apply to the scheme but at some point in the past—I am not sure what his current position is—he said that as a point of principle he does not want to apply. I have said previously that I do not agree with him, but the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly accuse the Scottish Government or the SNP of not being clear about the messaging—they have invested considerable sums of their own money in outreach and in attempting to get as many folk as possible to sign up to the scheme. For that reason, I do not accept the premise. I disagree with that one colleague, but I absolutely reject the premise that we have been anything other than clear in encouraging people to sign up.
The reasons folk will not sign up are not related to the position of an individual politician. Folk will not sign up because they are vulnerable, as we have spoken about—care leavers; children; elderly people who perhaps were settled and had permanent residence under the old EU scheme; and people who quite simply just do not understand that they have to do it.
There are really complicated questions involved. For example, lots of folk will think, “Well, I was born in the United Kingdom, so I am British,” but in actual fact whether or not they are British depends on a million different things. It depends on the marital status of their parents, depending on when they were born. It depends on their date of birth. It might even depend on when a particular country joined the EU, as that can have an impact on the conferring of nationality. There are millions of different issues.
It is beyond doubt that on 1 July next year we are going to wake up in a United Kingdom that has 100,000 people who do not have the right to be in this country. We have to be constructive and come up with a solution, but we do not yet have enough from the Government on what they want to do. We get told, “We’ll be reasonable,” but that really does not cut. We need to do better than that, which is why we have tabled other amendments to push the Government to be much more explicit about how they are going to treat folk who apply after the deadline, for whatever reason.
The simple point, which is consistent with all the work that has gone before and does not undermine it in any way, is to turn around now and say, “Right, we are doing well, but we are just going to say that everybody has these rights. Continue to apply so that you can go about living your lives without being refused renting or a job or whatever else, but you have these rights.” It is a simple matter and would avoid a tremendous headache that would make Windrush look almost insignificant. That was cataclysmic; this situation risks being considerably worse.
Holly Lynch
Yet again, I rise to echo a great deal of what has already been said by the SNP spokesperson. The Opposition have spoken consistently in favour of a declaratory approach, and the Home Affairs Committee has also tabled an amendment outlining its preference for that approach, so, while we have sought to deal with the scheme in front of us by way of our amendments and new clauses, should he push amendment 16 to a vote, he would certainly have our support.
In our 2019 manifesto, we committed ourselves to ending the uncertainty created by the EU settlement scheme by granting EU nationals the automatic right to continue living and working in the UK. This new declaratory system would allow EU nationals the chance to register for proof of status if they wished, but they would no longer have to apply to continue living and working in this country. This would help to secure reciprocal treatment for UK citizens living in the EU, prevent a repeat of the shameful Windrush scandal and avoid unnecessarily criminalising hundreds of thousands of EU nationals.
Kevin Foster
This has been a useful debate. As has been pointed out, amendment 16 would require the Government to establish a declaratory system for those eligible for residence rights under the withdrawal agreement or the immigration rules for the EU settlement scheme. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who speaks for the SNP. It is a familiar argument we have been having over the last couple of years, and I suspect we will continue having it over the next year or two.
As the hon. Member alluded, EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by the end of transition period and their family members can secure their rights here through the EU settlement scheme and through applications that are free of charge to make. So far, more than 3.5 million applications have been received and more than 3.2 million concluded, despite the efforts of one or two people to encourage people not to take part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray highlighted. This is with still more than a year to go before the deadline for applications on 30 June 2021 for those resident here by the end of the transition period on 31 December.
It is worth pointing out that the UK’s immigration system has long been predicated on individuals applying to the Home Office to be granted leave to enter or remain, under what we call a constitutive system. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the constitutive system, introduced through the EU settlement scheme, is the best approach to implementing the citizens’ rights elements of the withdrawal agreements. It provides EEA citizens and their family members with clarity about what they need to apply for and by when, and with the secure evidence of their status that they need.
A requirement to apply for individual status by a deadline provides a clear incentive for EEA citizens living here to secure their status in UK law and obtain evidence of this, whereas a declaratory system, under which individuals acquire an immigration status under an Act of Parliament, would significantly reduce the incentive to obtain and record evidence of status. Indeed, the amendment does not include any requirement to do that, so in decades to come it could result in some of the issues we saw in the Windrush scandal: people with a status that has been granted, but for which there is no clear or recorded evidence.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to take on board what the Minister says and redraft the amendment to include, for example, a £50 fine if somebody does not have a document proving their settled status. That would be much less serious than leaving them without any right to be in this country at all. Would he consider a declaratory system on that basis?
Kevin Foster
Well, I do not think I would. Like I said, we would be reasonable in accepting late applications—for example, if somebody did not have EU settled status because they were a child in care or mentally incapable at the time when they should have applied. I suspect that when we publish the guidance those two situations will be among the list of reasonable reasons for late applications. It would be rather odd, however, to then issue them with a £50 fine. We think it right that at some point a line be drawn, although we would be reasonable in respect of the circumstances of a late application. Certainly, in the early stages after the deadline, it is likely that the bar to cross will be fairly low, in terms of what is a reasonable reason for not having made the deadline.
As was touched on, we are up to more than 3.5 million applications already. It has been a very successful scheme. It is slightly ironic that the organisation representing EU citizens in the UK calls itself the3million, because the Home Office has already found 3.5 million and there is still a good stream of applications coming in every day, as there has been throughout the recent period. The Government are confident that we have already found many more than 3 million, and all of them are our friends and neighbours. We want them to stay, and we welcome the fact that they have taken the opportunity to apply to the European settlement scheme to guarantee their rights.
The Government are adamant that we must avoid a situation where, years down the line, EEA citizens who have built their lives here find themselves struggling to prove their rights and entitlements in the UK. That is why we have set up this system. I fundamentally believe that changing a system that is working well would have the opposite effect to that which the amendment is intended to achieve. It would reduce the certainty of a grant of status under the EU settlement scheme, which has already been given to more than 3 million EEA citizens and their family members.
The amendment provides that a right of permanent residence would be automatically acquired by EEA citizens resident here before 5 March 2020—when the Bill was introduced—regardless of how long they had been continuously resident in the UK. I do not wish to speculate about why the amendment is designed to exclude people who arrived on 6 March, or about why the Bill being introduced is a more significant moment than the end of the transition period or the day that Britain left the European Union. The general requirement under the EU settlement scheme to have been continuously resident here for five years before becoming eligible for a right of permanent residence—settled status—reflects the rights under the free movement directive, which are protected by the withdrawal agreement. To reassure hon. Members that we are talking to people who work with the EUSS, there will be efforts put in place, using the contact details provided to the EUSS, to prompt people should they be approaching the five-year period.
It is right that someone should demonstrate sufficiently long residence in the UK, in line with our current EU law rights, before being eligible for all the benefits and entitlements that settled status brings, including access to those provided by public funds. The amendment would mean that any length of residence in the UK prior to 5 March 2020, however short, would be sufficient. I do not believe that is the right approach. It is a rather strange date to choose, even though it is the introduction. Why would that be logical? It is worth explaining why someone was not covered on 6 March but was covered on 5 March. I therefore suggest to the Committee that we should not accept the amendment; we should stick with a system that is working and doing a great a job at getting those who are our friends and neighbours the status they need for the long term and the surety that brings. I therefore suggest that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The amendment would not negate the good work that has happened in managing to process applications from EU nationals and provide them with digital proof of their status; it would build on it.
The Minister always insists that such a system would give people less of an incentive to apply, but that is just not the case. We would not say to anyone who was a victim of the Windrush fiasco that they did not have an incentive to apply for documentary proof. In fact, all the Windrush citizens had the right to be in this county, but that was not enough. They had to get documents, and the result of not being able to access documents was that they went through absolute hell. That is a lesson that we must learn. If we make the system declaratory, people will still apply because they need digital proof of their status to access work, social security, education and whatever else.
I do not accept the Minister’s explanation of why we retain the constitutive system. If he wants to talk about incentives, there is a big problem for anyone who misses the deadline of 30 June 2021. When they find out that they have missed it, they suddenly think, “I thought I was British, but I am not. I thought I had rights here because I had status under the old EU system, but it turns out I don’t.” Those hundreds of thousands of people will be absolutely petrified of applying to the Home Office because they have no assurance that they will be granted status here. There are vague words about being reasonable, but that did not really cut it for the Windrush generation, and this is a much bigger problem. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 11th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 June 2020 - (11 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch your electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, although I might turn a Nelsonian blind eye if I see any. I remind Members about the importance of social distancing—as if you did not know already. The main body of the Committee Room has capacity for a maximum of 11 Members. If more than 11 Members are present, the remainder will have to sit in the Public Gallery, which I am pleased to see some Members are doing already. I will suspend the sitting if I think anyone is in breach of social distancing guidelines. The Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members emailed copies of their notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules, following the debates on the relevant amendments. Obviously, if we spend a long time on the amendments, we cover all the ground and so it may not be necessary to have a stand part debate, but I will take advice from the Opposition on that. I am anxious to be helpful to them and to the Government. I hope this explanation is helpful.
I have talked to Graham Stringer, my fellow Chair, about one further point. The Bill is very important but quite narrowly focused. Therefore, I do not really want to have long speeches about how terrible it is to leave the European Union or how wonderful is that we are leaving the European Union. We will just leave that on one side. We are going to focus on the amendments that we have in front of us. Generally, if you focus on the amendments, and if speeches are not discursive, the Committee can hold the Government to account in a better way. I hope you do not mind me saying that, but I had a word with Graham Stringer and we agreed that we should make that clear.
Clause 1
Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I will take on board the comments you have just made. If you will permit me, I would like to make a few introductory remarks—at the start of Committee proceedings and before we begin to debate the detail—on the purpose of the clauses.
The Bill delivers the ending of free movement of people and lays the foundations for introducing a fairer, firmer skills-led immigration system. The coronavirus pandemic is the biggest crisis we have faced in our lifetime. We need people, regardless of nationality, to continue coming together, using their skills and expertise to support the United Kingdom’s recovery.
As you will know, Sir Edward, legislating is not an academic exercise; there must be a point to it. The point is that we will introduce a new system by ending preferential treatment for EEA citizens. That will mean a system that prioritises the skills people have to offer and how they will contribute to the United Kingdom, not where their passport comes from.
The Government recognise the tremendous contribution people are making to keep vital services running during this incredibly difficult time and the dedication shown by millions demonstrates to employers the skills and work ethic we have here. Colleagues may well recall that this Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament. There have been no substantial changes to the content since it was previously considered. The only changes made are minor drafting clarifications in places and updates to the list of retained EU law to be repealed.
We remain committed to delivering a points-based immigration system that benefits the whole UK from January 2021. We will open key routes from autumn 2020, so people can start to apply ahead of the system taking effect on 1 January 2021. I want to clarify that the details of the future system will be set out in the immigration rules and not in the Bill, as is the case now for the non-EEA immigration system and has always been the case under previous Governments. The rules will be laid before Parliament later this year.
Turning specifically to clause 1, this introduces the first schedule to the Bill, which contains a list of measures to be repealed in relation to the end of free movement and related issues. The clause fulfils a purely mechanistic function to introduce the schedule.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, as we start line-by-line scrutiny of this particularly important legislation in these highly unusual times.
I thank the Minister for his opening speech on clause 1 and schedule 1. Early in proceedings, I want to put on the record my thanks to the Clerk of the Bill Committee. He has been absolutely invaluable to all Committee members with assistance on the amendments and new clauses before us.
I also want to put on the record—I am sure that the Minister will join me, in the spirit of some early unity, as might you, Sir Edward—an expression of our disappointment about the audio arrangements for Tuesday’s evidence session. The poor sound quality was problematic not only on the day, as on occasion exchanges between Members and witnesses were seriously restricted, but for Hansard during the afternoon sitting. Colleagues worked incredibly hard to make that Hansard report available, but, unfortunately, it was not published until after 11 o’clock last night. That made preparations for today’s line-by-line scrutiny based on that evidence incredibly difficult.
That said, I turn to clause 1 and schedule 1. As the Minister is aware, we voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and the clause is the Bill in a nutshell. We will go on to discuss in great detail the various clauses and to outline our reservations at the different stages, but, ultimately, we fear that the Bill—right now, and in this form—holds none of the answers to the problems facing the country and actually stands to exacerbate them.
It is not difficult to see how implementation of the Bill could have severe consequences for the health and social care sector, a point made by several of the witnesses on Tuesday. The sector will require special consideration. The policy statement published in February on what comes after clause 1 specifically comes into effect simply saying to those earning less than £25,600:
“We will…end free movement and not implement a route for lower-skilled workers.”
Many of the people on the frontline fighting the coronavirus earn less than that. We need them now, and we need them to recover. The policy paper and the Minister state that they are looking to the domestic workforce to plug those gaps, but on Tuesday we heard from the Migration Advisory Committee—we can all see and feel this—that systemic failures underpin the problems in social care, and those will not be resolved by January. If we put a hard stop on free movement without having resolved some of those issues, there will be consequences when the country can least afford that.
Concerns about the clause fall into two distinct groups: ensuring that we have done the right thing by the some 3.5 million EU citizens who are already here under free movement rules when those come to an end, and certain groups in particular, and looking ahead to the future impact of restricted migration flows. Since the Bill’s predecessor was presented to the House in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament, the EU settlement scheme has come into effect to give European citizens who reside in the UK a pre-settled and a settled status.
The numbers coming through the scheme are positive, but there are concerns about certain groups, some with specific vulnerabilities. Eligible children in care, for example, are one cohort that we will return to under the new clauses. The impact of coronavirus on Home Office capabilities alone, in addition to its impact on applicants, inevitably has heightened our concerns that some groups will need more support than ever to access the scheme.
Turning to the impact that ending free movement will have on migration flows in key sectors, the Bill provides more questions than answers. It is incredibly narrow in scope, as we have discussed, which is extraordinary given that it will create the biggest change to our immigration system in decades. Instead of putting forward a new immigration system, which Parliament could discuss, debate, amend and improve, the Bill grants powers to Ministers to introduce whatever system they like with extensive Henry VIII powers.
The Government’s February 2020 policy statement indicated what such a system might be like. Properly debating most of that new system will be deemed out of scope for this Bill and this Committee, but we will do what we can within scope to set out principles and solutions for when clause 1 comes into effect.
A number of the witnesses on Tuesday were critical of the Government’s planned £25,600 threshold—not just on health and social care—and transitioning on to a visa system and sponsorship routes will cause headaches and shortages for a range of businesses, exacerbating economic uncertainty. For example, the Bill fails to address the UK’s need for migrant workers to allow the agriculture sector simply to function, which is another issue that we will explore when we debate the new clauses.
To be clear, Labour has no problem with an immigration system that treats all migrants the same, no matter where they come from, but that is not the system the Government propose. A points-based immigration system could be effective. However, it would be predicated on receptive analysis of occupation shortages, parallel education and skills strategies that seek to fill long-term job gaps with domestic talent, and a pragmatic yet empathetic Border Force. The Bill fails to do any of that, and we will seek to remedy this, within the bounds of its scope, through our amendments and new clauses.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, albeit at a longer distance than we are accustomed to. I thank the Clerks for dealing with what were probably some horrendously drafted amendments by the bucketful during the last couple of weeks.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in our detailed line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. It will be with a sense of déjà vu that I am sure the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also feels, having sat in the same Public Bill Committee this time last year. The real shame is that, this time last year, nobody listened to a thing that we said, and this Bill is in the same form as it was back then. Looking around the room, however, I see a much more discerning Committee this year, so I am filled with optimism that we may indeed be able to deliver some change.
We have serious concerns; we do not just make things up. As Opposition MPs, we have lots of concerns that stakeholders have raised with us. My preliminary point is that the two previous Immigration Acts that passed all the way through Parliament, in 2014 and 2016, contributed in a very serious and significant way to the Windrush scandal. In her review of what happened, Wendy Williams highlighted all the warnings that came from the same stakeholders about the problems that those Bills would cause. Indeed, she quoted from some of the contributions made by Opposition Members during the passage of the Bills. Hon. Members might not agree with everything we say, but sometimes we are worth listening to, even if we do not manage to achieve change in this Committee. I plead with the Home Office and members of the Committee to engage seriously with the concerns that we are flagging up.
At the weekend, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), wrote that
“the Home Office has yet to implement the process of root and branch cultural change necessary in the aftermath of Windrush.”
I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we receive some signals that the cultural approach of the Home Office, and its attitude to listening, is changing.
Clause 1 is the Bill in microcosm. I will not repeat my entire stage 2 speech, which I am sure hon. Members followed very closely indeed, but I take your advice on scope, Sir Edward. I am sad to say again that the SNP totally opposes clause 1, because it brings to an end what we regard as a valuable, simple and well-functioning immigration system of free movement. As a result, it extends what is a complex, expensive and unjust domestic system to EEA nationals. That is bad for the individuals caught up in it, who will face prohibitive fees, complicated procedures, broken families and diminished rights, but it is also bad for the economy. I do not think that any hon. Member present who paid attention to the evidence that we heard on Tuesday can remain 100% enthusiastic about the Government’s proposals for the immigration system come January. It will be an abject nightmare for many industries that have already been totally decimated by the coronavirus shutdown. We did not even hear from the tourism and hospitality industries, which are at the forefront of facing the challenges.
Clause 1 is also bad for Scotland—for our population growth, demographics, economy and tax base. If the task had been to design an immigration system for Scotland alone, nobody in their right mind would have come up with this one. The same is true—probably even truer—of Northern Ireland, with its land border with a country where free movement will continue. We will explore all these issues as we go through the Bill in more detail and discuss the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled. From my point of view, there is nothing much to celebrate and lots to regret about clause 1, and indeed schedule 1, and we oppose them both.
Kevin Foster
I will reply briefly. I recognise the position of the Scottish National party on the Bill and on these particular proposals. There is a fundamental difference, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is always worth listening to, even when we disagree. He laments the absence of the tourism and hospitality industries on Tuesday. Regardless of our views on the Bill, we all look forward to an era when those industries will be able to think about recruiting again, rather than being in the position that we expect them to be in of significant job losses, including in my constituency, over the coming weeks and months, given the impact of recent weeks.
To turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Halifax, I was listening on Tuesday to the evidence from Professor Brian Bell, interim chair of the MAC, particularly on social care, and I cannot remember him saying that a general route for employers in the social care sector to recruit abroad at or near the minimum wage would be good news for the social care sector. In fact, I think he said precisely the opposite. To be clear, the general salary threshold is being reduced to £25,600, but where an occupation is deemed to be in shortage, it will be subject to a lower salary level of £20,480 a year.
It is also worth pointing out that for more than 20 categories of healthcare professional and allied healthcare professional, their eligibility will be based on the national salary scales paid in the NHS, rather than the general salary scales set out in the wider immigration rules. That is linked to the creation of what we are looking at as a healthcare visa to give fast-track access and reduced fees to people under that scheme. It is important that we keep placing those facts on the record so that people are aware of them, given some of the not very well informed commentary we have seen in the media, such as the claim that nurses will not be eligible, when in fact they will be fast-tracked and prioritised under our system.
Holly Lynch
I am concerned that the Minister has put words in my mouth in relation to what the MAC said about social care. What we did hear loud and clear from a number of witnesses, however, was that there is no plan to address workforce issues in social care when free movement ends. Is he minded to have specific remedies for social care in his future plans, before we end free movement?
Kevin Foster
Again, if people think, from what we have seen in the last few weeks, that the remedy for social care is to recruit more people at or near to the minimum wage from abroad, that is an odd conclusion to draw.
Kevin Foster
We will certainly talk to the Employment Minister. Again, I am conscious of the scope of the Bill and not going off more widely into our labour market strategies.
One conversation I recently had with the Employment Minister was about how, sadly, a lot of people in my constituency, and I am sure in the hon. Lady’s constituency as well, need to find new employment opportunities. Social care, and the healthcare sector more widely, will be part of providing some of those opportunities, not just through entry level jobs, but by ensuring that education, colleges and others are training people towards skilled jobs and providing real career progression.
For me, that is the solution for social care, rather than looking to the migration system as the overall labour market solution. I am sure we all share the sentiment, whatever any of us thinks of ending free movement, that the sector needs to be more invested in and more valued, and that there need to be clearer paths of career progression that people can see when they are deciding what they want to do for a job and a career.
I am conscious, Sir Edward, of what you said about the scope of the Bill. We could have an interesting discussion about the overall labour market strategy, but for now, this is a focused debate about why clause 1 is important and delivers the core of what the Bill is about.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph 4(2).
I am moving this amendment because, as we heard on Tuesday from Adrian Berry, the drafting of paragraph 4(2) —there are similar paragraphs in schedule 1—is far from satisfactory.
In tabling this amendment, we are asking the Minister, how is it that this paragraph is supposed to work? Why must we leave it to ordinary citizens to work out whether they still have certain rights by checking back whether these provisions are inconsistent with or could impact on the interpretation of decades of immigration laws, both Immigration Acts and legislation made under them? Why has the Bill not done that job for them? As Mr Berry said, the Home Office must know how these rights interplay with earlier provisions of immigration legislation. Why is that not set out in the Bill?
As we just heard, schedule 1 does the heavy lifting of repealing large parts of retained law in relation to free movement of people. Over three parts, schedule 1 lists, in considerable detail, the various bits of primary and secondary legislation of retained EU law that are to be omitted and revoked.
For large parts, the schedule is pretty clear. For example, it says:
“Article 1 of the Workers Regulation is omitted.”
I do not like that, but I cannot complain that it is lacking in clarity. As Adrian Berry pointed out, however, elsewhere the drafting lets people down. Even with the help of immigration lawyers like Mr Berry, it will be incredibly difficult for people to know whether other rights that they have under the workers regulation are still effectively in force.
Other articles in the workers regulation are important. These are not trivial matters. They include, for example, the right to equal treatment in various spheres, such as education, employment rights and family rights. It will be important for folk to know, in a straightforward manner, whether they still enjoy these rights, but schedule 1 totally fudges this question.
The offending paragraph states that these provisions
“cease to apply so far as—
(a) they are inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts (including, and as amended by, this Act), or
(b) they are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
I find that very difficult to understand, as a parliamentarian and somebody who many years ago was an immigration lawyer.
For example, is a protection offered against discrimination on vocational grounds in paragraph 6, contrary to the Immigration Acts or any provision made under them? The Immigration Acts are a specific list of provisions. Again, as Mr Berry pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to think that the Home Office knew exactly which workers regulation articles were not impacted at all and which were, and to what extent.
That should be in the Bill, so that folk know where they stand. It is as simple as that. Otherwise, the consequence would be endless confusion and litigation. The query and question for the Minister is, why is the Bill still drafted in this way?
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, does anybody else wish to speak? In that case, over to you, Minister.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Sir Edward. I just thought I would be courteous, in case there was another hon. Member who wished to speak.
Amendment 18, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and his colleagues, would remove paragraph 4(2) from schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies provisions of the workers regulation, which conflict with domestic immigration law. This would mean that the UK remained bound by EU law in relation to the rights of EEA citizens to access the UK’s job market, which might in part be the hon. Gentleman’s intention, given his well-known view on that subject.
The Government, therefore, cannot support this amendment, because it would effectively result in free movement rights for workers and their families continuing after the end of the transition period. The Government are committed to ending the free movement of people now that we have left the EU, so therefore this proposal is incompatible with that. The Government are committed to ending the free movement of people now that we have left the EU, so therefore this would be incompatible with that.
We have made it clear that we will bring free movement to an end on 1 January, and introduce an effective and fairer points-based immigration system that takes into account the needs of the whole of our United Kingdom and works for the whole of our United Kingdom. It will be a system that reflects the skills and contributions that someone has to offer, not where the person comes from.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is right that I would love to see all these rights retained, but that is not the motivation behind this amendment. I accept that the Government want to go about repealing some rights, but the Bill does not really do that. It says, in a peculiar way, that the rights are “sort of repealed” and one has to check back through immigration legislation for decades to work out to what extent. Why has it been done in this way rather than setting out specifically which rights are retained and which are not?
Kevin Foster
The answer is partly that it is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list of directly affected law in terms of the EU because court judgments will affect that. One reason for the wording is to make it clear that it relates to the Immigration Act 1971 and does not create a wider enabling power around the workers regulation. I am also clear that those who are subject to the withdrawal agreement are covered by those provisions.
During the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 we discussed in great detail the provisions for protecting the rights of EEA citizens resident in the UK by the end of the transition period, which is 31 December this year. The EU settlement scheme, which was fully opened on 13 March 2019, was specifically introduced for this purpose. One of the rights protected by the status granted under the scheme is equality of access to employment, benefits and services, in the manner outlined by the workers regulation.
Retaining sub-paragraph (4)(2) of schedule 1 will in no way compromise our commitments to upholding the rights of resident EEA citizens already working in the United Kingdom. It will simply ensure other provisions of the workers regulation, which are not specific to immigration, do not have ongoing effects on UK immigration law, but continue to have their effects for other purposes, hence the wording of the sub-section. Otherwise the UK would be required, for example, to provide all EEA citizens with an offer of employment as though they were British citizens, meaning they could not be subjected to any restrictions on access in the UK labour market, directly undermining the new points-based immigration system, which will not provide preferential treatment for EEA citizens.
The changes made by sub-paragraph (4)(2) only relate to immigration aspects of the workers regulation and will not affect any other rights provided by that regulation. For example, the right to equal treatment in respect of positions of employment and work, and the right to join a trade union are unaffected by the provision, because this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle in which to consider them or to look for a power to alter or amend them.
It is less than six months since the British people voted to take back control of our borders and introduce a new points-based system to control immigration, which will deliver for the UK for years to come. This provision, ending the immigration rights provided by the workers regulation, is one the steps needed to pave the way for the new system. For those reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for his explanation. I absolutely understand what the Government are trying to achieve and that some of the rights in the workers directive have been put in legislation, including in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. However, that is not the point that this amendment is trying to make. The point is about how the Bill is—or is not—going about repealing the workers directive.
It is essentially a point about the rule of law. When I intervened, the Minister said that it would not be possible to draw up an exhaustive list of exactly how these rights were affected by Immigration Acts and other provisions. If the Government cannot do that, how on earth is the ordinary citizen supposed to be able to tell what their rights are? I think we should take this paragraph out of the schedule and, if the Government are unhappy with the implications that has in leaving things on the statute book, they should come back on another occasion with a clear list and fix it that way. I would like to push the amendment to a division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I would like to ask the Minister some questions about paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which potentially disapplies any retained EU law relating to the immigration context. It is a similar set of questions to those we were discussing a moment ago in relation to amendment 18, but with a different focus. It arises from evidence that was given to us on Tuesday afternoon by Adrian Berry on behalf of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which I thank for its help in preparing for this Committee.
I apologise that it was not possible to get an amendment tabled on this paragraph. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax pointed out, we have been doing a number of things in relation to this Bill at a rush, and we did not have the transcript of Tuesday afternoon’s sitting until last night. I am very grateful to the Hansard writers for the work they have been doing—I know they have a lot of Bills on—but that has caused part of our problem.
My concern is that the breadth of the wording in paragraph 6 could lead to the repeal of legal protections that go far beyond the realm of free movement, which is the purpose of this Bill. I hope the Minister may be able to put some assurances on the record in relation to my concerns about the Government’s future intentions. As we heard a few moments ago, certain provisions of EU law, as retained EU law, have been brought within UK law by a number of different instruments—some EU law has been brought into domestic law through statutory instruments and so forth. They are saved by section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Direct EU legislation is saved as retained EU law by section 3 of the 2018 Act. It is explicitly defined and does not include treaties or directives; it is things such as EU regulations with direct applicability.
Any other powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that could be enforced in the UK because of EU law are carried over by section 4 of the 2018 Act. That includes things like treaties and directives that are directly effective. It is, however, important to note that section 4(2)(b) limits the enforceability of directives to the extent that retained EU law is only the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures arising under an EU directive that are of a kind that have been recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom in a case decided before the end of the transition period.
Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 disapplies those provisions of EU law to the extent that they are either inconsistent with or otherwise incapable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts, or otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration. The problem is that the carve-out basically all EU immigration law retained by virtue of paragraph 4, because
“capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”
could basically mean just about anything. The question I am asking the Minister is what EU law that paragraph applies to. What exactly are the Government trying to target?
We get some help from paragraphs 68 and 69 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which suggest the Government may be trying to affect what we have come to call derived rights cases, in the free movement context. For example, cases of so-called Zambrano carers. These are situations where the European Court has recognised that, because of rights within the European treaties available to European nationals, certain rights must be given to those nationals and their family members or carers in order to ensure that the European national can actually enjoy their EU rights. I accept that, if one is trying to get rid of free movement, as the Bill is, these categories would need to be removed from UK law. That is exactly what ending free movement means, but if that is the scope of the Government’s intentions, it should be much clearer in the Bill.
Unfortunately, paragraph 6 goes much wider than that, addressing not only provisions made under the Immigration Acts, as the Minister suggested a few moments ago, but any matter capable of being seen as in connection with immigration. That could include, for example, the anti-trafficking directive, which prohibits removal of a victim of trafficking if they never received sufficient support and assistance under article 11 of the directive. Other directives that could be caught under involving the exercise of functions in connection with immigration include the reception conditions directive, which supports asylum seekers, the EU victims’ rights directive, and potentially others.
One way of protecting all these directives would be simply to say that paragraph 6 of schedule 1 does not affect directives that form part of retained EU law. After all, the Government’s own explanatory notes do not identify any directives that they wish to disapply in the immigration context, even though I accept that the list in paragraph 69 is described as non-exhaustive. Alternatively, the Government could list the directives specifically to be protected, as set out in the explanatory notes, directly within schedule 1 of the Bill.
I have to say that if the Government do not follow either of those paths, vital protections for vulnerable people could be at risk of becoming collateral damage in the ending of free movement. I am absolutely not suggesting that the Government intend to remove those protections, but if they do not intend that, I hope the Minister can give us clear assurances to that effect today and explain why they appear to fall within the scope of the Bill as drafted.
As things stand, the breadth of the language in paragraphs 6 and a lack of sufficient objective parameters to ascertain its intended targets make it impossible to accurately predict which areas of retained EU law could be affected by the Bill. That is exactly the problem we were discussing a moment ago in relation to paragraph 4. It raises fundamental legal concerns. Migrants and their representatives, Home Office caseworkers and judges must be able to ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty what the law is. Indeed, that is one of the core lessons learned from the Windrush review carried out by Wendy Williams. I do not believe that this provision meets that standard.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech and her interest in this section of the Bill. To be clear, paragraph 6 disapplies the directly effective rights deriving from the EU law that will form part of retained EU law at the end of the transition period if they are inconsistent with immigration legislation or affect immigration practices. They are being repealed so that people cannot in the future attempt to rely on such directly effective rights to bypass the system to enter and reside in the UK, other than under the points-based system. We have been clear that provision will be made in the EU settlement scheme for those currently exercising their EU derivative right of residence in the UK, and that has now been provided, as I touched on.
Some people have asked for examples of rights that paragraph 6 would disapply. They include the rights of Turkish nationals to preferential immigration treatment under the European Economic Community-Turkey association agreement. They also include, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said, derivative rights of residents under EU law such as Zambrano carers, and the Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases, which will cease from the day that paragraph 6 comes into force. Those rights stem directly from the treaty on the functioning of the EU and need to be disapplied because otherwise people could continue to cite and rely on them to bypass the future immigration system.
The Government do not intend to use the provisions to avoid our responsibilities under international law. We are very clear that our system of protection routes will continue to operate separately from the system of migration rules, as they always have. Family migration will not form part of the points-based system; it will be based on the family migration rules. The wording has to be the way it is so that the paragraph is not too wide in scope. This is about citing it in relation to immigration—trying to cite an EU right to work in the UK rather than applying the provision in a situation where we would, for example, be breaching our international obligations. As I said during the evidence session on Tuesday, under statutory instruments and regulations, Ministers cannot act against international law. We could have a long constitutional debate about whether Parliament can still pass primary legislation in relation to international law, but that is probably not relevant to this particular schedule.
In essence, the schedule is about being clear that it will not be possible to use a range of rights to undermine the points-based immigration system that we are putting in place. We want to make it clear that EEA and non-EEA citizens should look to migrate under the points-based system.
Question put, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Kevin Foster
I do not expect this clause to be controversial, but given some of the evidence that we heard, it may be useful to set out one or two responses, especially the Government’s long-standing policy on deportation of Irish nationals. As Committee members will know, clause 2 protects the status of Irish citizens in the UK when free movement ends. British and Irish citizens have enjoyed a unique status and specific rights in each others’ countries since the 1920s as part of the common travel area arrangements.
Under clause 2, when free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK without permission or restrictions on how long they can stay. British citizens, as you are probably aware, Sir Edward, enjoy reciprocal rights in Ireland, again reflecting the unique historical position of the Republic of Ireland and the UK.
The clause provides legal certainty and clarity for Irish citizens by inserting a new section 3ZA into the Immigration Act 1971. New section 3ZA will ensure that Irish citizens can enter and remain in the UK without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from. This is already the position for those entering the UK from within the common travel area, but Irish citizens travelling to the UK from outside the common travel area currently enter under EEA regulations. This clause will remove that distinction by giving Irish citizens a clear status once free movement ends. While that may not have been impactive, it is there in a technical, legal sense, which is why this clause is necessary.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for a lot of the clarification in his opening remarks. We welcome clause 2, and its content is indeed necessary. We will, however, be asking for some further assurances through new clause 27, largely to reaffirm what the Minister has just said. That new clause asks the Secretary of State to
“publish a report detailing the associated rights of the Common Travel Area”.
We heard from both Alison Harvey and Professor Ryan that although clause 2 is welcome and offers a degree of clarity as free movement rights are stripped away from both Irish and British citizens, as well as those in Northern Ireland who identify as both, there are some outstanding areas that require further clarification, including the scope of reciprocal rights under the common travel agreement. Clause 2 shows that many of the rights granted to Irish citizens through the common travel area are facilitated through freedom of movement. If not in the present Bill, do the Government plan to legislate to enshrine the provisions of the common travel area as reciprocal rights, rather than purely as changeable administrative arrangements, and, if so, when?
As Professor Ryan highlighted on Tuesday, more must be done to clarify the status of acquisition of British nationality, for British-born children, children born to Irish parents and Irish citizens wanting to naturalise. At the moment it is incredibly hard to ascertain the exact immigration status of those individuals and to know, for example, whether they have time limits on their visas or have ever breached immigration laws. If the Government truly want to redefine the British immigration system, they must answer those questions to clear up the ambiguity surrounding British citizenship law.
I am sure that the Minister will understand some of the nervousness about deportations. He referred to it in his opening remarks on the clause. To give the Committee some context to work with, I asked Professor Ryan at column 35 in the evidence sitting on 9 June whether he was aware of examples in recent history when an Irish citizen had been deported, either because a court had recommended deportation on sentencing, or because a Secretary of State had concluded, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, that the public interest required deportation. If I am not mistaken, the Scottish National party spokesperson also put a similar question to Alison Harvey. No specific examples could be provided. If the Minister is aware of any, I should welcome it if he would share them with the Committee to support the discussion.
We still do not know the Government’s proposed threshold for deportation of Irish citizens. It would be helpful if that could be clarified. Ideally, the Government would enshrine that in legislation or at least make a commitment during the passage of the Bill to state explicitly how deportation and exclusion will be used for Irish citizens in future. Professor Ryan has said that owing to the arrangements in the common travel area the threshold for deportation and exclusion of Irish citizens is notionally higher than that of other nations. Seemingly, it is more rarely, if ever, exercised.
As I have mentioned, the Good Friday agreement allows people born in Northern Ireland the right to identify exclusively as Irish or British, or as both. Irish citizens are referred to in the Bill, so can we assume that that reference includes Northern Ireland-born citizens who do not identify as British? If so, will the Minister make it clear in the Bill that people in Northern Ireland who identify exclusively as Irish, per the Good Friday agreement, are exempt from deportation and exclusion?
Without such a commitment, there is inevitably some anxiety. Alison Harvey made a case for mitigating the risk through the right to abode. If that were implemented, it would guarantee a raft of citizenship rights, so I welcome feedback from the Minister on that approach. As well as clarifying the status of Northern Irish citizens who identify solely as Irish, the right to abode would also alleviate the loophole through which someone with an Irish passport is not granted protections on arriving in the UK, because they have travelled from a country outside the common travel area.
We are supportive of the clause and will not oppose it, but will return to some of its content in debate on new clause 27.
Stuart C. McDonald
Given what the Minister and shadow Minister have said, I can, I hope, be helpfully brief. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position on deportation, but the shadow Minister raises a reasonable point. The Minister has clarified the policy— but why not put it on the face of the Bill? I very much welcome the Minister’s confirmation of how Irish nationals will be able to come from outside the CTA with family members. It is a welcome clarification.
I want briefly to refer to the broader issue of common travel area rights. We are often told about the historic common travel area, and the fact that the rights go back many decades. That is true, but in recent years most of those rights have become embedded in and entangled with free movement rights. In the Bill, we are repealing those rights but not replacing them with common travel area rights. The Government keep talking about reciprocal rights, but we need them to be set down in statute.
So far, as the Minister said, there seems to be a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the Government of Ireland, and a Government position paper, setting out the fact that there will be rights to work, study, social security and healthcare access, and vote. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, essentially those CTA rights are “written in sand” and for the Committee on the Administration of Justice the CTA can be characterised by loose administrative arrangements of provisions that can be altered at any time. So we need to return to this issue of when we will actually see a detailed scheme of rights for the common travel area.
There is some urgency about this matter, because at the moment, for example, there are people in Northern Ireland who choose to be Irish citizens and who have the option of applying under the EU settled status scheme, but they will have to make that decision without really knowing how the benefits of the EU settled status scheme compare with the benefits of the common travel area scheme, because that has not been spelled out in great detail yet. There are practical issues that have been flagged up by the organisations I have mentioned about cross-border rights to access healthcare and education, and so on. All these questions need to be answered, and fairly urgently.
Finally, I will echo what the shadow Minister said about Alison Harvey’s evidence on the right of abode, and I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering achieving some sort of resolution of these issues by using the right of abode. However, we will return to these issues when we debate the new clause that the shadow Minister has tabled.
I welcome clause 2, but we still have a considerable way to go in making sure that the common travel area persists and works properly, and that folk know where they stand.
Kevin Foster
I thank the SNP and Labour spokespersons for their overall support of the clause. I think I have been clear that there is a very strong commitment to the common travel area. Elements of its operation are inevitably required due to the provisions of the Belfast agreement, which is actually international law; it is a treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, so it is not something that can just be amended on a whim. Far from it—it is underpinned by the strong consent of both communities, north and south, as expressed in referendums at the time it went through.
The commitment of both Governments to the common travel area has persisted for decades and will continue to do so. Irish citizens can apply to the European settlement scheme. I do not see any detriment that would come to them from doing so, but neither is there a requirement for them to do so, given the clarity that the clause brings to their rights within the United Kingdom. To be absolutely clear, the clause looks to remove that difference in the technical definition between an Irish citizen who has arrived in the United Kingdom on, for the sake of argument, the Eurostar from France, as opposed to arriving in the United Kingdom on a plane from Dublin.
It is probably worth saying that it would be interesting to work out how that definition could have actually affected someone’s life, apart from some of their more theoretical rights. However, I will be clear on that front that the Bill removes that difference. For an Irish citizen within the United Kingdom, it applies regardless of which country they travel from—whether they have travelled to the United Kingdom from within the common travel area or, for example, from the United States of America—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Halifax was reassured by that.
Effectively, Irish citizens become identified —I accept that this is perhaps a slightly controversial thing to say in the context of people’s identity—as British in our system of migration. Effectively, their Irish passport becomes equivalent to a UK national’s passport.
As for the provisions around deportation, I was asked whether there was a particular example. My officials in the Home Office have spent some time over the last week or two trying to find an example under current legislation —not under legislation, perhaps, from previous eras—of someone being deported from the United Kingdom to the Republic. We struggled; so far, I cannot find a specific example. I do not see any Member of the Committee who is about to jump up and give me an example, in order to contradict me on that point.
In particular, we are not aware of there ever having been, even at the heights of the troubles, a particular stream of deportation from Northern Ireland into the Republic. Partly, that is because we would all have to question the practical effect of deporting someone from County Londonderry to County Donegal; how on earth would anyone effectively enforce that in any way? Also, however, the spirit between the two Governments has been very much that we respect the rights of those who are there and, to be clear, that is set out in a 2007 written ministerial statement. That was not done under a Government formed by my party. The written ministerial statement has been there for 13 years. I wrote to the Irish Government about the fact that the provisions were in the Bill, and we have not received negative representations. The minimum threshold would have to be an offence that carried a 10-year prison sentence, so we are talking about very serious criminal offending, or the court would have to recommend it.
Kevin Foster
The clause is minor and technical in its nature, but it is important for the implementation of the Bill and for a fully functioning statute book. Effectively, it states that the Bill will be one of the Immigration Acts. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Holly Lynch
There is so little in clause 3 that we will not make a contribution to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Consequential etc. provision
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State may only make regulations which are necessary rather than those which the Minister considers appropriate.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “, or in connection with,”
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out “this Part” and insert “Schedule 1”
This amendment seeks to limit the scope of the power in Clause 4 to matters concerning the ending of retained EU law rights that currently preserve free movement and immigration-related rights.
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
‘(1A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may only be exercised within the period of one year from the day on which this Act is passed.
(1B) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after a period of two years from the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would restrict the use of the Henry VIII powers contained in Clause 4 to a period of one year from the date of the Act being passed; and would prevent any changes to primary legislation made by exercise of these powers having permanent effect unless confirmed by primary legislation.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if satisfied that the regulations would have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
(5B) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (5A).”
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under subsection (1), in relation to persons to whom the regulations apply under this Act, shall be made in accordance with the following principles—
(a) Promotion of family life, particularly that between children and their parents and that between partners;
(b) That persons in the United Kingdom should have a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against any decision to refuse leave remain, to curtail leave to enter or remain or to make a deportation order;
(c) that where leave to remain is given—
(i) on account of a person’s long residence in the United Kingdom; or
(ii) to a person whose continuous residence in the United Kingdom includes five years of that person’s childhood; or
(iii) to a child who has lived in the United Kingdom for a period of seven continuous years;
that leave is given for an indefinite period;
(d) that leave to enter or remain given to a person for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom is not subject to a condition restricting work, occupation or recourse to public funds; and
(e) ensure that no change to immigration rules or fees is made—
(i) unless sufficient public notice has been given of that change to ensure any person affected by the change who is already in the United Kingdom with leave to enter or remain has reasonable opportunity to adjust their expectations or circumstances before the change takes effect; or
(ii) that would require a person given leave to enter or remain for the purpose of establishing or continuing family life in the United Kingdom to satisfy more restrictive conditions for the continuation of their stay than were required to do so at the time the person was first given leave for this purpose.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that exercise of the delegated powers in clause 4(1) is guided by certain principles.
Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section 4 and section 7(5) expire on the day after the day specified as the deadline under section 7(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
Stuart C. McDonald
I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments. At this stage I expect to get the Government Members excited because I am urging them to take back control, by which I mean take back control of immigration policy from the Home Office and keep MPs in a job. Like most hon. Members I have become familiar with the broad powers of delegated legislation and sweeping Henry VIII powers in recent years through both immigration legislation and more recently through Brexit. The Government are taking increasingly more and more powers to rewrite not only subordinate legislation but primary Acts of Parliament with very little constraint. I do not think that anyone here would dispute that in certain circumstances such powers can be sensible and useful, but they should be exceptional and limited. Instead, the practice has become so routine that if it goes on we might as well shut down Parliament or end its role as a legislator.
I am grateful to the witnesses who spoke on Tuesday and to the organisations that provided briefings, including the Law Society of Scotland, Amnesty International, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Justice, Liberty, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others. There are big concerns about this clause.
In tabling the amendments I have also relied on the report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its 46th report in the last Session, which was an analysis of the predecessor Bill. It is fair to say that their lordships were not impressed with clause 4. It is noticeable that they went out of their way to prepare the report in advance of Committee stage so that we could benefit from their advice. I regret that the Home Office is still not listening to that sage advice at all.
The sweeping power is set out first in clause 4(1), where the Home Secretary can make any provision that she thinks “appropriate” in relation to the whole of part 1 —in other words, related to free movement. Clause 4(2) makes it clear that this can include amending any Act of Parliament as well as retained EU legislation. There are various subsections about the procedures that would be required to be used when exercising those powers, which is something that I suspect we will return to later.
The word that appears several times in the House of Lords report is “significant”. Their lordships had significant concerns about significant delegation of powers from Parliament to the Executive on such a significant issue that concerns a significant number of people. Amendments 2, 3, 20, 21 and 4 are designed to cut those powers done to size and to keep MPs in a job. It is quite informative to look at the explanatory memorandum to the same Bill from this time last year. The memorandum explains, for example, how the powers would be used to set up appeal rights for EEA nationals. All those things have already been taken care of in the year that has passed, yet nothing has changed in the formulation of clause 4. The Government still say they need such powers, even though they have done everything that they envisaged using those powers for in the explanatory memorandum from this time last year.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was passed at the start of the year, and it contains a whole part on citizens’ rights of residence, frontier workers, deportation appeals, non-discrimination and so on. It includes extensive powers of delegated legislation as well, but at least they are constrained by the requirement that they should be exercised in order to implement the provisions of the withdrawal agreement that relate to citizens’ rights. As I say, a lot of what the Government originally envisaged they would use these powers for has already been accomplished.
Amendment 2 refers to an argument that we have had many times before. It is about requiring use of the powers to be “necessary” rather than merely considered appropriate by the Minister. Again, there is no genuine objection to being able to make rules if we suddenly have to make changes for a deal or a no-deal situation in the future relationship, but that should not just be at the whim of Ministers deciding what is appropriate and what is not. Their lordships and various stakeholders have recommended a test of necessity, and that is what is in amendment 2.
Amendment 3 is probably the most critical amendment and takes out the words “in connection with”. I refer again to the House of Lords Committee report, which said:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
So their lordships are not very happy at all with what the Government propose.
Amendments 20 and 21 come from the House of Lords Committee report, but there have been perfectly sensible suggestions from Amnesty International, with similar ideas from other stakeholders. Amendment 20 would limit the scope of powers so that regulations cannot be made in relation to any old provision in part 1; they must relate specifically to schedule 1. Again, I emphasise that it can be acceptable to have limited powers in order to tidy up the statute book and the detailed list of provisions in the schedule. As matters stand, however, clause 2 means that we could have sweeping changes made to the rights of Irish citizens on the whim of the Secretary of State. Indeed, on the face of it, delegated powers could be used to alter clause 4 in order to increase the Executive’s powers yet further. That cannot be acceptable.
Amendment 21 would put a simple sunset clause of one year on the use of these powers. Should the Government have not tidied up the statute book by this time next year, something seriously wrong will have happened. Alternatively, something seriously positive will have happened and we will have extended the transition period by a couple of years. In either case, there will be plenty of time to legislate afresh. Everyone gets the argument that sweeping powers should not be left on the statute book forever; hence the sunset clause.
Amendment 22 puts a sunset clause on changes made by subordinate legislation. If the Minister really thinks there is such a rush that he cannot proceed by primary legislation, he should make the regulations. He should then come back to the House of Commons with a proper Bill, so that we can do our job as legislators and decide whether to keep those provisions in force or let them lapse.
In some ways, I am just sticking up for MPs. I want us to be able to continue to be the primary legislators in the field of immigration law and that we should start taking back some control from the Home Office.
Holly Lynch
I rise to speak to amendment 12, as well as demonstrate support for amendments 2 to 4, which also have our full support. With your permission, Sir Edward, I will focus my comments on the amendments relating to the transfer of powers in clause 4, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston will speak specifically to amendment 15, which is part of this group but is on a slightly different issue and relates to the impact that this legislation will have on children.
It is a pleasure to follow the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who made an articulate speech on the concerns about the Henry VIII powers. The reason we are all here physically today and not fulfilling our duties from home is this Government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. Unfortunately, this transfer of powers seems to be inconsistent with that approach.
The arguments were incredibly well rehearsed on Second Reading during the previous Parliament, in Committee and in the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as we have already heard. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have not reflected on that feedback and adapted their approach.
Clause 4 as it stands confers an extremely wide power on the Home Secretary to make whatever legal amendments they consider appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of the immigration part of the Bill. That includes the ability to amend primary legislation. I am sympathetic to the Government’s stated intention behind the clause—namely, that it will ensure coherence across the statute book following the substantial changes brought about by the ending of free movement, and deliver the required tweaks to legislation. However, clause 4 is drafted so widely that it could relate to almost any aspect of immigration law, and given that there is no time restriction on the clause or the powers within it, the concern is that there is potential for those powers to be used far beyond the aims of this Bill.
Adrian Berry of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, whom we heard from earlier this week, commented on the powers referenced in the Bill, including in clause 4(5). During that evidence session, he said:
“How is the ordinary person, never mind the legislator, to know whether the law is good or not…if you draft like that? You need to make better laws. Make it certain, and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions. There must be a…list in the Home Office of these provisions and it would be better if they are expressed in the schedule to the Bill.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 52, Q106.]
He went on to confirm that any responsible Opposition would have to table the amendments in this group in the absence of that list.
As we have heard, amendment 2 would replace the word “appropriate” with “necessary” in clause 4, line 34 on page 2 of the Bill, and amendment 3 would leave out “, or in connection with,” on the same line. With amendment 4, we seek to leave out subsection (5) altogether. We are also supportive of amendment 20.
On the specific proposed changes, as has already been said, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the almost identical version of the Bill in the 2017-19 Parliament. It said:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
The Committee expressed significant concerns about subsection (5), recommending that it be removed altogether, which is exactly what we are seeking to do,
“unless the Government can provide a proper and explicit justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power.”
The reason is that
“it confers broad discretion on Ministers to levy fees or charges on any person seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who, pre-exit, would have had free movement rights under EU law.”
I argued on Second Reading that this approach is bad not just for parliamentary democracy, but for our public services and for the economy—a sentiment shared by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry in an evidence session this week. Parliamentary scrutiny is the most effective way for stakeholders to work with MPs to shape legislation to respond to the needs of the country, and they are being denied that opportunity with the transfer of powers in this clause. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the British Medical Association, London First, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, trade unions and the Children’s Society are just a sample of the cross-section of organisations that have all expressed concerns that this transfer of powers to the Executive is not the way to develop quality and robust legislation.
During the attempted passage of the Bill in the last Parliament, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), set out a number of reasons why the powers in clause 4 were necessary. As the SNP spokesperson has already said, a number of those reasons have since been addressed, yet the powers remain.
Since then, almost all those powers have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of other pieces of primary and secondary legislation. I will rebut just a couple of arguments. The then Minister said:
“In the unlikely event that we leave the EU without a deal, the power will enable us to make provision for EEA nationals who arrive after exit day but before the future border and immigration system is rolled out”.
There is now a deal on citizens’ rights in place, so they will not be affected by negotiations on the future relationship.
The then Minister also said that the clause would allow the Government to
“align the positions of EU nationals and non-EU nationals in relation to the deportation regime”.—[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2019; c. 183-84.]
However, regulation 17 of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 makes amendments to deportation thresholds, so it is unclear why any further transfer of power is necessary in the Bill.
Kate Green
Amendment 15, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, aims to place the welfare of children at the heart of the way in which Ministers exercise their powers under clause 4. Children’s wellbeing is of central importance, both in UK law and to comply with our international obligations. We are a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of the child and to the global compact on migration, which contains 38 paragraphs on the welfare and treatment of children.
Domestically, the Children Act 1989 sets out the principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of children in matters relating to their care. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 provides that immigration functions must be discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom. With all that in place, the Committee may feel that we already have a framework that adequately protects children’s interests in immigration matters. However, the powers conferred on Ministers by clause 4 are very broad, and the way in which they are exercised could have a significant impact on children, whose best interests could be overlooked.
My amendment would embed protection against that happening as freedom of movement is ended. It would ensure that policies and rules introduced under the provisions of clause 4 can have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are resident in the United Kingdom, and would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a statement to explain why he or she is satisfied that that is the case.
The loss of free movement rights in the Bill means that some EEA national children will inevitably fall within the ambit of immigration legislation in the future. Some will be new arrivals to the UK, and others will have been here already but failed to secure the status to which they are entitled, becoming undocumented and subject to the compliant environment as a consequence.
Let me say a word briefly about the children who are at risk of being detrimentally affected, starting with those already in the UK who may none the less have failed to secure status. The number of such children could be substantial. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium estimates that there were as many as 751,000 non-Irish EEA and Swiss national children in the UK in 2019, but only 415,140 grants of status were made to children under the EU settlement scheme as at the end of March this year. Some of those children will be very vulnerable. My hon. Friends and I tabled new clause 58, which would secure status for looked-after children and young people leaving care, and I hope the Committee will have the opportunity to debate it in the days to come.
The impact of the Bill’s provision on those eligible for status who fail to apply is not limited to looked-after children alone. For example, parents may not understand whether their UK-born children are automatically British, whether they need to apply to register as British, or whether they should apply to the EU settlement scheme. The complexity of the system and the lack of access to advice means that some children may miss out on getting status or fail to obtain the highest status to which they are entitled. Some may be granted only pre-settled status and will need to be reminded to apply for settled status after five years or risk losing their right to remain in the UK.
Another group of children about whom I am concerned is those who have been in custody. Like adults, children applying to the EU settlement scheme are affected by time spent in custody. As well as not counting towards the five-year qualification period for settled status, periods in custody also reset the clock. Any child who spends time in custody will have to recommence their journey to qualify for settled or pre-settled status upon their release. That represents a troubling anomaly in the treatment of children who offend. Our criminal justice system generally takes the view that juvenile criminal behaviour should be treated differently from adult criminal behaviour, but that is not the case in relation to the EU settlement scheme. Is the Minister able to say how many children have been or may be unable to secure settled status as a result of that provision?
The examples I have cited are just that: examples. Any EEA and Swiss national children who do not secure status—those who were born here and those arriving in the future—could be affected by rules that may be introduced under the powers in clause 4. Hon. Members have already identified a number of potential harmful effects on EEA nationals, including children, as a result of the abolition of free movement and the imposition of new or more stringent rules. Some are reflected in the amendments and new clauses we have tabled and include the impact of fees and charges on citizenship applications; data-sharing policies; the application of income thresholds for the admission of family measures, including parents and children; no recourse to public funds conditions, which can affect children; the position of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; and provisions relating to detention, deportation and removal. As we discussed earlier, schedule 1 may disapply certain provisions of EU law or EU-derived rights, and that, too, could affect children in some cases, such as those who are victims of crime or trafficking.
In all those circumstances, my amendment would provide assurance that the impact of any rules made using the powers in clause 4 would be subject to the requirement that they have no detrimental effect on the children of EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK, whatever led them to be here and whatever their status while here.
The second limb of my amendment refers to the requirement to produce a report to Parliament, which would impel the Home Office to develop processes to undertake a systematic assessment of the impact on children of any planned new immigration rules, which does not appear to happen routinely at the moment. Such an approach would also underpin a best interests approach to the application of immigration rules in individual decisions, buttressing the provisions of section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. Again, there is little sign that a systematic approach to children’s best interests is embedded in Home Office decision making, and the requirement for immigration rules to protect children’s rights and interests must be supported in the design of decision-making processes and appropriate staff training. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I apologise, Sir Edward, but in my excitement over the Henry VIII clause and various other delegated powers, I forgot to speak to amendment 22, so I will speak to it briefly. It is slightly different from the amendments I spoke to earlier, which sought to rein in the powers the Home Office is trying to give itself in clause 4. Amendment 22 is more about setting out some guidance as to how those powers should be used, and to set out some principles. I, and I dare say any MP, could come up with 10 or 20 principles by which we would like the Home Office to abide. I have discussed these proposals with Amnesty International and they are good examples of the sort of framework we should provide at the Home Office, rather than giving it a blank cheque to introduce whatever system it sees fit.
The first of the amendment’s five principles is that these rules should be exercised to promote family life. Why have we allowed the Government to deliver tens of thousands of what England’s Children’s Commissioner called “Skype families”, separated by some of the most draconian anti- family migration rules in the world? Why did we watch as the Home Office simply withdrew the concession that generally allowed families with children who had been here seven years to settle permanently? The amendment would lay down a principle that would guide the Home Office to exercise its delegated functions in a way that promotes family life rather than undermining it.
The second principle relates to appeal rights. Everyone in this room believes in the rule of law, a facet of which is that a person should have a ready and accessible means of challenging their removal from the country in which they have made their home. To disagree with that simple proposition would be to ignore some of the key lessons from Windrush.
Thirdly, we need to stop putting so many people through a tortuous process before they have security of residence in this country. If people have been here for years on end, especially during childhood, why are we charging them many thousands of pounds over a 10-year period, with application after application after application? It is a disaster for the families affected and a total waste of Home Office time and resource. Let people move on.
Fourthly, if people are here for family reasons and fall on hard times, do we really want to say that they will just have to suffer and that the safety net we provide for others in a similar situation should not be available to them? If people are here to accompany family, why are we saying to them that they have to put their lives on hold and that they cannot seek work? These features of our immigration system are regressive, counter-productive and, frankly, prehistoric.
Finally the fifth principle is about treating people fairly and not pulling the rug from under their feet once they are here. Of course, rules and policies will change from time to time, but it is highly regrettable that we allow people to come to the UK on a particular visa route and then change the rules so that they apply not just to new people coming in but to those who are already here, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to remain. A perfect example was the change to the financial threshold for tier 2 visa holders seeking settlement. Imagine if someone has been here for three or four years and met all the salary requirements, only for the Home Office to then say, with a year to go, “This was the salary threshold you had before, but actually we have upped it by £5,000 or £6,000 or £7,000.” That is a retrospective rule change, and it is totally unfair to operate it in that way.
I could have added many more principles to those I would like to see guiding the Home Office. These principles say that if we are going to give the Home Office these powers, we want them to be exercised in the interests of family, the rule of law and stability, protecting against retrospective rule changes and providing financial security. For too long, the Home Office has disregarded those principles. It is time that we as MPs say that it should stop doing that.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 16th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2020 - (16 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Obviously, we will maintain social distancing. Like last week, the Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members sent copies of their speeches to hansardnotes @parliament.uk. We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill—the selection list is available in the room.
Clause 5
Power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Given the nature of the clause, I will spend a few minutes outlining its impact to the Committee. The clause and associated schedules 2 and 3 provide an essential legislative framework to ensure that the Government can make changes to our social security system when the transition period ends, alongside the launch of the future immigration system. The provisions will enable the Government to amend the retained European Union social security co-ordination rules and to deliver policy changes from the end of the transition period.
The clause provides a power to the Secretary of State, the Treasury or, where appropriate, a devolved authority to modify the social security co-ordination regulations. Those EU regulations provide for social security co-ordination across the European economic area, and will be incorporated into domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 at the end of the transition period. Clause 5(4) gives the Government the ability to make necessary consequential changes to other primary legislation and other retained EU law to ensure that the changes given effect by the main power are appropriately reflected. That power may be used, for example, to address technical matters, inoperabilities or inconsistencies. Schedule 2 sets out the power of the devolved authorities under clause 5.
This social security co-ordination clause confers powers on Scottish Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department to amend the limited elements of the social security co-ordination regulations that fall within devolved competence. It is important that we provide the devolved Administrations with the powers that they need to amend the aspects of the regulations for which they are responsible, just as it is right for the UK Government to have the powers for the laws that affect the UK as a whole. The powers are equivalent to those conferred on UK Ministers and will allow the devolved Administrations to respond to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in areas of devolved competence, either to keep parity with Westminster or to deviate in line with their own policies.
Without the powers in the Bill, the devolved Administrations would need to bring forward their own parallel legislation to give them equivalent powers to amend the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations in areas of devolved competence. Before the Bill was introduced, letters were sent to the devolved Administrations to seek legislative consent in principle, in line with the Sewel convention.
Schedule 3 provides further detail on the form that regulations will take under the clause, whether as statutory instruments, statutory rules or Scottish statutory instruments. The schedule provides that the use of the power is subject to the affirmative procedure. It also gives clarity on the procedures that the devolved Administrations will need to follow. Paragraph 5 permits other regulations, subject to the negative procedure, to be included in an instrument made under the clause.
Without the clause and associated schedules 2 and 3, the Government and relevant devolved authorities will have only the power contained in the 2018 Act to fix deficiencies in the retained system of social security co-ordination, restricting our ability to make changes. I reassure the Committee that the power in the clause will not be exercised to remove or reduce commitments made either in relation to individuals within the scope of the withdrawal agreement, for as long as they remain in the scope of that agreement, or in relation to British and Irish nationals moving between the UK and Ireland.
We are currently in negotiations with the EU about possible new reciprocal arrangements on social security co-ordination, of the kind that the UK has with countries outside the EU. The clause will enable the UK to respond to a variety of outcomes in those negotiations, including when no agreement is achieved by the end of the transition period. The clause will be necessary to deliver policy changes to the retained regime that will cover individuals who fall outside the scope of the withdrawal agreement, to reflect the reality of our new relationship with the European Union.
The Government have been clear that there will be changes to future social security co-ordination arrangements, including, as announced at Budget 2020, stopping the export of child benefit. The social security co-ordination powers in the Bill will enable the Government to deliver on that commitment and to respond to the outcome of negotiations with the EU to deliver changes from the end of the transition period. I therefore beg to move that clause 5 stands part of the Bill and that schedules 2 and 3 are agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Good morning, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship. Social security arrangements set out in EU regulation 883 of 2004 and elsewhere are currently directly applicable in the UK. They cover the co-ordination of social security, healthcare and pension provision for people who are publicly insured who move from one EU state to another.
The regulations ensure that individuals who move to another EEA are covered by the social security legislation of only one country at a time and are, therefore, liable only to make contributions in one country; that a person has the rights and obligations of the member state where they are covered; that periods of insurance, employment or residence in other member states can be taken into account when determining a person’s eligibility for benefits; and that a person can receive benefits that they are entitled to from one member state, even if they are resident in another.
The co-ordination regulations cover only those social security benefits that provide cover against certain categories of social risk, such as sickness, maternity, paternity, unemployment and old age. Some non-contributory benefits fall within the regulations but cannot be exported, and benefits that are social and medical assistance are not covered at all. Universal credit, for example, is excluded.
As we heard from Jeremy Morgan of British in Europe in his oral evidence to the Committee last week, most UK nationals resident in the EU are of working age. It is important to note that the number of people claiming the working-age benefits that are covered by the regulations—jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance—has declined sharply since the introduction of universal credit. We might therefore expect social security co-ordination arrangements to apply to a declining number of working-age adults. The regulations will, however, still be of importance for a sizeable number of individuals, and not least for pensioners.
The co-ordination regulations also confer a right on those with a European health insurance card to access medically necessary state-provided healthcare during a temporary state in another EEA state. The home member state is normally required to reimburse the host country for the cost of the treatment. Under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, protection of healthcare entitlements is linked to entitlement to cash benefits.
Clause 5(1) provides an appropriate authority with the power to modify the co-ordination regulations by secondary legislation. The power is very broad, placing no limits on the modifications that appropriate authorities are able to make to the co-ordination regulations. By virtue of subsection (3), the power explicitly
“includes power—
(a) to make different provision for different categories of person to whom they apply…
(b) otherwise to make different provision for different purposes;
(c) to make supplementary…consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision;
(d) to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter.”
The power is further enhanced by subsection (4), which provides for the ability to amend or repeal
“primary legislation passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”
and other retained direct EU legislation.
Since the UK left the EU at the end of January this year, the relevant EU regulations pertaining to social security, pensions and healthcare have been retained in UK law by section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I accept that the Government need to be able to amend co-ordination regulations to remedy deficiencies in them resulting from the UK’s exit from the EU, but the 2018 Act already contains a power in section 8 to modify direct retained EU law. Indeed, the Government have already exercised this power for four of the co-ordination regulations. Any changes that do not fall within the scope of the power in section 8 of the 2018 Act must necessarily, therefore, not relate to any ability for the law to operate efficiently or to remedy defects, but be intended to achieve wider policy objectives. I think the Minister acknowledged as much in his opening comments.
I was, however, surprised that the Minister said that only the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided such powers. My reading of the legislation is that the Secretary of State has further powers as regards social security, healthcare and pension rights for those who are protected by the withdrawal agreement under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. Section 5 of that Act inserts new section 7A into the 2018 Act so as to secure withdrawal agreement rights in domestic law, and that protection is buttressed by section 13 of the 2020 Act, which confers a power to make regulations in respect of social security co-ordination rights protected by the withdrawal agreement. Given the powers that already exist under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, as well as the fact that those powers have already been used by the Government, why does the Minister feel they are inadequate?
Paragraph 30 of the delegated powers memorandum is instructive. It states that the Government want to use the power in clause 5 to
“respond flexibly to the outcome of negotiations on the future framework and make changes to the retained social security co-ordination rules.”
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, given the proliferation of judicial reviews and the test cases that often come forward, it is better to adopt a belt-and-braces approach so that we underline the Government’s intention in both the Bill and the withdrawal Act?
Kate Green
The issue is the mission creep and scope creep involved in using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation and retained EU rights, particularly a mission creep that now encompasses the ability to make significant policy changes.
As we heard in oral evidence from our witnesses last week, it is important to recognise the considerable importance of policy and legislation in relation to social security co-ordination. It is vital to labour mobility, and to protect the rights of EEA nationals who come to live in the UK and UK nationals who go to live in EEA member states. Policy in this area has the potential to impact the lives of millions, affecting their right to receive benefits to which they are entitled through national insurance contributions over periods of residency, and which they have a legitimate expectation that they will receive. Changes to policy in these important areas should, I submit, be given effect in primary legislation.
In response to the evidence that the Committee took from British in Europe last week, the Minister said that the Secretary of State could not make regulations that would breach an international treaty, and he offered some reassurances this morning to those who fall within the scope of the withdrawal agreement. However, as British in Europe pointed out last week, the powers in clause 5 mean that Parliament will not be able to properly scrutinise regulations that might breach our international treaty obligations—if not deliberately, then inadvertently.
The Minister also referred to the need to be able to reflect the ongoing negotiations with the European Union, and we heard from Adrian Berry of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association last week about the UK’s draft social security treaty, which is an annex to the Government’s proposed future trade agreement. Mr Berry highlighted the Government’s intention to continue the protection of the European health insurance card scheme for short-term travel and the uprating of old-age pensions, but noted that disability pensions and healthcare attached to pension rights are missing from the draft treaty. He also highlighted the limitations of the new EHIC, which would require those with long-term health needs to get prior authorisation from the UK Government, and that there would be no S2 cover, which enables people to obtain healthcare in the EU that they cannot get on the NHS in the UK. Will the Minister put on the record whether such changes could be introduced using clause 5, and can he confirm which classes of person they can be applied to?
The Government have argued that the use of the powers in clause 5 will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, through the use of the affirmative procedure. Will the Social Security Advisory Committee have a role in scrutinising regulations introduced under this measure? Does he not in fact accept that changes in this important area require full debate and scrutiny in Parliament, and that the principles of any future policy should be set out in primary legislation?
Finally, clause 5(5) states that EU-derived rights cease to apply if they are “inconsistent” with any regulation made under the section, but the Government are under no obligation to specify where and when such inconsistencies arise. This creates considerable uncertainty for individuals who are affected, for their advisers, and indeed for politicians and the wider public. As we discussed last week on clause 4, such an approach is inimical to good lawmaking. The Government should spell out which parts of retained EU law might be affected by these provisions, and I hope that the Minister will do so in his response.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for setting out the nature of these regulations in quite some detail, and also for explaining why they are hugely significant for a large number of people.
We acknowledge that there is a need for the appropriate authorities to have some powers in this area, but those powers should be focused on making technical fixes rather than providing carte blanche. The powers in the clause are hugely broad. In fact, they are basically without any limit, either in terms of scope or time, and it is worth reflecting on what exactly clause 5(1) says:
“An appropriate authority may by regulations modify the retained direct EU legislation mentioned in subsection (2).”
There is no constraining test at all.
As Adrian Berry argued when he gave evidence last Tuesday, all these clauses should at least have the test of being “appropriate”, if not being “necessary”, as a qualification. Opposition MPs have been championing the “necessary” test, but the Government have always preferred the test of appropriateness. However, even that is absent from the clause. On paper, therefore, we are creating powers to make inappropriate regulations, which seems quite an unusual concept. More than ever, we need reassurance on what exactly the intended use of these regulations is, and we will look carefully at what the Minister said about that this morning.
I also want to raise an issue on schedule 2, which the Minister also referred to. Schedule 2 sets out who can make use of the powers in clause 5, and I want to flag up an issue in relation to devolution that needs to be addressed. It was flagged up by the Scottish Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee last year in relation to the predecessor Bill. The Committee reported on that Bill precisely because there are implications for some devolved competences around social security.
There are three routes by which the clause’s powers could be used in relation to devolved social security competence. First, Scottish Ministers could exercise these powers, sometimes with the requirement to consult UK Ministers, if that were required where a different route was used to achieve the same means. The Committee found those powers acceptable.
There is also a route for joint exercise of the powers, which would be considered where a change is so significant that it would be appropriate for joint exercise and scrutiny. Again, while the Committee sought some clarity on precisely when that route would be used, it supported the idea in principle.
Thirdly, however, there is the route of UK Ministers acting alone, by laying regulations in the UK Parliament that could still relate to devolved competence. The Committee’s report says:
“The Committee emphasises that as a matter of principle the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of legislative powers”
by the Executive. However, it notes that the Scottish Parliament has no formal role in relation to the scrutiny of secondary legislation passed by UK Ministers acting alone.
The Committee went on to note that there was silence in relation to the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for UK Ministers to exercise powers in relation to devolved social security acting on their own. It noted that there was nothing on the face of the Bill requiring UK Ministers to seek the consent of Scottish Ministers prior to the exercise of the powers in that way by relevant UK Ministers or the Treasury. It repeated the view that it had provided in relation to the Bill that went on to become the European Union (Withdrawal) Act—that UK Ministers should be able to legislate in devolved areas only with the consent of the devolved Administration, also advocating for a role for the Scottish Parliament in that process.
Kevin Foster
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. On the powers under clause 5, the Government have been given clear advice that they are necessary, particularly when we look at the ongoing negotiations. There are two parties to the negotiations, and the purpose of having a wider scope is to reflect whatever the outcome of the negotiations is. Hopefully, we will quickly be able to implement an agreement, in the same way that we have an agreement with Ireland bilaterally in terms of the co-ordination of social security, given the unique position of Irish citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Ireland, who are considered settled from day one. That is where we are.
One of the examples Opposition Members gave was of those protected by the withdrawal agreement. It is worth noting that this measure looks towards those who arrive after the end of the transition period and starts to look towards changes there, rather than at those who specifically have their rights protected by the withdrawal agreement.
In terms of the scope and whether the powers would be used in a devolved area, the UK Government continue to respect the devolution settlement. We are in discussions —officials certainly are, and I and my colleague in the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to the relevant Scottish Minister last week to set out where we are. We hope to have a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, but we have also set out what the position is if we do not get an LCM—for the Committee’s benefit, the Government would amend the Bill on Report to remove the powers in relation to devolved matters in Scotland.
Fundamentally, the clause is intended to ensure that we can implement powers and make the changes necessary, as outlined, to deliver the specific policy changes that we made clear in our manifesto, particularly around the export of child benefit, and also to ensure that we do not end up in a bizarre position where the UK is trying unilaterally to implement what is meant to be a reciprocal system, should we not be able to get a further agreement or if we have an agreement but are not able quickly and promptly to implement it.
Again, I would point out that using the affirmative procedure means that both Houses of Parliament will scrutinise any regulations and will have the opportunity to block them if they felt they were inappropriate. To be clear, if a Minister made wholly inappropriate regulations, such matters in secondary legislation, unlike primary legislation, can be reviewed in the courts as well.
It is therefore right that we stick with the clause as it is, certainly to ensure that we can implement whatever the outcome of the agreement is, including if we need to look at putting in place a system that reflects the fact that there has not been a further agreement.
Stuart C. McDonald
I just want to clarify whether the Minister would at least consider putting in a requirement that, before UK Ministers exercise these powers in relation to devolved competencies, they would consult Scottish Ministers. A cross-party Scottish Parliament Committee made that recommendation this time last year. It is surely at least worthy of consideration before Report.
Kevin Foster
To be clear, we will continue with our position of respecting devolution in areas of social security, hence the respect we have shown to the Scottish Government by consulting them about the Bill. We have also set out the Government’s position, were there not a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, in the letter we sent last week to the relevant Scottish Ministers. Obviously, separate discussions are going on with the Executive in Northern Ireland.
This is the right process. Parliament still has the appropriate ability to scrutinise how the powers are used and, if it wishes, may block the use of those powers under the affirmative procedure. This is about ensuring clear certainty that we can deliver whatever we can agree with the European Union on, we hope, a continuation of a reciprocal arrangement, which we cannot do if we do not have the powers in the clause. In other areas, powers are more restricted.
These are wide powers, but that reflects the wide range of outcomes that are still possible in the next six months. It is right to have a functioning and effective social security system and co-ordination of it. That is why the Government have brought the power forward in this Bill, as in the previous one. We maintain that the clause and the attached schedules are appropriate to the Bill.
Kate Green
Does the Minister anticipate, in the event of an agreement and treaty before the end of this year, a further piece of primary legislation to give effect to that? If so, would it not be possible at least to encompass the principles agreed into that primary legislation?
Kevin Foster
A lot would depend on the nature of the agreement. If it is part of a wider treaty, we may well see further legislation. However, our understanding is that if we can achieve agreement on this area, we would look to implement it rapidly through regulation, which is why the power is in the Bill. Our priority would be to avoid a situation where something is agreed of benefit to both UK citizens going to live in the European Union and EEA citizens coming to live here, with which we and the European Union are happy, but we are unable to provide that benefit because we are still going through a parliamentary process to implement it. That is why we believe the clause to be appropriate. It allows us to react to circumstances as necessary.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 1 and Schedule 1 of this Act do not extend to Scotland.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 33—Differentiated immigration policies: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of a system of differentiated immigration rules for people whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must consider the following—
(a) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to nominate a specified number of EEA and Swiss nationals for leave to enter or remain each year;
(b) the requirements that could be attached to the exercise of any such power including that the person lives and, where appropriate, works in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and such other conditions as the Secretary of State believes necessary;
(c) the means by which the Secretary of State could retain the power to refuse to grant leave to enter or remain on the grounds that such a grant would—
(i) not be in the public interest, or
(ii) not be in the interests of national security
(d) how the number of eligible individuals allowed to enter or remain each year under such a scheme could be agreed annually by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State;
(e) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to issue Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Immigration Rules, as appropriate, setting out the criteria by which they will select eligible individuals for nomination, including salary thresholds and financial eligibility.
(3) As part of the review in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Government;
(b) the Welsh Government;
(c) the Northern Ireland Executive; and
(d) individuals, businesses, and other organisations in the devolved nations.”
Stuart C. McDonald
Clause 7 sets out the extent of the Bill, so here we come to how it impacts Scotland and the other devolved nations. Amendment 17 would disapply provisions ending free movement to Scotland. The new clause simply calls for the Government to consult on, and to review, establishing a differentiated set of immigration rules focused on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and lists a set of issues that we want the UK Government to consult upon. The Government would then report and lay that report before Parliament. There is little here that is too onerous. It is a perfectly reasonable request of the UK Government.
We heard plenty of concern about the implications of the Bill during evidence last Tuesday. It is fair to say that that concern is felt acutely in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also in Wales and some regions of England. Scotland needs in-migration, and free movement of people has been a significant benefit to that country. The Government’s own risk assessments indicate a huge impact on the number of EEA workers who would qualify under the proposed new salary and skills requirements of the new regime. That is before we take into account the visa fees and the red tape, which I regard as ludicrous, that businesses will be bound up in. That has profound implications for Scotland’s economy, demographics, public finances and devolved public services.
Scotland’s economy relies significantly on small and medium-sized enterprises, which, as we heard last Tuesday, will find the tier 2 system very difficult. Small tourism or food and drink businesses, for example, that have regularly relied on the EU labour market are finding it well-nigh impossible to fill posts domestically. Instead of being able to interview a Portuguese food-processing worker or a Polish hotel worker, there is a significant chance that they will not be able to employ them at all. If they are able to employ them somehow, processes will be very different indeed.
The worker will have to seek entry clearance from their home country, so recruitment practice will have to change. Business will have to shell out for a sponsor licence and possibly on legal advice on how to do all that. The worker will have to pay visa fees plus upfront NHS health surcharges, not just for the main applicant but for the whole family. A skills charge will also be levied. As we heard last week, that could take the costs to the applicant to many thousands of pounds.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but would it not attract more people to stay and work in Scotland if it was not the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom?
Stuart C. McDonald
That is factually not true, so that is the end to that point. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the changes to the rate of income tax that we have made in recent years, there is no evidence that they have made a blind bit of difference. In fact, there are more people in Scotland paying less income tax, and that is before taking into account council tax and various other matters, so that point does not arise at all.
It seems that a huge proportion of the burden of all these fees falls to be paid by the individual worker. Realistically, however, why would a Portuguese food-processing worker or a Polish hotel worker pay £10,000 for the privilege of working in Scotland when they face no charge to work anywhere else in the European Union? The lower income tax that we pay in Scotland would be attractive, but it does not outweigh the £10,000-plus they would have to pay just to turn up.
Scotland has become a country of regular net in-migration, largely thanks to the free movement of people. But for in-migration, our population would have again been in decline since 2015—something that is projected into the future, with more deaths than births. Ending free movement risks pushing Scotland back to a future of population decline. Like other countries, our population of older people is increasing. That is not unique to us, but unlike other countries, in the UK in particular, our working-age population will rise only fractionally in the years ahead, according to various projections.
That brings us to the issue of public finances and devolved public services. There has been a welcome devolution of tax-raising powers in recent years, to which the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred. However, with those tax powers now in place, the problem is that we are suddenly seeing the tax base shrunk by immigration policies. That has a direct impact on income tax receipts and also on the economic growth and tax revenue that companies’ VAT.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Another report that is publicly available is the SNP’s White Paper ahead of the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman outline the proposals for immigration in that policy?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have no problem in outlining the paper. This point was got up on Twitter, as if it was a gotcha for the SNP. In that White Paper we advocated a points-based immigration system for those coming from outside the EEA, but we also advocated for the free movement of people. [Interruption.] The Minister looks as if I have been caught in some sort of trap. I am perfectly happy to support a points-based system for Scotland for people coming from outside the EEA. That is not a problem at all. But there are points-based systems and there are points-based systems. [Interruption.] People are chuckling away as if I am talking nonsense, but the Canadian points-based system is significantly different from the points-based system in Australia. The system proposed by the UK Government is barely a points system, and if hon. Members speak to anyone who knows the first thing about immigration law policy, they will say that there is barely a resemblance. Despite all the rhetoric, there is a tiny resemblance between what the UK Government are proposing and what the Australian points-based system is proposing.
On the issue of flexibility and regionality, the Australian points system includes some variation to take account of the different needs of different provinces. If the Australian points-based system is so wonderful, why has it not been replicated in any meaningful sense by the UK Government, including in respect of regional flexibility? Yes, the 2014 White Paper did refer to a points-based system for people from outside the EU—one that would be tailored for Scotland’s circumstances, not one that is completely inappropriate for it.
Ian Robinson and Fragomen, leading international practitioners, looked at the example of Canada, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand and put forward a whole host of possible options. As they said last week, one of those options would be simply to allow the free movement rules to continue to apply in Scotland. If a hotel in the highlands of Perthshire is recruiting, it can continue to recruit from the EEA just as it does now.
However, there is a huge range of possibilities, from more radical suggestions, such as retaining free movement, all the way down to tailoring the points-based system to suit Scotland’s needs. That brings me to a very modest suggestion that I am bound to bring up; it is a suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) that I think he may have raised directly with the Minister. It is simply to ensure that points are awarded in this system for Gaelic language skills as well as for English.
This is not just about Scotland, however. The challenges in Northern Ireland will also be unbelievably acute and perhaps even more so, given the land border that it shares with a country not only where businesses benefit from free movement of people, but that runs a completely independent immigration system, tailored to meet its own needs, while still being part of the common travel area. Business in Northern Ireland may face thousands of pounds in immigration fees just to try to attract the very same people who, a few miles down the road, could take up the position totally free of cost and bureaucracy. Merely saying that this system will work for all of the UK does nothing to address that problem.
Even if the Government do not want to properly engage in debate and discussion with SNP MPs or Ministers in the Scottish Government, I urge the Minister to listen to and engage with other voices who are speaking out on this issue. Businesses, business groups, think-tanks, civic society, universities and public sector organisations are all hugely concerned about it. The Minister just needs to do a Google search for commentary in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular on their response to the Government’s most recent proposals.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that figures released only this morning show that the unemployment rate in Scotland is now the highest in the United Kingdom, at 4.6%, compared with a UK rate of 3%? That means that unemployment has risen by 30,000 to 127,000. Does he not think that those are the sort of people we should be getting into jobs in Scotland and that we should not be looking to the EEA to provide the people?
Stuart C. McDonald
The economic impact of coronavirus is of course a tragedy, and every lost job is an absolute tragedy as well. Yes, of course we will focus our efforts on ensuring that people are back in work as soon as we can do that, but we cannot design our immigration system for the next decades based on this calamity. If the only reason Conservative Members can come up with to support this system being implemented in Scotland is that we are going through a pandemic, that is pretty farcical, given that these proposals have been in existence for the last few months, so no, I do not accept that it is any reason for shying away from the points that I am making. The system will cause huge long-term damage to Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s public finances. It is not just me saying that; a whole host of organisations have real concerns.
Again, I am not expecting the Government to do a 180-degree U-turn today, but I do want at least some recognition that there are genuine issues that require more than just our being told that this system will somehow work for Scotland, Northern Ireland or any other devolved nation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. Although the United Kingdom’s population is projected to rise by about 15%, it is reckoned that the population of our rural areas, including my own constituency of Argyll and Bute, will fall by as much as 8%. The situation is absolutely unsustainable because, despite Argyll and Bute being an exceptionally beautiful part of the world, we have an ageing and non-economically active population and our young people leave to spend their economically productive years outside Argyll and Bute.
To give credit to the council and to the Scottish Government, they are doing what they can to make Argyll and Bute a place that young people do not feel that they have to leave before coming back to retire—many of them do—but before that long-term goal reaches fruition, a cornerstone of Argyll and Bute Council’s plan for economic regeneration was predicated on continuing access to EU nationals and attracting them into the area. Regrettably, and through no fault of our own, that option has been taken from them; and the UK Government, having taken that option from them, now have a responsibility to provide a solution that will help those areas suffering from depopulation to recover. It is becoming increasingly clear that a major part of that would be the introduction of a regional immigration policy similar to that which works in Canada, Australia, Switzerland and other countries, and one that reflects the different needs of different parts of the country. There is no reason, other than political will, why that cannot happen here.
Douglas Ross
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore suggest that if we had an independent Scotland, with its own immigration system, there would be a regional variation between Argyll and Bute and Edinburgh?
Brendan O’Hara
Ultimately, that would be a decision for any incoming Scottish Government to make.
Brendan O'Hara
Personally, I think that the greater devolution of power, as widely as possible across any nation state, is an exceptionally good thing. Anything that can attract people to come, live, work, invest and raise families in our rural communities must be looked at and broadly welcomed. It was broadly welcomed in the recent Migration Advisory Committee report, which said:
“The current migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems remote communities experience. If these problems are to be addressed something more bespoke for these areas is needed…The only way to address this question in the UK context would be to pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas, then monitor what happens over several years and evaluate the outcomes.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, that idea was welcomed by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove in a ministerial answer on 23 July 2019, where he accepted the need for the development of a pilot scheme. To date, there has been very little movement and we fear that there has been backtracking by the UK Government about what they plan to do next about setting it up.
The Minister knows that the Scottish Government stand ready to work with him to design and develop a solution that is tailored to meet Scotland’s needs. I can tell him that if the MAC is willing to provide the advice, and the Scottish Government is minded to follow that advice, then Argyll and Bute is prepared to put it itself forward as a pilot area for such a scheme. I spoke yesterday to the chief executive of Argyll and Bute Council, Pippa Milne, who confirmed that the council would be happy to work with the UK Government and the MAC to see how a bespoke regional immigration system would work in practice. Will the Minister act on the MAC recommendation, which was supported by the former Home Secretary, and help Scotland to fight the curse of depopulation?
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Edward. I will briefly outline our position on amendment 17 and new clause 33. We are entirely sympathetic to amendment 17 for the reasons that have just been outlined, seeking to protect Scotland from the impact of this hard stop on free movement without a plan for mitigating the effects on key sectors. On more rural areas, our focus will continue to be on finding a solution for the whole of the UK rather than just Scotland. We understand that the Scottish National party has not given up on its aspiration of independence for Scotland, but I am afraid that that is where our parties diverge. To have an immigration system for Scotland that is different from that of the rest of the UK without that broader sense of a more regional approach affecting every area of the UK would open a raft of further questions around the management of that system and the means of enforcing it geographically. We say this in the spirit of loving Scotland and wanting it to stay and prosper as part of the United Kingdom. On that basis, we cannot support amendment 17.
We welcome the approach behind new clause 33 in principle, but again feel that it misses the opportunity to consult with the English regions as part of the process. Richard Burge of the London chamber of commerce said in last week’s evidence session that the MAC was slow and unwieldy. He said that it needs
“to involve business much more directly and that, it is hoped, will enable it to be much more responsive”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 12, Q18.]
Frustration with the MAC and a genuine and well-founded scepticism that, without radical reform, we would not be able to respond in anything like realtime to emerging workforce issues and skill shortages was a recurring theme in the evidence session and has been throughout our engagement with stakeholders ahead of the Committee. With this in mind, we are inclined to agree that one way of making immigration rules and shortage occupation lists more responsive would be to grant the devolved Administrations a greater say.
As I have already said, however, the glaring omission in new clause 33 is that it does not propose to consider the needs of the English regions in quite the same way. As a Yorkshire Member, it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that the population of Yorkshire is comparable to, or greater than, those of the devolved nations. We hope that a report of the kind outlined in new clause 33 might take into account our needs and those of other regions, alongside those of the devolved Administrations. As a party, we will be looking to review the MAC and the shortage occupation list process in their entirety, shaping our own proposals for transformation in due course. On that basis, we broadly support new clause 33, but we will be shaping our own proposals in the coming months.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and his hon. Friends for tabling the amendment and new clause. Having said that, there was a certain predictability about them given the SNP’s aim of separating our United Kingdom and wish for borders to be created across this island.
I turn to some of the more specific points. I have had direct contact with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. He is very passionate about the Gaelic language and the role it plays in contemporary life. I have also had representations from Ministers and Members in Wales about the strong role that the Welsh language plays in our culture today, enriching our Union as a whole. Certainly, we will see what we can do to incorporate Welsh, Irish and Gaelic into our migration system. It is probably worth noting that the vast majority of fluent speakers of those three languages are either citizens of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, and therefore effectively not subject to migration control; they have rights to live and work within the United Kingdom and settle in any part of it they choose.
It was interesting to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Halifax, my Labour shadow, about how separate systems would be enforced. Like me, she does not want to see an economic version of Hadrian’s Wall between England and Scotland, although I recognise that others on the Committee perhaps do.
We are looking at how to make the Migration Advisory Committee’s role responsive and how it can choose some of its own reports—we will come on to that when we discuss some of the new clauses. The issue is not purely about a commission. I am thinking particularly about how the MAC can send out a more regular drumbeat of reviews, and commentary on reviews, for the shortage occupation list. That should fit in with our wider labour market policies rather than being considered apart from our skills and training policies. I hope we can find some sensible consensus on that.
The MAC has launched its call for evidence for the shortage occupation list and the advice that it is going to give Ministers about the new points-based system. I hope people will engage with that; there is certainly good strong engagement from many businesses. It would be good to see the Scottish Government promote the idea that businesses in Scotland should be getting involved and positively engage in the process—not least given that the MAC has indicated its intention for there to be shortage occupation lists for each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. It will probably not be a great surprise if many of those are very similar, given the similar types of skill shortages across the United Kingdom.
I was interested to hear the comments from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, in particular the idea that we could start having immigration policy for individual council areas. That is interesting. It is worth saying that the MAC suggestion was about remote areas. We both went to see the first HM naval base on the Clyde, in his constituency; as he knows, he is not exactly remote from the vibrant heart of culture and economy that is Glasgow—that is rather different from the concept of, let us say, eastern and western Australia in terms of distance.
I will be very clear: a range of powers is available to the Scottish Government. If the same pull factors that created the challenges today still exist, this look into the migration system is not going to provide a solution. With other Members from Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, we have looked at the fact that there is a determined drive—luckily, the Scottish Government have the powers around economic development—to create those strong opportunities in communities. Ultimately, if we create a migration opportunity but the pull factors are still there and have not been addressed, the situation will become a revolving door. That is why we have to look at those core issues first —why people are moving out—and not just look to a migration system as a magic bullet for those problems.
Brendan O'Hara
At the risk of giving a geography lesson, I point out that when the Minister visited Argyll and Bute he visited the easternmost tip of the constituency, nearest to Glasgow. The constituency spreads over 7,500 sq km, has 26 remote island communities and is not part of the vibrant central belt hub. That is why it and many other areas of the highlands and islands of Scotland need a bespoke solution. The problems we face in Argyll and Bute are not those that many large conurbations in the United Kingdom face. There is a need to recognise that.
Kevin Foster
Perhaps the point has been made, then, that this is not about having an immigration system based on a council area, but about having one for an area smaller than that of a council. I think that that would lead to confusion, with multiple areas.
There are many issues across large stretches of the highlands, and also rural parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. The fact that there are challenges in ensuring that younger people in particular have opportunities, and options to stay, is a facet of the issue that is not unique to parts of Scotland. However, if we do not deal with the core issues, most of which fall under the remit of the devolved Administration in Edinburgh, those pull factors will still exist, and the migration system is not a magic cure for them.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a question of having strategies in place to address the challenges, but I want to pin the Minister down on the question of the remote areas pilot. That is a recommendation from the MAC. Can the Minister say categorically that this morning he is ditching it, and that there will not now be a remote areas pilot scheme? That would be really bad news.
Kevin Foster
We made it clear in the policy statement that we put out in February that we were not planning a remote areas pilot. Again, the thing that we must focus on is that many of the pull factors exist. It is within the competence of the Scottish Government to deal with those issues, and to create something and tackle them.
I have seen how Members of Parliament in the north-east of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), are pushing for the creation of those economic opportunities that they want in parts of rural Scotland. Perhaps the one hope that we have on this point is that there is a Scottish Parliament election coming next year. I hope that there will be a more business-focused, opportunity-based Administration in Edinburgh, which will be focused on developing Scotland, not separating it.
Douglas Ross
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister’s point about the number of factors that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and on which the Scottish National party Government of Scotland have failed.
We have heard from SNP Members that they want their own immigration system. Indeed, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that they would design and tailor one. Does the Minister share my concern that we heard similar reassurances from the SNP Scottish Government about social security—yet they had to tell the UK Government that they could not take those powers because they could not implement the changes quickly enough in Scotland?
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend, as always, hits the nail straight on the head with his arguments. Yes, we had many demands for devolution of policy, but then the Scottish Government did not want to take them up. Suddenly there was a new group of Unionists wanting the United Kingdom Government to deal with something in Scotland.
Stuart C. McDonald
Will the Minister do us the favour of explaining how his immigration policies will make the challenges easier rather than harder for Scotland?
Kevin Foster
The first thing that our immigration policy will do is provide a points-based system on a global basis, based on RQF3 and on having a shortage occupation list. Businesses in Scotland can recruit globally on that basis. Also, we can look at the first reform, which we have already carried out—a route that I was pleased to launch in Glasgow. I have seen it at first hand—the best talent being brought into our universities, and particularly into the University of Glasgow. Under that system, on a global basis, teams can be recruited to tackle and research some of the most challenging questions that mankind faces. On the occasion in question the issue was tackling malaria, and the huge impact of that.
Those are the sorts of benefits we want: high value and high skill—the attractions are there. It is a vision for Scotland, whose natural beauty is second to none, based on skills and the attractiveness of a high-skill, high-value economy—not on saying that the main thing Scotland’s economy needs is the ability to put more people on the minimum wage on a global basis.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister mentions his visit to Glasgow all the time. While he was there, did he speak with Universities Scotland, which is among the organisations that has spoken out in favour of a differentiated system? This is not just coming from the SNP. The Minister has also spoken about the benefits of his new system, but his own risk assessment says that it will cause levels of immigration to Scotland to fall. How is that in Scotland’s interests?
Kevin Foster
We engage strongly with partners, particularly our high-compliance Scottish universities that are sponsors of tier 4 visas. We very much welcome the contributions they make, as well as those that they make as part of wider groups, such as the Russell Group, that operate on a UK-wide basis.
There are two visions, I suppose. There is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and his colleagues from Scotland bring us: a high-productivity, high-value Scotland, an attractive place to live with a thriving economy, recruiting on a global basis. Then there is the Scotland that the Scottish National party brings us; the only reason someone would go there would be to pay low wages or recruit at, or near, the minimum wage on a global basis. That, to me, is not a particularly inspiring vision.
Many of the powers to deal with the pull factors that lead to depopulation in rural areas are already in the hands of the Edinburgh Administration. As with so many other things—this has been touched on in relation to social security—it is time to see the Scottish National party getting on with the job of governance, rather than the job of grieving or looking to separate the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will not be surprised to hear that the Government’s position has been made very clear on this issue, but I will briefly set it out again. Immigration and related matters, such as the free movement of persons from the EU, are reserved matters, and the immigration aspects of the Bill will therefore apply to the whole United Kingdom. The Government are delivering an immigration system that takes into account the needs of the whole of our United Kingdom and works for the whole of it, not for the political needs of those whose goal is its separation.
We do not believe that it would be sensible, desirable or workable to apply different immigration systems in different parts of the United Kingdom, and the independent Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly advised that the labour markets of the different nations of the United Kingdom are not sufficiently different to warrant different policies. That was an independent report—the type that people seem to want, but then do not seem to want to listen to.
Kevin Foster
No, I have given way many times. As we heard in the evidence sessions, the simplistic argument saying that Scotland is different from England for political reasons ignores the variation within Scotland itself, given the strength of the economy in Edinburgh compared with the economies of more rural areas.
I do not propose to address new clause 33 in detail; as I say, we have seen the MAC’s conclusions on this issue. The Government’s objection is one of principle: immigration is, and will remain, a reserved matter. We will introduce an immigration system that works for the whole of our country and all the nations that make up our United Kingdom by respecting the democratically expressed view of the people in the December 2019 general election and the 2014 vote of the Scottish people, which rejected separation. Both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon used the phrase “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” about that vote; now, only six years later, we see how short a generation has become. Free movement will end on 31 December, and we will introduce a points-based immigration system that ensures we can attract the best talent from around the world to Scotland, based on the skills and attributes they have, not where their passport comes from.
It will come as no surprise that SNP Members and I will have to agree to differ, as we regularly do on issues that relate to the constitutional future of Scotland. I obviously hope that the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Argyll and Bute and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West will withdraw their amendments—although I have a sneaky feeling that they may not—and I particularly hope that others on this Committee who have also voiced their opposition to separatist politics will join the Government in opposing these amendments if they are put to a vote.
Stuart C. McDonald
I sort of thank the Minister for at least making a contribution, but I have to say that, having shadowed about six or seven immigration Ministers for five years, I think that is probably the most regrettable speech I have heard from any of them at any time; the second most regrettable was the one the Minister made during the Opposition day debate a few months ago. It might play well with some MPs in this place, but I watched the faces of some Scottish Conservative MPs that night, and they were not impressed.
The Minister is speaking not just to the SNP, but to business groups and public service organisations—a whole host of concerned organisations in Scotland. He might get away with it in this Committee, but he cannot really get away with dismissing their concerns as “nationalist nonsense” or “separatist rubbish”. These are very serious people with very serious concerns about the implications of his Government’s migration system for Scotland. It seems to be not so much a case of, “We hope it will be all right on the night”, but one of, “We don’t care—stuff you!”
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 8, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5) This Part of the Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of this Act on faith communities in the UK.
(6) A report under subsection (5) must consider in particular the ability of members and representatives of faith communities from the EEA and Switzerland to enter the UK for purposes related to their faith.
(7) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(8) In this section,
“faith communities” means a group of individuals united by a clear structure and system of religious or spiritual beliefs.”
This amendment requires the government to report to Parliament on the implications of this Bill for faith communities, including the ability of members of faith communities to come to the UK for reasons connected with their faith.
Some 18 months or so ago, the then Minister of State for Immigration issued a written statement announcing changes to immigration rules. Apparently, those changes were to ensure that ministers of religion could no longer apply for a tier 5 religious worker visa; instead, they would have to apply for a tier 2 minister of religion visa. As I understand it, that was done because of a fear at the Home Office that people were coming in under the tier 5 visa route and leading worship while not having the level of English that the Home Office decided would be necessary to perform such a function. The explanatory memorandum said:
“The Immigration Rules currently permit Tier 5 Religious Workers to fill roles which ‘may include preaching, pastoral work and non-pastoral work’. This allows a migrant to come to the UK and fill a role as a Minister of Religion without demonstrating an ability to speak English.”
For some reason, the Home Office also decided to introduce a cooling-off period. The explanatory memorandum said:
“The ‘cooling off’ period will ensure Tier 5 Religious workers and Charity Workers spend a minimum of 12 months outside the UK before returning in either category. This will prevent migrants from applying for consecutive visas, thereby using the routes to live in the UK for extended periods, so as to reflect the temporary purpose of the routes better.”
I have been in discussions with representatives of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference about migration to both Scotland and England. They tell me that most Catholic dioceses previously used tier 5 religious worker visas for priests to come here on supply placements while parish priests were away for short periods because of sickness, training or annual leave. Those supply placements were essential, as they allow Catholics to continue attending mass while keeping parish activities running smoothly. That allows the parish to continue to function while the parish priest is off through illness, going on a retreat or accompanying parish groups on outings, or even just taking a holiday.
A supply placement priest will lead the celebration of holy mass, including the celebration of the sacrament of marriage. He will lead funerals, including supporting bereaved family members, and visit the sick and elderly of the local community. In an age when social isolation and loneliness are increasing, the parish is a place where people can gather as a community to support one another and engage in friendship. It is not just about worship, but about the community hub that the church provides by offering spiritual and practical help and supporting the sick, the elderly, the needy and the vulnerable.
Mr Goodwill
In my own constituency there is a Coptic Christian community; it is a closed order, so they do not preach. The system already works very well for non-EEA residents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if we do not extend the scheme to the EEA, there will be barriers for people coming to the UK in the way that he describes?
Stuart C. McDonald
I will come to that point in a minute. In short, the point made to me by the Catholic Church and other faith groups—we had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall around the time of the changes—is that, actually, the system for non-EEA nationals used to work but does not work now, precisely because of the changes that the Home Office made 18 months or so ago.
The system is much more expensive now, and it is beyond most parishes’ ability to pay the fees for ministers to come in and lead worship. If they come in under tier 5, which is the much cheaper option, they are no longer allowed to lead worship or whatever else. They can perform a range of functions, but not the ones that are really needed, including leading worship.
The issue is already a problem now and it will be made infinitely worse, because at the moment parishes can still rely on priests or other leaders coming from the EEA. They do not have to pay for the expensive tier 2 visa; they can just come in under the free movement of people. When free movement comes to an end, the same regime will apply and parishes will have to pay all sorts of fees, even to have priests come in from France, Italy, Poland or wherever else. They are not looking forward to that prospect at all.
As I was saying, visiting clergy not only allow the local community to continue to function, but benefit and enrich the whole community, as the community gains from cultural exchange and from sharing the knowledge and experience of priests from other parts of the world. They educate new communities about life in their country, and they open up avenues for local parishes to support communities in need. What was most surprising about the changes was that, as far as the SNP was aware, there had been no problems with visas for the Catholic Church or any of the other faith organisations that made use of the tier 5 route. The new requirement introduced in 2019 for anyone preaching to use tier 2 minister of religion visas has instead more than doubled the costs incurred by parishes arranging supply cover. For some parishes that is unsustainable, compromising people’s opportunity to practise their faith.
Furthermore, they point out that seminaries conducting formation in English are not necessarily recognised by the Home Office as meeting the English requirement under the tier 2 route, meaning that many priests educated to postgraduate level in English are nevertheless required to take a language test, with the extra logistical and cost implications. The new arrangements more than double the costs, making supply cover essentially unaffordable. I have heard directly from religious leaders in my constituency that that is the impact of those arrangements. Unless reforms are made, the situation will be worsened by the end of free movement, as I said in response to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Robert Goodwill). I simply ask the Government to engage with faith communities about the challenges that this is causing them to face, and to see if we might be able to come to a solution that makes these sorts of arrangements continue to function in the years ahead.
Brendan O'Hara
As my hon. Friend said, the tier 5 religious visas were operating perfectly smoothly for the many Churches and religious organisations that relied on them until these unexpected changes were made. Catholic parishes throughout the UK—including my own in the Archdiocese of Glasgow—regularly used these visas as routes for priests to come to the UK on supply placements.
The changes that came into force in January are already causing something of a headache for a whole host of religious organisations that require clergy to visit to cover for periods of illness, holiday, religious retreat, or when priests or other clergy are away on pilgrimage. This is a time of a crisis in vocation, clergy are becoming increasingly elderly, and more and more parishes and dioceses are turning to priests from outside the UK to cover such absences, sicknesses and holidays, so it beggars belief that the measure would have been introduced in this way.
It is important that the Minister realises that the tasks of a parish do not stop when the existing or resident priest falls ill, or goes on a well-earned holiday or retreat. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the church is more than just a place of worship, it is also a community hub providing both spiritual and practical support to the sick, elderly and vulnerable, as demonstrated by the great work of a number of organisations including the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has been clear in saying that much of the positive work done in and around Catholic parishes which engenders that sense of community is being seriously undermined and compromised by these changes. The Home Office has to understand and recognise the benefits of allowing priests from other parts of the world to come in on a tier 5 visa. They enrich the whole community. It is a cultural exchange, it is a share of knowledge, a share of experience by priests and clergy from other parts of the world.
It is not just the Catholic church. Indeed, the Church of Scotland is on record as saying that it opposes the measure. Many of us are confused as to why these changes were deemed necessary. What grave issue has arisen that needed to be addressed in such a draconian fashion? The Scottish bishops said that for years they had sponsored priests through the tier 5 process, and they are completely unaware of any abuse of the system whatever. For years, priests came here, they worked and preached in Scotland and across the UK, and then returned home. Indeed, 25 years ago this summer at St Helen’s church in Shawlands in Glasgow, Father Stephens from Malawi was the celebrant who married me and my wife, rather successfully I am happy to report. But the question remains: why did this have to happen? What was the motivation behind it? Can the Government not see the harm they are doing to our religious communities, and can they not act to stop it?
Finally, exactly a year ago in a debate on that in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) invited UK Ministers to meet the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland. Did Ministers take up that invitation? Did that meeting ever take place and, if it did, what was discussed and what outcomes were agreed? If it never took place, why not?
Kate Green
I support the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Argyle and Bute and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. There have been considerable benefits to our faith communities from their ability to take advantage of freedom of movement and welcome EEA nationals into their communities. Faith communities, especially Churches of all denominations, have congregations with many EEA nationals among their membership and they are also often individuals who act as pastors, counsellors, youth workers and musicians.
As we have heard, many faith organisations have needed EEA nationals to cover short-term or sometimes longer-term appointments into leadership positions. That is especially true in areas where it has been hard to recruit. Free movement has also allowed faith communities some flexibility in terms of shared mission work, with UK nationals working overseas, undertaking mission trips, musicians performing in Europe at faith-based events or running camps and youth conferences. Faith communities have been able to bring EEA speakers and volunteers to help communities and to run events without the associated costs and rules around visitor visas and the tier system.
There will be a number of consequences for those communities as a result of the loss of free movement. First, while many faith groups have been effective in pointing their members to the EU settlement scheme where that is relevant, uncertainty remains about the scheme, what it means for families, for continuity of residence and for faith communities who are trying to keep people in their communities.
Faith communities looking to employ or to bring in volunteers from the EEA will now have to navigate the tier system, as they would for non-EEA nationals. As we heard, that brings complexity. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I do not think it is the case that all faith communities have found that an easy system to navigate or to get the relevant approvals. There are also significant additional costs for sponsorship licences and visas. Indeed, it will not be cheap, especially when we include the additional NHS surcharge. A religious worker will be able to stay for up to two years. The cost for a one-year visa before administration costs is around £244, plus the NHS surcharge of £624, added to that the sponsorship licence fee and associated costs. On top of that, the community will have to fund any dependant costs and may also be providing the cost of flights, accommodation and training for the religious workers, and sometimes a small stipend. For smaller faith communities, that starts to become a very significant expense.
Many faith communities that rely on overseas workers tend to be found in the poorer parts of the UK. Poorer communities and poorer congregations are part of a poorer overall landscape and so the faith organisation itself will be less well resourced. It cannot draw on a wealthy congregation. That has a particular impact on smaller denominations and diaspora Churches, which will find that the loss of free movement will mean that poorer communities, who could benefit most from additional pastoral support, will feel the impact the harshest.
Proof of savings is difficult for some orders, which have vows of poverty, making it difficult for individuals to prove they can sustain themselves even if the order will cover all their living arrangements. If a person is needed quickly to cover a gap—the hon. Members for Argyle and Bute and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East talked about the potential absence of a priest for a range of personal reasons—the procedure will now mean that there will be delay in bringing in that cover. I am not talking here about roles that fall short of being a full minister of religion, but there are roles that will still involve some level of religious duty. For example, there continues to be uncertainty about those coming in to work with children, and about pastoral work and preaching, and an understanding of the definitions of what those roles encompass, which is a particular issue with some particular faiths of particular traditions.
There is also a concern, as I have said, among faith communities that bring in musicians who may be self-employed and who may work in multiple settings. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East pointed out, seminaries that conduct formation in English are not necessarily regarded as meeting the English language requirement.
I hope the whole Committee will agree about the benefits of facilitating religious workers to come in to support our faith communities. In that spirit, I will ask the Minister a number of questions. What assessment have the Government made of the level of upscaling needed in the Home Office to process additional sponsorship licences for the purposes of ministers of religion or religious workers, or charity workers and faith communities, due to the removal of free movement?
Echoing the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, what conversations are the Home Office having with faith groups regarding preparation for the immigration system that will affect them post-December? What help will be provided with regard to navigating sponsorship licences and understanding the costs that faith communities will have to meet?
At times, non-EEA nationals who have wanted to come to the UK for a short-term conference or to speak at an event have been denied visas; I have seen that in my own constituency. What assurance can the Minister give to faith communities that EEA nationals entering the UK for a conference or event for short-term study will not be restricted from doing so, and that appropriate decision-making will take place?
Will the Minister commit to reviewing the definitions of “minister of religion” and “religious worker”, and actively consult a wide variety of denominations and faith communities? What will the Home Office do to improve faith literacy among decision makers? I have to say that the asylum system has not given me much confidence that religious literacy in decision-making is where it needs to be.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact on creatives, such as musicians used by faith communities? Will they still be able to come to the UK? Will those in a different visa route be able to transfer if they take on a role in a faith community? For example, could someone who has arrived in the UK as a student transfer routes if they become a religious worker? Will it be possible for individuals to come to the UK as volunteers in faith communities and, if so, what restrictions will be applied to their activities? What discussions have the Government had with faith communities about their responsibility to carry out right-to-work checks?
This is an important issue for an important element of all our communities. I do not think the Government intend the impact of the removal of free movement to harm the operation of our faith communities, but the changes will cause real difficulties across a range of faiths, and particularly in those communities that most need the support that visiting religious workers can provide. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee.
Kevin Foster
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling this amendment. He always speaks with real passion, even when we disagree, as we did in the last debate, and his comments on this amendment have been no exception. We can perhaps be slightly more consensual now, even if the Government do not agree with the amendment.
I will deal briefly with a couple of points that have just been raised. First, in relation to decisions that would be taken on visitor visas for EEA nationals visiting faith groups, we have already made it very clear that EEA nationals will be non-visa nationals. Therefore, those looking to make visits to the United Kingdom would not be required to apply for a visa. They would be able to come through the e-gates and their visiting experience would be very similar, for example, to that of a New Zealander, a Canadian or a Japanese citizen at the moment, who can come through the e-gates and be granted visit leave. In a moment, I will come on to speak in a little more detail about the range of activities that a visitor can perform.
As a constituency MP, I have similarly sometimes been involved in decisions about faith communities, particularly a couple of years ago, when there needed to be some representations about how the income of Paignton parish church was considered, and whether a medieval church was an established organisation. I was only too happy to vouch that a church built in the 13th century is an established organisation, and that it was not set up for an immigration purpose, for pretty obvious reasons. I am genuinely always happy to hear representations from particular communities about that, as I did in that instance as a constituency MP.
We published the impact assessment for the Bill. I am clear that a lot of the Churches’ right-to-work checks will be the same as now anyway, because they have to do that for EEA citizens and UK nationals. When there is a right-to-work check, every one of us should be asked to present evidence that shows our right to work, as with right-to-rent checks; I recently had to show my passport to comply with those requirements, and rightly so. We are clear that there should be no discrimination there; those checks should be applied irrespective.
On the other points made, similarly, many faith communities, and certainly the larger faith communities present in the United Kingdom, are already sponsors. Much of that will transfer into the new system, so in many ways the experience of non-EEA nationals—non-visa nationals, to be absolutely clear—will be transferred over with the various concessions and opportunities, such as pay, performance, engagement and other items.
On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, I do not have officials’ or my predecessors’ diaries to hand, in terms of meetings, but as I met other faith communities at the invitation of Members of Parliament, I am certainly more than happy to meet the Scottish Catholic bishops representatives and to engage and have a conversation with them. They are a key partner. I certainly recognise the valuable social role that many Catholic churches play in communities across the United Kingdom. I am always happy to have a conversation about some of the definitions, particularly around visitor, tier 5 and tier 2. Some things, as I will come on to in a minute, will actually be covered by our visitor provisions, as well as under tier 5. Again, I am happy to have a conversation with them on those points.
I am genuinely grateful to the SNP for initiating this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to put on the record how the Government value the role faith communities play in this country, and more importantly, the contribution that many people who have migrated here have made and are making to the functioning and wellbeing of our faith communities. Faith communities enhance our national life, and they are stronger because people from around the world come and contribute to every aspect of their work, not least in bringing their skills to leadership in communities across the UK, hence why, in our future points-based immigration system, there will continue to be routes for those connected with faith and religion to come to the UK. Within the current immigration system, there are two routes specially designed for them, and this will continue in the future, to assist with consistency.
As referred to already, the tier 2 route for ministers of religion—effectively a skilled worker route—is for religious leaders such as priests, imams and rabbis, as well as missionaries and members of religious orders, taking employment or a role in a faith-based community. They can come for up to three years initially, which they can extend to six years, and they may qualify for settlement—indefinite leave to remain—after five years. Again, those who receive indefinite leave to remain are then exempted from the immigration health surcharge and will also have a permanent unlimited status within the United Kingdom.
Additionally, we have the tier 5 religious workers’ route. It should be clear to the Committee that this was designed with a very different purpose in mind. It permits stays of up to two years and caters for those wishing to undertake supportive, largely non-pastoral roles. In common with all tier 5 categories, as it is temporary at core, there is no English language requirement.
That last point is crucial. As I indicated, we welcome faith leaders from around the world, and in many communities regular conversations and events bring faith communities together in opposition to those who wish to sow the seeds of division between them. It is therefore right that those who want to lead a faith community, which involves both preaching and helping the faith community to interact with the wider community in their leadership role, should have a proper command of English to enable this—especially the valuable inter-faith work that goes on in so many communities.
I think of what happens locally in Torbay, and of the type of exchanges facilitated in the midlands, particularly by Coventry cathedral, given its background in different faiths. Those exchanges really cannot be facilitated if there is not a good command of a working language within the local community.
Mr Goodwill
Will the Minister pay tribute to John Sentamu, the recently retired Archbishop of York, who came from Uganda during the time of Idi Amin and has made a fantastic contribution to religious and general life in our country?
Kevin Foster
I am only too happy to do so and to put the Government’s thanks to him on the record. He provided an inspiration and a ministry that will be remembered for a very long time, and he broke the mould of what people expect from someone in such a senior position in the Anglican communion. Such contributions are very welcome and we want them to continue. We want to see that sort of person, particularly from the worldwide Anglican communion, as well as from the See of Rome—we have seen some amazing people come and be part of that community here in the United Kingdom. It is well worth paying tribute to such an example of someone who has achieved amazing things and revealed what he saw as God’s purpose for him as Archbishop of York. I am sure that we all wish him a very long retirement—not from holy orders, of course, which are a calling for life, but from his duties as archbishop.
I have heard the concerns expressed today about those who come to the UK for a very short term to provide cover while the incumbent minister is on holiday. It is worth pointing out our visitor rules, which will extend to EEA nationals as they currently extend to non-visa nationals, as I indicated earlier. In the immigration rules, the list of permitted activities specifically states that visitors may
“preach or do pastoral work.”
That allows many faith communities to hear inspiring preachers or hear about their faith’s work in other countries, especially in support of overseas aid and development work. Visitors are permitted to lead services on an ad hoc basis, which may provide a solution for communities that wish to invite visiting clergy to cover short-term absences, although they may not be paid for it—in many religious communities, that would not necessarily be a bar to providing a period of short-term cover.
It is worth my reminding the Committee that we have confirmed that EU citizens, who are the focus of the Bill, and EEA citizens more widely can continue to come to the UK as visitors without a visa, without prior approval, and use e-gates, where available, on arrival in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the SNP will consider its position on amendment 11. I say gently that we all need to reflect on whether it is appropriate to have faith communities led by those without a command of English adequate for the task—not least at a time when we need to come together more, not be separated by barriers of language. I therefore believe that the review that the amendment would put in place is not necessary. I invite the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the amendment, but I am always more than happy to discuss further how we can ensure that our faith communities are supported and that there is clarity on the three routes that I have outlined for ministers and those involved in faith communities to come to the United Kingdom and play the role that many have done in an inspiring way over many years.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for their detailed contributions to the debate, and to the Minister for his response. We are back in much more convivial and consensual territory, and I much prefer it; I feel much more comfortable there. I am particularly grateful for the Minister’s offer to meet the Bishops’ Conference, which I am sure will be very welcome. This debate has helped us clarify how close we are to making sure the system works for all interested parties.
I scribbled down the fact that the Minister highlighted two routes, but of course there are three. Tier 2 is much more about the longer term, and affects ministers who want to come and settle, and the tier 5 route is not for people who will lead worship. Then there is the visitor category, but, as the Minister said, it does not allow for payment to be made, and the organisations that I have spoken to say that if somebody is here for a couple of months, there are challenges if they cannot offer to pay.
We are close, but those three routes do not quite resolve the difficulties that we have highlighted. If the Minister is able to engage with the bishops’ conferences and other religious organisations, we may be able to tweak one of the three existing routes or come up with another one. It is probably better to fix the three than to come up with a fourth. I hope we will find a resolution, and I am glad that the Minister is engaging positively. For that reason, I see no reason to press for a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I have to be entirely neutral, of course, but it would be nice if the Government allowed us to have our religious services again, as has happened in the rest of Europe.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 9
Report on the impact to EEA and Swiss nationals
“(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact on EEA and Swiss nationals of having no recourse to public funds under Immigration Rules;
(b) the impact of NHS charging for EEA and Swiss nationals;
(c) the impact of granting citizenship to all EEA and Swiss health and social care workers working in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic;
(d) the impact of amending the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove all fees for applications, processes and services for EEA and Swiss nationals; and
(e) the merits of the devolution of powers over immigration from the EEA area and Switzerland to (i) Senedd Cymru; (ii) the Scottish Parliament; and (iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(4) In this section, ‘health and social care workers’ includes doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, social workers, care workers, and other frontline health and social care staff required to maintain the UK’s health and social care sector.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would ensure that before this Act coming into force, Parliament would have a chance to discuss how EEA and Swiss nationals will be affected by its provisions, including no recourse to public funds conditions, NHS charging, the possibility of granting British citizenship to non-British health and social care workers, removing citizenship application fees and the potential devolution of immigration policy of EEA and Swiss nationals to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Extension of registration for EU Settlement Scheme—
“(1) The EU Settlement Scheme deadline shall be extended by a period of six months unless a motion not to extend the deadline is debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Any motion not to extend, referred to in subsection (1), must be debated and approved no later than three months before the deadline.
(3) In this section, ‘the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline’ means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under the Immigration Rules.”
This new clause would ensure the EU settlement scheme was not closed to new applications until Parliament has approved its closure.
New clause 11—Application after the EU Settlement Scheme deadline—
“(1) An application to the EU Settlement Scheme after the EU settlement scheme deadline must still be decided in accordance with appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, unless reasons of public policy, public security, or public health apply in accordance with Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (as they have effect at the date of application or as they had effect immediately before they were revoked).
(2) In this section—
‘an application to the EU Settlement Scheme’ means an application for pre-settled or settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules;
‘the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline’ means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.”
This new clause would ensure that late applications to the EU settlement scheme will still be considered, unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply.
New clause 25—Report on status of EEA and Swiss nationals after the transition—
“(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must clarify the position of EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK during the period between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to, what rights EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK on 31 December 2020 have to—
(a) work in the UK;
(b) use the NHS for free;
(c) enrol in education or continue studying;
(d) access public funds such as benefits and pensions; and
(e) travel in and out of the UK.”
This new clause would require Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the EU in the grace period between the end of the transition period, and the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
With new clause 9, which stands principally in the names of my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru, we turn to the central matter of the Bill: what will happen to EEA and Swiss nationals who are already here? The new clause simply calls on the Government to report on what the implications for EEA and Swiss nationals will be. That includes reporting on the impact of no recourse to public funds, NHS charging, the granting of citizenship to all EEA and Swiss health and social care workers working in the UK during covid-19, and certain fees. It also includes—we will probably not discuss this in great detail—the merits of the devolution of powers over immigration from the EEA and Switzerland to different parts of the United Kingdom. Those are all perfectly reasonable requests.
I want to focus on new clauses 10 and 11, which bring us back to the settlement scheme. We touched on that on Thursday, when Opposition Members made the case for a declaratory system, meaning that people would have their rights automatically enshrined in law. It would still apply to the settlement scheme so that they could prove their status and navigate employment, social security and other rights. I regret that the Government and the Committee rejected that proposal, but I have taken that on the chin and moved on. However, that puts the Government under a greater obligation to spell out what should happen to eligible individuals who do not apply for the settlement scheme by 30 June 2021. I have tried on a huge number of occasions to get them to reveal what work they have done to estimate how many people might not apply, even in broad-brush terms, and how they would respond.
As we heard in evidence, it is blindingly obvious that, even with all the good work that is going on, the Government will struggle to get above 90% of the target population. Getting above 90% would be a great success, given the international comparison. If the Government fall just 5%, 6% or 7% short of the target, hundreds of thousands of people will suddenly be without status and will lose any right to be in this country on 1 July 2021. By all accounts, this is a huge issue and we need to push the Home Office further to set out how it will address it. So far, all we have been told is that it will take a reasonable approach. That is fine, but it is not enough. We need much more detail, and new clauses 10 and 11 are designed to push the Government on that.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that extending the deadline by six months would encourage those who have been putting it off to put it off for another six months?
Stuart C. McDonald
Not really. People still have every incentive to apply for the scheme. On 1 July next year the deadline will have passed. People might put it off for six months, but I would far rather that than subject tens and probably hundreds of thousands of people to not having any rights at all. It is much the lesser of two evils. As I say, there are different ways in which we can do this. New clause 11 would allow people to apply after the deadline. I will turn to that in a moment. I want to set out exactly what new clauses 10 and 11 are designed to do.
New clause 10 would ensure that the EU settlement scheme was not closed to new applications until Parliament had approved its closure. We want to see what the plans are and scrutinise how the situation will be handled. Until we are satisfied, we will keep extending the scheme in order to protect people from the loss of their rights and from the hostile environment and the threat of removal. Why on earth should MPs give the Home Office a blank cheque to deal with this as it pleases? We will have that debate and the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby can make his point that it will lead to a delay in people making applications, but I am firmly of the view that that is much the lesser of two evils.
On the closure of the settlement scheme, people who have not applied for a status will have no legal basis to remain in the UK after the grace period, no matter how long they have lived in the UK. They will be liable to removal and will face the hostile environment. After the grace period, a huge group of people will still not have applied. No similar scheme has ever reached 100% of its target audience. New clause 11 would bring back control of the situation to Parliament and allow us to be fully informed as to where the settlement scheme has got and what the Government’s plans are for dealing with this huge issue before we sign off on closure of the scheme. It is a modest proposal, but hugely important.
New clause 11 would ensure that late applications to the EU settlement scheme would still be considered unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply. In tabling the new clause, we are asking the Minister who he thinks does not deserve a second chance after 30 June next year. Who does not deserve the reasonable response that he has spoken about in the past? Under the new clause, applications made after the deadline could be ignored for restricted reasons relating to public policy, public security or public health. However, we want to know who, on top of that, the Minister thinks should be deprived of their rights and the ability to remedy the situation in which they find themselves. People will be unable to live in this country and they will be liable to removal. We need to know much more about the grounds on which people will be able to make a late application. What are the reasonable grounds that the Home Office will accept? They have yet to be defined. As far as we can tell, they will comprise only a very narrow list of exemptions, including, for example, for those with a physical or mental incapacity, and for children whose parents have failed to apply on their behalf.
As I have said many times, the deadline will be missed by many people for good reasons beyond those that I have just outlined. People will simply not be aware of the need to apply, and people with pre-settled status might forget to reapply for full settled status. I have set out a million times why people will not understand that the settlement scheme applies to them. Rules on nationality and immigration status in this country are hugely complicated. There will undoubtedly be people from all walks of life who think that they are British citizens and who already have a right of residence in this country. They will not appreciate that, in fact, they need to apply to the scheme. The consequences of making such a mistake can be dreadful. If we simply leave the Bill as it is, people will lose the right to be in this country and will be removed and subject to the hostile environment. Alternatively, we could at least leave open to them the option of being able to apply to the scheme after the deadline has passed. They would still have every incentive to apply, because they would need to evidence the rights that they access through the settled status process.
I ask the Government to look positively on these new clauses, and at the very least to provide much more information and assurance about how they are going to approach this issue. Up to this point, there has been barely a flicker of recognition that this is something that needs to be addressed, but we are talking about tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people being left in an appalling situation.
Holly Lynch
I believe that it is appropriate to speak to new clause 25 as part of this grouping. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has already explained his commitment to and passion for new clauses 10 and 11. Our new clause 25 is not dissimilar to new clause 9. New clause 25 is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who is the shadow Home Secretary, and myself and my hon. Friends.
New clause 25 focuses on the need to put to bed some of the anxieties of those who will not have had their status confirmed by the time the transition period ends at the end of this year. When free movement ends, eligible EEA and Swiss nationals will still have until the end of the grace period to apply for status through the EU settlement scheme, which does not close until the end June 2021. With this in mind, all the conversations we have had with those European citizens who have either applied or are planning on applying to the settlement scheme have centred on what their status will be between the end of free movement and their status being granted, which could happen up until the end of June 2021 and, in some cases, beyond that.
The new clause asks the Government to put together a report on the status and rights of people during that window and to lay it before both Houses for consideration. We are calling on the Government to recognise the genuine sense of vulnerability felt by people who may fall into that category and to provide some assurance, in a report to Parliament, guaranteeing that those people, who are eligible, will have a lawful status and not be disadvantaged during those six months.
I asked Luke Piper, immigration lawyer and head of policy at the3million, about this issue in last week’s evidence session. It is a top priority for him and his group. He told the Committee:
“The Bill brings freedom of movement to an end at the end of this year, but it is not clear what legal status people will have between the end of the transition period, which is at the end of the year, and the end of June—the end of the grace period. There has been no clarity about, or understanding of, what legal rights people will have. We have simply been told that certain checks, such as on the right to work, will not be undertaken, but it is not clear to us or our members how people will be distinguished, both in practice and in law.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 61, Q125.]
EU citizens in the UK have already endured a lot of uncertainty about their futures and are now also facing insecurity on their lawful status. The suggestion that employers or landlords should not be checking to confirm their personal status during this grace period seems to be an approach fraught with potential problems. I am keen to hear what engagement Ministers have with employers and landlords on this issue, and how any suspension of the hostile environment will be managed. Last December, the3million commissioned a survey on EU citizens’ experience of the settlement scheme. It was the largest survey of its kind and indicated that they are already facing barriers, with 10.9% of respondents saying they have already been asked for proof of settled status, even though it is not yet a requirement.
Although this new clause focuses on the rights of those who apply after the transition ends and who get their status before the EUSS deadline, there will presumably then be a group of particularly vulnerable people who apply before the deadline ends but who do not get their status until after the end of June 2021. What happens, for example, if they apply on 20 June 2021, which is before the deadline, but do not get confirmation of their status until 20 July, which is after the end the transition period and the closure of the EUSS? What are the rights and status of that cohort of people?
Although the numbers coming through are good, we know that lots of people are still yet to apply. As we have heard, we will never know exactly how many people are in that category. We will never know whether there is going to be a surge towards the end of the scheme, which will make this a bigger problem than many of us would like. When asked about the numbers and types of people who will struggle to apply on time, Luke Piper said:
“Much as with the number of people due to apply for the scheme, we do not know. We have no idea of the exact number of EU citizens who need to apply under the EU settlement scheme, so we will not have an understanding of the number of people who miss the deadline.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 62, Q126.]
Coronavirus has resulted in dedicated Home Office phone lines being closed, an inability to receive hard copies of documentation and specialist support services being stopped, impacting on the progress being made. The BMA has said that some doctors working tirelessly on the frontline may be in that cohort of people who have to leave things until next year, simply because they will be working flat out for the foreseeable future. After the transition period comes to an end, thousands of people might not have confirmation of their status.
Recent research by the3million on young Europeans living in London made some concerning findings. The focus group was the first time that some participants had heard about the EU settlement scheme, and a majority had not applied to it, despite being viewed as an easy to reach group because of their education and digital literacy. The new clause’s proposed report on that group’s rights between the end of the transition period and the EU exit deadline would be of great assistance in clarifying the status and rights of those harder-to-reach groups. It would also assist in getting them to submit their applications towards the end of the scheme.
It is important to note that, after the deadline, the EU settlement scheme will not close in practice, because people with pre-settled status will need to apply for settled status, and it will also be used by people will be joining family members in the UK after the deadline. Moreover, we will still be processing those applications that arrive on time but that will have to wait until the other side of the deadline for a decision to be issued.
Inevitably, the problem is the hostile environment and the long, dark shadow of the Windrush scandal. The fear brought about by the absence of a clear framework of rights and migration status for EEA and Swiss nationals between September 2020 and June 2021 is all too real. We therefore ask the Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the UK during the grace period. EU citizens who have contributed and given so much to our society and country deserve to have security and confidence in their status.
Mr Goodwill
I very much sympathise with what the hon. Member for Halifax has just said. There is real concern that EEA nationals who have been working here, contributing not least to our health service, may find themselves missing the deadline. However, I do not agree that the way to address that is through new clause 10, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Some like myself would always wait until the deadline before submitting an essay or article. By extending the period by six months, we might well just encourage people to put off the chore—as they see it—of applying.
I ask the Minister to reassure us that, as we approach the deadline, the Government will engage in a communications exercise and advertising campaign, particularly in some of the main EU languages, so that people are aware of the deadline and can submit their applications in good time for them to be processed.
Kate Green
That is an important point, in particular in relation to those communities, such as the Roma community, that have been hard to reach with information about the scheme. The Government have made some funding available for community organisations to reach such communities, but it would be extremely welcome to follow the suggestion that a particular push be made to communicate with those more remote communities as the deadline approaches
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Indeed, while many EU migrants have made a real effort to integrate and to speak English in their homes, encouraging their children to speak English, others have not assimilated as well and are still speaking their native language, as is their right. It is important that we communicate in those languages.
Perhaps we should also look at how we communicate through schools, because the children of some families who have come from the EU speak very good English, although their parents struggle with it. The children’s secondary schools may be another good way to get through to such families. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point and reassure us that the Government will be making the effort to communicate with the general population, to ensure that we can help our work mates and so on.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 16th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2020 - (16 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Just before we begin, I should say that if members of the Committee wish to take their jackets off, they have my permission to do so. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson have spoken. If no Back Benchers indicate that they wish to speak, I will call the Minister. I remind the Committee that with this we are also discussing the following:
New clause 10—Extension of registration for EU Settlement Scheme—
‘(1) The EU Settlement Scheme deadline shall be extended by a period of six months unless a motion not to extend the deadline is debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Any motion not to extend, referred to in subsection (1), must be debated and approved no later than three months before the deadline.
(3) In this section, “the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline” means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under the Immigration Rules.’
This new clause would ensure the EU settlement scheme was not closed to new applications until Parliament has approved its closure.
New clause 11—Application after the EU Settlement Scheme deadline—
‘(1) An application to the EU Settlement Scheme after the EU settlement scheme deadline must still be decided in accordance with appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, unless reasons of public policy, public security, or public health apply in accordance with Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (as they have effect at the date of application or as they had effect immediately before they were revoked).
(2) In this section—
“an application to the EU Settlement Scheme” means an application for pre-settled or settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules;
“the EU Settlement Scheme Deadline” means the deadline for applying for settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.’
This new clause would ensure that late applications to the EU settlement scheme will still be considered, unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply.
New clause 25—Report on status of EEA and Swiss nationals after the transition—
‘(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must clarify the position of EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK during the period between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to, what rights EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK on 31 December 2020 have to—
(a) work in the UK;
(b) use the NHS for free;
(c) enrol in education or continue studying;
(d) access public funds such as benefits and pensions; and
(e) travel in and out of the UK.’
This new clause would require Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the EU in the grace period between the end of the transition period, and the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. These new clauses give us an important opportunity to consider the position of EEA citizens—those who are already here and are covered by the EU settlement scheme, and those who will come to the UK under our future points-based immigration system.
Before the break, I was asked a couple of questions. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we are looking at a range of communications materials, and have already done so, in a number of common European languages. We have engaged with diaspora media, and are looking particularly at how we can work with them over the coming year, as we approach the deadline next year, to ensure that as many people as possible hear the message—not just those who need to apply, but their friends and families, so that people feel familiar with the system and realise that it is actually a relatively simple process. The vast majority of people do it via an app on their phone.
I was grateful for the question from the hon. Member for Halifax. She asked what the position would be if someone applied on 20 June 2021 and their application was still outstanding on 1 July 2021. That is a perfectly reasonable issue to raise. As set out in the withdrawal agreement, the rights of someone who has made a valid in-time application to the EU settlement scheme will be protected while that application is pending. The regulations under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 will save relevant rights in relation to residency and access to benefits and services for those who make an application before 30 June 2021 until it is finally determined.
The Home Office will clearly not take immigration enforcement action against an individual whose application is pending. That reflects some of the other principles in the migration system. Committee members may be familiar with 3C leave—the concept that if someone has extant leave and applies, their leave is extended until their application is determined.
I assure Members that the statutory instrument making the regulations will be subject to debate and approval by Parliament, and will need to come into force at the end of the transition period. The Government are currently developing those regulations, which will be debated and made in good time prior to their entry into force at the end of the transition period.
On the linked question of what happens in relation to status checks and other things, let me be clear that an individual undergoing an eligibility check while their EUSS application is pending will have the same entitlement to accommodation, work, benefits or services that they had before the grace period ended. The Home Office will confirm whether an application is pending when an eligibility check is carried out—for example, if someone has to prove their status to their employer. Given that it is a digital-only system, it will be very similar to the process that people would use if they had been given pre-settled or settled status. I hope that is of use. Given the nature of the issue, I will set that out in writing for members of the Committee. They may wish to refer to it later.
New clause 9, moved on behalf of our friends in Plaid Cymru by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, seeks to delay the ending of free movement and the introduction of the new points-based immigration system for as long as possible. That is no surprise, given the views of the hon. Gentleman and Plaid Cymru.
My response on behalf of the Government is simple: we must accept the wishes of the people of our United Kingdom. Free movement is ending now that we have left the European Union. It is just six months since the general election, during which my party said that we would introduce a points-based immigration system that will enable us to bring in the best talent from around the world—based on the skills that a person has, not where their passport is from. The Government will therefore reject any attempt to perpetuate free movement or delay the implementation of the new points-based immigration system. The Government have a mandate, and we will fulfil our pledges to the people. We will introduce our new firmer and fairer points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021, when the transition period ends.
Having said that, I appreciate the importance of proper data and information. It is precisely for that reason that the Government have published a detailed impact assessment to accompany the Bill. It was published on 18 May and can be found on gov.uk and the Parliament website. Copies were also placed in the Library, and I know it has been referred to at times during the debates we have had so far.
The impact assessment is slightly unusual because it is not confined simply to the scope of the Bill, which, as Sir Edward and you, Mr Stringer, have reminded us on a number of occasions, is relatively narrow. Instead, it seeks to map out the consequences that will flow from the introduction of the points-based immigration system that was set out in the policy statement, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 19 February.
The impact assessment sets out the likely implications for both EEA and non-EEA citizens of the changes that we will make, and it deals with many of the issues raised by the new clause. In particular, it makes it clear that we will develop plans to evaluate policies under the future skills-based immigration system. I remind the Committee that we have expanded the role of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. Not only will the MAC respond to specific commissions from the Government; it will also be able to consider any aspect of immigration policy that it chooses.
We have also asked the MAC to produce an annual report, which will give it the opportunity to comment on what it believes is working well and anything it thinks is working less well in our system. Although it is for the MAC—as I have said, it is independent of Government—to decide how to exercise its new responsibilities, I would be surprised if it did not want to comment on the operation of the new points-based system once it is fully up and running, so that there is further assurance for the public and for the movers of the new clause. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clause.
I will now speak to new clauses 10, 11 and 25, which concern the EU settlement scheme and the grace period that will run from the end of the transition period to 30 June 2021. New clause 10 is designed to extend the deadline for applications to the EUSS by six months, which would happen unless and until Parliament debated and approved a motion not to extend the deadline.
I share the aim of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to ensure that eligible EEA citizens are able to obtain the UK immigration status they need to continue to live and work here. As we constantly say, they are our neighbours and friends—we want them to stay. However, I do not think that is best achieved by the new clause, which has the effect of shifting the deadline for applications to the scheme potentially indefinitely. That would cause confusion. Instead, a clear deadline of 30 June 2021 will encourage applications to the scheme and ensure the greatest number of resident EEA citizens secure their status in a timely manner.
Furthermore, new clause 10 is ambiguous. It is not clear whether it is intended to be a one-off extension of six months or a rolling extension of a six-month period until such a time as Parliament votes to close the scheme with just three months’ notice. Having a clear and well-publicised deadline by which eligible citizens need to apply ensures that the maximum number do so rather than putting it off due to the impact of new clause 10, which could mean that a deadline is set with three months’ notice. The new clause could also mean that applicants face difficulties and delays in demonstrating their rights and entitlements in the future, as they would not be able to distinguish themselves from EEA citizens who arrived after the end of the transition period.
The Government have made it clear that we will continue to support eligible citizens in applying to the EU settlement scheme. In addition, as we have shown with all aspects of the scheme, we will take a flexible and pragmatic approach and allow people with reasonable grounds for missing the deadline a further opportunity to apply. We will set out further guidance on this issue in due course, but with over a year to go until the deadline, our focus is on getting as many applications before it as possible.
On new clause 25, we will bring forward a statutory instrument under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to set the deadline and save the residency rights of people who are eligible to apply to the scheme and who do so before the deadline. I am not sure whether this is the intention of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, but the effect of new clause 10 would be to breach our obligations under the withdrawal agreements. The deadline of 30 June 2023 applies only to EEA citizens and their family members who reside in the UK by the end of the transition period. Their close family members outside the UK at the end of the transition period—where the relationship existed before then and continues to exist when they seek to come here—and their future children have a lifelong right of family reunion with the resident EEA citizen. A universal deadline makes no provision for this group, whether it is 31 December 2021 or any other date, and it would be inconsistent with the provision to enable them to apply within three months of their arrival, as set out in article 18(1)(b) of the withdrawal agreement.
New clause 11 is intended to require the consideration of all applications to the EU settlement scheme made after the application deadline, unless reasons of public policy, public security or public health apply. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the withdrawal agreement requires late applications to be considered
“if there are reasonable grounds for the failure to respect the deadline.”
As I said earlier, the Government will adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach to the consideration of late applications. Where an eligible EEA citizen or their family member has reasonable grounds for missing the application deadline of 30 June 2021, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. This approach gives people a clear deadline and incentive to apply while also protecting those who are unable to do so through no fault of their own.
Our collective focus must be on encouraging applications to the EU settlement scheme before the deadline.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
In terms of intention, I think everybody in this room is at one. The Minister provides assurance in relation to people who miss the deadline through no fault of their own. Would that include people who, because of their complicated immigration nationality situations, had not appreciated that they needed to apply for the scheme?
Kevin Foster
I think it is safe to say that the list will not be an exhaustive one. There will need to be an element of discretion as we cannot list every single possible situation that might reasonably cause someone to be late in their application, but if, for example, they have had a difficult court case or something that meant they had not been able to apply, and a status had then been granted, it is likely that that would be seen as a reasonable excuse. It will be set out in guidance.
Our intention is to set out a list of situations that are not exhaustive but indicative. We can all think of circumstances that would be perfectly reasonable. For example, in the case of a child in the care of a local authority, we would expect the local authority to have made efforts to get them registered. We could make a very long list and still not get to an exhaustive level. The list will demonstrate grounds, but it will not be an exhaustive list of the only situations that we would accept as reasonable grounds for failing to apply on time.
As I say, we will take a flexible and pragmatic approach with those who miss the deadline. We have more than a year to go before the deadline. If people feel that they might need to make an application, the best thing to do is to find the information and make the application. That is our absolute focus at the moment. We are working closely with support groups to ensure that we can reach out to vulnerable communities who might need assistance. We have kept a range of support services running throughout the recent period and have now reinstated all routes for application, including paper applications that are made available to those with the most complex needs.
We want to encourage applications before the deadline. That will ensure that EEA citizens can continue to live their lives here, as they do now, without interruption. To make a commitment now that we would also consider all late applications would undermine that effort.
Where there are reasonable grounds for submitting a late application, we will consider the application in exactly the same way as we do now, in line with the immigration rules for the EU settlement scheme. That includes the consideration of conduct committed before the end of the transition period on the grounds of public policy, public security and public health, and of conduct committed thereafter under the UK conduct and criminality thresholds. As I have mentioned, we will publish guidance for caseworkers on what constitutes reasonable grounds, to ensure consistency of approach. Again, however, with more than a year until the deadline, it is premature to do so now, for the reasons I have given.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to all hon. Members for taking part in this debate and to the Minister for his response. There have been some useful comments, including on the transition period, in response to points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax. We will take that back to discuss with concerned groups and may revisit the matter.
For those who fail to apply in time, we understand that there will be guidance in due course. Again, we are grateful for that little bit of further information on how that will function through a non-exhaustive list of types of case where caseworkers will look sympathetically on a late application. I am grateful for that. The Minister will understand that we will revisit that repeatedly between now and next June, due to our concern about what will happen to those people who have the right to be here but risk losing it.
As I said in my intervention, we have a similar purpose across the House; we just have different views on how to go about doing it. Having adopted this course of action, we will continue to press and push the Government at every possible opportunity, so that we get the maximum reach possible and as few people as possible lose their rights and end up being cast adrift in a hostile environment or lose their right to be in this country altogether.
The two new clauses were possible solutions to that. I will go away and think again about their detailed drafting. The Minister provided some interesting comments in that regard. At this juncture, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Immigration health charge
‘No immigration health charge introduced under section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 may be imposed on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would prevent EEA or Swiss nationals paying the immigration health charge.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 42—Immigration Health Charge: Exemption for EEA and Swiss citizens who are healthcare and social workers—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38 (Immigration health charge) insert—
“38A Health care workers and social workers from the EEA or Switzerland
(1) Any person who but for the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 would have the right of free movement is exempt from the Immigration health charge if that person is—
(a) a healthcare worker; or
(b) a social care worker.
(2) The exemption will also apply to a person who is a family member or dependant of an EEA or Swiss national who meets the conditions in section (1)(a) and (b).
(3) For this section—
“healthcare worker” means a worker who works in a healthcare setting within and outside the NHS who may come into contact with patients, including clinical administration staff, and care home staff;
“social care worker” means a worker as defined by section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000.’
Stuart C. McDonald
This brings us to the hot topic of the immigration health surcharge. It is worth remembering that the health surcharge is a fairly new concept, as it was introduced in 2014. It is set at £400 per year for most applicants, with a discounted rate for students and tier 5 youth mobility workers. The Government have decided to increase the fee to £624 per person per year in October.
Those are hugely significant sums of money, as the charge has to be paid per person per year for the full duration of the visa being applied for, before that visa application has even been considered. Somebody who comes in under a typical five-year tier 2 visa will have to pay more than £3,000 up front in health charges. If they have a husband or wife and a couple of kids, that is three extra NHS surcharges, so more than £12,000 up front without even thinking about the visa fee. On a discounted rate, a student coming for three years will need to pay more than £1,400 up front. Again, that is completely separate from the visa fee. Of course, the Bill extends the scope of the immigration health surcharge to many more applicants.
A particular injustice is done to people applying for leave to remain based on long residence. They are individuals and families who are forced on to a dreadful treadmill of applications and expense. Repeatedly, they have to apply for 30 months’ leave to remain. A single parent with two kids applying under those rules would need to pay almost £4,700 in health charges, and more than £3,000 in immigration fees, for just 30 months. They have to make that same application over and over again until they get to 10 years. When they get to 10 years and are met with a settlement fee of £2,400 per person, they will already have paid £10,300 per person. For a family, £10,000 per person is impossible. Shamefully, those people are often prohibited from having access to public funds.
Those people are applying because of long residence in the UK so, realistically, in many cases, there is no other country that they can go to. The children have spent most, if not all, of their lives here. It can put families in intolerable situations where they have to choose which family member they can afford to pay the fee for. A child may end up missing out because the most immediate and pressing priority is to pay the fee for a breadwinner.
In a way, the charge represents the worst of Home Office policy making, although the Treasury is as much to blame for stripping the Home Office right down to the core and instructing it to use migrants as cash cows to fund its activities. It also illustrates the Home Office at its worst, because the policy is more about grabbing the headlines than anything else. It is illogical, unjust and counterproductive.
The excuse given is that the policy ensures that migrants contribute towards the cost of the NHS system that they may use—but in that case, why is there an NHS charge but not an education charge, especially for families with kids? Why is there not a public transport or roads charge, or a local services charge? It is essentially a fig leaf for the fact that it is simply a general tax.
It is also unjust in that it is a form of double taxation and it is a poll tax. Migrants, of course, contribute to public services through general taxation like everybody else, through income tax, council tax and indirect taxes. The NHS surcharge is totally regressive. It falls unfairly on different migrants, as a wealthy bank worker with no dependants will pay about a quarter of the sum that an NHS careworker will pay if he or she comes in with kids. Most importantly, it falls unfairly on migrants as opposed to those who are citizens or settled. Migrants pay a general tax that the rest of us do not, while at the same time paying all the other taxes that we do.
Finally, from a different perspective, this is a policy that makes the UK an eye-wateringly expensive place for people to come to work. That will now expand to EU and Swiss nationals, and to the small and medium-sized businesses that employ them. Just as businesses are struggling to keep their noses above water, the Government intend to whack them with a plethora of fees, vis-à-vis skills charges and the NHS surcharge.
As we heard last week, it is the big multinationals that are well practised in this system over time, and that have the know-how and resources. Small and medium-sized businesses will end up not only having to navigate the complex tier 2 system, but often meeting the cost of the immigration health surcharge. If a job pays around £26,000 or £27,000, nobody in their right mind is going to come if they have to pay almost half a year’s salary up front. The small hotel and the fish-processing factory will have to pay it on their behalf and, quite simply, they may well not be able to afford to do that. It will not just be one job that remains unfilled. The danger becomes that that hotel or factory simply cannot continue to function and it moves elsewhere. Workers will go where they are not being totally ripped off.
Can the Minister give me examples of other countries that operate such a system in relation to a health surcharge? If so, what is the comparable rate? All the comparisons that I have looked at show that the UK is charging people to come here at a rate that is several times that of most of our competitor countries. In short, this is unjust, it is counter-productive, it is a double poll tax and it should be axed altogether. We support the Labour amendment and new clause as far as they go, but our view is that the solution is total abolition, rather than trimming around the edges.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak to new clause 42. I agree with a great deal of what my friend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said about the immigration health surcharge.
The Labour party is undertaking a significant piece of work with colleagues in the health team about the subject, so we will not make any further comments at this stage about new clause 12. We tabled new clause 42 and we welcome the Government’s commitment to scrap the NHS surcharge for migrant health and care workers, which we feel is long overdue.
The pandemic has shown the enormous contribution of overseas workers to our health and care system. They have put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. It has been an insult and injustice to then ask them to pay extra for the very services they help provide. The Government acknowledged it was wrong, and said they would be scrapping the fee, which was described as “appalling, immoral and monstrous” by Lord Patten, the former Conservative party chairman, on 21 May, but details have yet to be published about exactly how and when it will happen.
I am mindful that the commitment made by the Prime Minister, following the exchanges between our party leaders at the Dispatch Box, was broader than the new clause before us due to the scope of the Bill. The U-turn was made when a No. 10 Downing Street spokesman announced:
“The PM has asked the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social Care to remove NHS and care workers from the NHS surcharge as soon as possible. Work by officials is now underway on how to implement the change and full details will be announced in the coming days.”
We share the opinion of Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, who said it was
“a shame it took this pandemic for the government to see sense”.
We also share the opinion of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and Unison, which have written to the Prime Minister to demand clarity about his commitment. I hope that the Minister can update the Committee and, indeed, the general public on what progress the Government have made. Can he confirm that all health and care workers will be exempt from the charge on a permanent basis, including those employed in the NHS, independent settings and the social care sector; that the spouses and dependants of health and care workers will also be exempt from the charge; and that health and care staff, who have paid the charge in advance, which will be all those currently working in the NHS and social care, bearing the brunt of the pandemic, will be appropriately reimbursed?
New clause 42 intends to hold the Government to the commitments made following PMQs on 20 May. As you can imagine, Mr Stringer, international doctors and nurses, who have just had to endure the most difficult, traumatising period of their careers, were hugely relieved when the Government made the overdue decision to scrap this unfair charge for health and care workers, finally recognising the vital contribution that overseas staff make to the NHS. However, we are nearly a month on since the announcement was made and we are still awaiting the details that we were promised.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for making the point about the contribution that overseas workers make to our health service and the way the Government have responded to that by suspending the immigration health charge. However, I have some concerns about new clause 12 and its discriminatory nature.
For example, it would extend an exemption to Poland, which has a 0.1% black and minority ethnic population, but not to other countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, which have very close links to the UK. If one looks at the European Union as a whole, its record on inclusivity is not good. For example, all 28 commissioners are white. Following the departure of the UK from the European Union, the number of Members of the European Parliament dropped by 20% as our MEPs left Strasbourg and Brussels, and only 24 of the 705 MEPs are from black and minority ethnic groups.
Stuart C. McDonald
The simple problem that I face here—again—is the scope of the Bill. I would love to abolish the immigration health surcharge altogether. If that is the only problem that the right hon. Gentleman has, I urge him to get in behind the new clause and we can work to scrap it for everybody else as well.
The Chair
Before the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby resumes, I refer him to what the new clause says. He is beginning to stray a little.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you, Mr Stringer. The point that I was working up to was that by having an exemption only for EU citizens, we are discriminating against a large number of people who would wish to come and work in the UK from around the world. The ethnic mix of those particular groups would indicate that allowing the new clause would give a land bloc where the majority of people are white an unfair advantage over the rest of the world. I understand the aspiration to abolish the charge completely globally, but if we were to agree the new clause, we would end up in a situation where black and minority ethnic people from around the world would be at a great disadvantage to predominantly white people coming in from the European Union, EEA countries and Switzerland.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling new clause 12 and the hon. Member for Halifax for tabling new clause 42, both of which relate to the immigration health charge, and for the opportunity they provide to debate this issue.
The background, for members of the Committee, is that the immigration health charge ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution to the NHS services available to them during their stay. Income from the charge contributes to the long-term sustainability of our fantastic health service across our Union, although certain groups are exempt from the requirement to pay the charge and others benefit from a discounted rate.
The health charge is designed to help support the NHS services that we rely on throughout our lives. It raised approximately £900 million in much-needed income for the NHS from its introduction in 2015 to the end of the 2018-19 financial year—income that, I will be clear, has been shared between the four devolved health administrations in line with the Barnett formula, helping to fund the NHS across our United Kingdom.
Turning to the future, all migrants will be treated the same under our new points-based immigration system. The expectation is therefore that all nationals applying, including EEA citizens, will pay the charge if staying for temporary periods of longer than six months, unless an exemption applies. Of course, EEA citizens who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 are not subject to the immigration health charge. That was agreed as part of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement with the EU, which also protects the rights of UK nationals in the EU.
To touch on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, now we have left the European Union, it would be rather hard to defend having an exemption for EEA nationals alone, given that we no longer have freedom of movement in place and will no longer members of the EU, and then applying this to the rest of the world. I respect the SNP’s point—they have made it regularly and I am sure they will make it again at regular intervals—and their principled view on this issue overall, but it would not make sense to have an exemption for one group applying under the points-based system rather than another, based on nationality alone. I appreciate the point and it will be interesting to hear what conclusions the hon. Member for Halifax comes to as part of her review.
The Government believe that new clause 42 is unnecessary. As has already been said, hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to exempt NHS and social care staff from the charge. The exemption will apply to the relevant applications regardless of nationality—as I say, we are moving to a global points-based system—once that system is in place.
Officials are currently working through the detail of the exemptions; sadly, I will have to disappoint the hon. Member for Halifax and say that I cannot go into the full details today of where it will be, but hon. Members will appreciate that that is because we want to get this right and are working with our colleagues in the DHSC to do that.
There was a point made about renewals for doctors currently in the NHS. It is worth pointing out that those who are currently working in the NHS as doctors, nurses or in a number of health professions, are subject to automatic extension for a year. If they get an automatic extension for a year, that also waives the immigration health charge. It is not just the visa fee that goes, but the immigration health charge. Someone currently working for the NHS whose visa is due for renewal is getting a free year, and certainly by this time next year we will have the detailed guidance out there for them. I hope that provides some reassurance about the position as we stand here today.
I recognise the concerns about the financial impact of the health charge on people migrating here, including those who contribute to the NHS through tax and national insurance payments. The health charge provides comprehensive access to NHS services regardless of the amount of care needed during a person’s time in the UK, and includes treatment for pre-existing conditions.
The IHS not only represents excellent value when compared with the alternatives, but ensures that individuals do not need to worry about insurance or how they will pay for unexpected treatment while they are here. It compares favourably with the type of health insurance or other health care costs that those migrating to other countries might well face in order to get the same level of services that our NHS provides to all at point of need, free of charge, here.
As I said earlier, the Government is exempting NHS and care workers from the charge in recognition of the enormous contribution they make to the NHS directly. It is, however, only fair to expect people arriving in the UK to work in non-health-related roles to contribute to the range of NHS services available to them, given that they will not have the history of making contributions towards it that most long-term UK residents will have. It is also worth remembering that those who receive indefinite leave to remain—that is, settlement—are exempted from the IHS, in recognition of the long-term commitment to our United Kingdom this represents.
Finally, the Government are in the process of negotiating reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU, and it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of those negotiations through this Bill. I therefore invite the Members from the Scottish National party to withdraw the motion.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We are essentially debating a fundamental point of principle here: we have different views about the appropriateness of this charge.
To respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby’s intervention, I am of course constricted in what I can table as an amendment or new clause. I would scrap the charge for everybody, not just EEA nationals, but the scope of the Bill prohibits me from tabling a broader amendment. I think that if an assessment of the NHS surcharge’s impact on black and minority ethnic people were carried out, it would make for interesting reading, but that is a debate for another day. I stand by my party’s position that this is a double tax that is completely unjustifiable, and will therefore push new clause 12 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 36—Immigration Fees—
“(1) No fees may be charged for processing applications included in subsection (3) for those persons who have lost rights of free movement under section 1 or schedule 1 beyond the cost of that processing, unless the Secretary of State has complied with the procedure in subsection (2).
(2) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must get the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The list of fees to which subsection (1) applies includes, but is not restricted to, the following—
(a) fees for applications to enter or remain in the UK;
(b) fees for sponsorship licenses;
(c) immigration health surcharges; and
(d) immigration skills charges.”
This new clause will ensure that immigration fee changes must be agreed by Parliament.
New clause 37—Citizenship Fees—
“(1) No fee may be charged for processing applications relating to the citizenship status of a person who has lost rights of free movement under section 1 or schedule 1 beyond the cost of that processing, unless the Secretary of State has complied with the procedure in subsection (2).
(2) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must get the approval of both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause will ensure that citizenship fee changes must be agreed by Parliament.
Stuart C. McDonald
These new clauses continue with the broad topic of fees and expense. Although I understand why they have been grouped together, it is important that they are not treated as being about exactly the same thing; we must separate out two distinct issues.
New clauses 36 and 37 were designed to flag up the issue of how far above the cost of processing immigration and citizenship fees have been set, generally speaking, and to challenge the Minister and Committee members about why we have allowed that to happen and what the appropriate approach to setting fees should be. I accept that there will be a whole range of views on what the price of immigration applications or certain nationality applications, particularly naturalisations, should be. My own view, and that of my party, is that the prices have been set too high. This brings us back to the fact that the Home Office’s budget has been cut to smithereens in recent years by the Treasury, and it is left with no other option but to milk every penny from the immigration and citizenship system to subsidise its activities. I urge Members to wake up to the enormous burden that, at this time of crisis, the Government are about to dump on business—especially small and medium-sized enterprises—as well as individuals by expanding all these fees to companies that recruit from the EEA labour market.
It is important to distinguish new clauses 36 and 37 from new clause 13, which raises a wholly separate issue and is about righting a profound injustice. We can debate fees more generally, but there should be no scope for debate about new clause 13. I know that Members of all parties have been troubled by Government policy in this area, because, like Labour, Liberal Democrat, Democratic Ulster Unionist, Green and Plaid Cymru Members, Conservative Members also signed an early-day motion that I tabled on the topic in 2018. When I applied for a Backbench Business debate I had support from Conservative MPs as well, as I did during the debate.
Holly Lynch
We support new clauses 13, 36 and 37, which were tabled by the SNP and address immigration and citizenship fee charges that fall within the scope of the Bill. We believe that visa charges should not exceed the cost price, for all the reasons that have already been set out.
Subsection (1) of new clause 13 would prohibit EEA and Swiss citizens from being charged a fee for registering as a British citizen that is greater than the cost of the registration process. As we have already heard, there is enormous cross-party support for this approach.
The Home Office makes a profit of up to 800% on immigration applications from families. The fees are now £1,012 for children and £1,206 for adults, which are really quite significant sums. We have all had constituents come to us because such fees are causing a huge amount of anxiety and stress after a change in circumstances. We have all had casework in which applications have been turned down on technicalities, which we have been able to challenge through our parliamentary offices. Families are often forced to make further appeals and further applications, and to pay again.
EEA and Swiss nationals will soon join the rest of the world in having to pay visa fees or fees for starting the journey towards British citizenship. The British Nationality Act 1981 contains provisions to ensure that no child with entitlement to register for British citizenship should have to pay a fee. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of new clause 13 are designed to safeguard that Act, in spite of the Bill. I particularly welcome subsection (2), which would provide a further safeguard for children who receive assistance from their local authorities, adding to our proposals in new clause 58. We will come on to clause 58, but those provisions seek to provide automatic settled status for all EEA and Swiss children in care, and for those entitled to care-leaving support.
With that in mind, we welcome the independent chief inspector’s report, “An inspection of the policies and practices of the Home Office’s Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Systems relating to charging and fees”, which was presented to the Home Secretary last September. It set out concerns about the legislative procedure for citizenship and immigration fees, and it recommended that the Home Office undertake to provide considerably more clarity on fee levels, stating that the Government should:
“Either make public any Policy Equality Statements produced for ministers or publish separate statements that show clearly what has been considered when proposing fees levels/increases in terms of equality and diversity, in particular the social and welfare impacts on children, families and vulnerable persons.”
New clauses 37 and 38 would require Parliament’s consent for changes to be made to citizenship fees and immigration fees respectively. As we have discussed, the Government are attempting to grant themselves sweeping Henry VIII powers throughout the Bill; we have rehearsed that debate several times. We believe it is vital that parliamentary oversight is at least afforded to these charges, which will dictate the lives and prosperity of EEA and Swiss migrants in the UK for years to come. Ideally, that should be done through parliamentary legislation rather than through the current framework, which relies on statutory instruments.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Argyll and Bute for tabling new clauses 13, 36 and 37, which provide the Committee with the opportunity to consider fees charged in respect of applications made by those who will lose the right of free movement under the Bill for citizenship, leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the immigration health surcharge, the immigration skills charge and sponsorship licences. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentlemen’s diligence in going through all the points that they wished to highlight.
It may be helpful to provide some background information for the Committee. Application fees for border, immigration and citizenship products and services have been charged for a number of years, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system. To put them into context, the current charging framework across the operation delivered £1.98 billion of income in the financial year 2018-19. That income helped to deliver the funding required to run the borders, immigration and citizenship system, and it substantially reduces the burden on UK taxpayers, as I am sure members of the public would rightly expect us to do.
The immigration health charge ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution towards paying for the NHS services that are available to them during their stay. As was touched on earlier, income from the charge directly contributes to the long-term sustainability of our fantastic health service across our United Kingdom. Certain groups are already exempt from the requirement to pay the charge, and others benefit from a discounted rate.
The immigration skills charge is designed to incentivise employers to invest in training and upskilling the resident workforce to move away from reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity, technology and automation. Income raised from the charge will be used to address skills gaps in the UK workforce, and that will be of benefit to businesses in the long term. Any fees to be charged are already approved by both Houses of Parliament.
New clause 13(1) is designed to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British citizenship to the cost of processing. That would apply to anybody who has enjoyed free movement rights at any point. Imposing such a provision would cut across the existing statutory framework for fees and would risk undermining the funding and coherence of the whole current and future system.
Additionally, making fee provisions that are specific to certain nationalities as part of the Bill would be unfair to all users of the border, immigration and citizenship system, and it could lead the Home Office to discriminating on the basis of a person’s nationality. That clearly goes against our policy, although I accept that part of the rationale for that was to get the new clause into the scope of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes, that is absolutely the case. This does not apply even to every EU national exercising free movement; it applies to EU nationals who have the right to British citizenship through registration. It is a very specific subset, to which hugely different considerations apply; they are not in the same position as folk who have chosen to turn up and apply through naturalisation. They have a right, under an Act of Parliament, to British citizenship.
Kevin Foster
I re-emphasise that having this type of provision in the Bill would cut across and create a new precedent. We would be talking about someone whose right of free movement was removed by the Bill. That would create incoherence, particularly once we have left the European Union, with provisions based on rights from being in the EU—a situation that does not now exist. We have put in protections that are appropriate and proportionate.
New clause 13(2) is designed to prevent the Secretary of State from charging the child of a person who has exercised free moment rights a fee to register as a British citizen, if the child is in receipt of local authority assistance. “Local authority assistance” is too broad a term and could include those who access a range of financial and practical support measures offered by local authorities. For example, a child may receive assistance from a local authority if they attend day-care facilities while they are not yet at school. That is quite different from a child who is looked after and in the care of the local authority by way of a care order made by a court, or a voluntary agreement with the parent to accommodate the child.
It is important to remember that any child, irrespective of nationality, who is looked after by their local authority can apply for limited and indefinite leave to remain without being required to pay application fees, ensuring that no child in local authority care is unable to access leave to remain. Although many will choose to pursue British citizenship, having citizenship, as opposed to an award of indefinite leave to remain, is not essential for any individual to work, live, study or access services in the UK .
Stuart C. McDonald
I urge the Minister not to pursue that line, which was pursued by a previous Prime Minister and Home Secretary. No one would say to anyone in this room, “You don’t really need British citizenship. Why not just settle for indefinite leave to remain?” The Minister is missing the point—I am talking about people who have as much right to British citizenship as anyone in this room. It is not a substitute to say, “Just become a migrant in your own home country and apply for immigration status here.”
Kevin Foster
I was talking about the logic of our fee system and the fact that we have exemptions to do with the status of people who need to access public services. Traditionally, our position on citizenship is that it is not something that people need in order to access services. I re-emphasise the breadth of the provisions in the new clause—I notice that that was not disputed.
New clause 13(3) would remove fees for the children of people who have exercised free movement rights to register as a British citizen where the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford any associated fees. It raises similar points to subsection (1) in respect of fairness, discrimination and suitable legislative structures already being in place. Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to make persons who have exercised free movement rights aware of their rights to obtain British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981.
When explaining the rights that are afforded by settled status obtained via the EU settlement scheme, we make it clear that they may include a right to apply for British citizenship, provided that eligibility requirements are met. Of course, there is no charge for applying to the EU settlement scheme. Information about becoming a British citizen is also available in published guidance on gov.uk, and we are committed to ensuring that information of this nature is fully accessible for all. I hope that reassures the Committee that we are taking steps to make people aware of their rights, and that a statutory obligation to that effect is therefore unnecessary.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation, at least in so far as it related to new clauses 36 and 37. I do not agree with everything he said about the degree of scrutiny that MPs can apply on these matters, but he makes a very detailed case.
On new clause 13, I think that the Minister, probably for the first time, has not got the point that was being made. I challenge him to go back and speak to his officials about what the issue is really about. It is quite a narrow issue, in some respects, but none the less it is profound. It relates to kids, in particular—although it can be adults—who have a right to British citizenship. That is a small subset of EEA and Swiss nationals.
It is slightly bizarre that it is a Scottish National party MP who is having to stand up and champion the cause of British citizenship in this Parliament—I urge some Conservative Members to make this their cause, grab some headlines and win the day. These kids deserve it. They are as entitled to British citizenship as anybody in this room, and it is totally inappropriate for them to be priced out of that. I ask Conservative Members to think again.
I ask the Minister to speak to his officials again. Under his predecessor, I had the privilege of being able to take some kids who had been impacted to discuss the matter, along with some organisations representing them, and I would love to have that opportunity again. I feel very strongly about new clause 13 and wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Bill, in combination with others that have gone before, removes from some people the right to be in this country, and requires them to apply for rights under the EU settlement scheme. As hon. Members know, I object to that approach, but I acknowledge that, for the vast majority of people, it will thankfully be a fairly straightforward matter and there will be no need for legal advice. As we have seen, the scheme has reached a good number of people so far. We have also seen that these issues can be complicated. It can be complicated for someone to know whether they are required to apply or whether they have the right to be here as a UK citizen or through some form of migration status. For some, proving the right to be here in order to get settled status can be tricky, and advice will be needed on the type of evidence required or whether, for example, an old criminal conviction brings a risk in applying.
In Scotland, some will be able to get advice and assistance funding from the Scottish Legal Aid Board in order to seek some support on these issues, subject to a means test, but it is not the same in England and Wales. We have to learn the lessons of history: restrictions on access to legal aid were a contributing factor to the Windrush scandal. In itself, it would not cost much money to allow some basic legal advice to be handed out to those who need it. I very much hope the Government will consider this proposal seriously and put right the absence of legal aid.
Holly Lynch
We very much support the right to access to justice for all, and legal aid is an essential component of that, so we support new clause 14. Cuts to legal aid have been disastrous for access to justice. Time and time again, we have seen that it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Huge swathes of areas of law were deemed out of scope by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Most evidence now suggests that there have been few or no cost savings to the Ministry of Justice from taking those areas of law out of scope, especially in relation to early advice.
When those representing themselves try to navigate complex areas of law without representation, cases are often longer and precarious, and thus more costly to the taxpayer. Indeed, the Williams review found that the withdrawal of legal aid contributed significantly to the problems faced by the Windrush victims. We do not want anyone else to be in a similar position when free movement comes to an end. We therefore support new clause 14.
Kevin Foster
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The legal aid scheme is designed to target legal aid funding at those who need it most. Legal aid is available for the most serious cases to ensure and maintain access to justice while delivering value for money for taxpayers. The Bill itself does not provide a right to enter or remain for EEA citizens, and the new clause would bring issues relating to the end of free movement, such as applications under the EU settlement scheme, into scope for legal aid.
The EU settlement scheme has deliberately been designed to be streamlined and user-friendly. The majority of applicants will be able to apply without the need for advice from a lawyer. However, we recognise that there will be some vulnerable individuals who may need support in using the scheme, and we have put in place safeguards to ensure that the scheme is accessible to all.
The Government have always been clear that publicly funded immigration legal advice is available to some particularly vulnerable individuals. Individuals who are claiming asylum, those identified as potential victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, separated migrant children and victims of domestic violence are eligible for legal aid funding for immigration legal advice, subject to statutory means and merits tests.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. By reassuring us how simple the scheme is, which it is for the vast majority of people, he also makes the case that this will not cost a great deal of money. Only a very small number of people will require legal advice, but there will be some significant issues that they will need to work through. This is fundamentally about the rule of law, which the Westminster Parliament has lost sight of in relation to how important legal aid is. For that reason, I will stick to my guns and press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Illegal work was made a crime in its own right in the Immigration Act 2016. Lots of groups and MPs raised concerns at the time about the negative implications that would have, compared with any benefit it might bring. I think it is important always to revisit changes that this Parliament makes and to push the Government to explain what impact they really had.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the impact of that legislation. How many prosecutions have there been? What were the results of those prosecutions? What sorts of sentences were handed down? When the Government or law enforcement took that approach—the other side of the coin—what action was taken against those employers who were found to be employing people illegally?
As the Minister will be aware, at the time that legislation was introduced, all sorts of concerns were raised about the fact that it would strengthen the hand of exploitative employers, who would be able to have greater control over undocumented workers, essentially by having the knowledge that these individuals were committing a crime by undertaking that work and making it much less likely that they would even consider, never mind actually report to the authorities, the abuse and exploitation that they were suffering.
The offence applies to any migrant found to be working while they do not have valid legal status granting them leave to be in the UK, or when visa conditions ban them from working, such as in the case of asylum seekers, or if they work hours beyond those permitted by their visa, as may be the case for students. The penalty includes a maximum custodial sentence of six months and a fine at the statutory maximum. It also allows any wages paid to an illegal worker to be seized as the proceeds of crime.
The concerns raised in 2016 were that undocumented migrants in the UK forbidden from working illegally are forced to rely on illegal work, on charity and on the support of friends or family members, which can lead to situations of abuse and dependency, as well as instances of survival sex, for example, and destitution, homelessness and starvation. Often, agents who find work for undocumented migrants also run overcrowded, slum-like accommodation for the workers, keeping them isolated and cheaply accommodated.
Undocumented migrants who find work despite the prohibition are forced to look for work among some of the most unscrupulous and exploitative of employers. They are often underpaid or unpaid, forced to work extremely long hours, denied all workplace health and safety protections and threatened with being reported if they complain. As much of the work can be carried out cash in hand, the state sees none of the tax benefit either.
There are huge concerns here about modern slavery. I am grateful to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference on migration for its briefing, which states:
“Those perpetrating the horrors of modern slavery will seek every chance to take advantage of new migration policies. The government has a responsibility to ensure that proper safeguards are in place… the fear of prosecution currently deters people from escaping abusive employment practices or presenting themselves to the police. One particularly important step towards protecting people from exploitation would therefore be to repeal the offence of illegal working, so that no victim is at risk of being punished.”
Will the Government explain how this measure has helped in any way with what they want to achieve, and what steps they have taken to assess all the negative implications that we have been warning about and to militate against them?
Holly Lynch
We have one or two unanswered questions on how the new clause would work in practice. We want to ensure that we have done all our due diligence before lending it our support. We may well come back to this on Report.
The new clause gives us the opportunity to say to the Minister that we are incredibly concerned that there are people who, when free movement ends—innocent, ordinary, decent, hard-working people—for the whole raft of reasons that we have already been through in the Committee, may find that they have missed the deadline. They have then not only got a precarious migration status, but could, if they continue to wait, find themselves in the criminal justice system and criminalised. We need to address the issue now.
One example that we have mentioned is that which the BMA raised with me. Its doctors, on the frontline of fighting coronavirus, will potentially leave applying to the EU settlement scheme to the last minute for that reason. If they continue to work as a doctor, would they be criminalised if they had not done their due diligence in making sure they have their applications in, but were continuing to work in our NHS? Will the Minister reassure us that nobody will be criminalised and in our criminal justice system who absolutely does not belong there when free movement comes to an end at the end of this year?
Kevin Foster
To respond to my shadow, the hon. Member for Halifax, as we touched on at some length earlier, there would be grounds for reasonable excuse as to why someone had filed a late application. We will set out the criteria; it will not be an exhaustive list, because it would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of things that would be reasonable in many individual circumstances.
It is worth noting that the scheme has now been open for more than a year. The first group who started to apply to it were NHS workers, and there has been some very welcome work by NHS trusts and employers to make sure their employees are aware of it. For those very skilled people working in our NHS, it is worth remembering that what we are talking about is using an app on their phone with chip checker technology—it is a relatively simple and appropriate process. Certainly, any enforcement will be proportionate throughout the system, as people would expect.
New clause 15 intends to exclude all EEA citizens from the criminal offence of working illegally created by the Immigration Act 2016, as stated by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to debate this important topic. Again, as he would expect me to say, the amendment is at odds with our commitment to introduce a single global migration system. I accept that he wants to pick the issue up in the scope of the Bill, but that is a core reason why the Government believe it is right for us to have a single system.
Under the new system, everyone will be required to obtain the correct immigration status, and we will clearly distinguish between those who are here lawfully and those who are not, regardless of where their passport is from. Working illegally is a key driver of illegal migration and we are determined to tackle it. Illegal working results in businesses that do not play by the rules undercutting legitimate businesses that do. It encourages people to break our immigration laws, leaving people vulnerable to exploitation, and means that they are paid under the legal minimum wage.
The offence of illegal working applies if an individual works in the UK when they are or have reasonable cause to believe that they are disqualified from working because of their immigration status. The new rules will be clear and will set out what is expected of people as well as their entitlement. Any person who wants to work in the UK will need to have the correct status before starting a job.
EEA citizens with EU settlement scheme status will continue to enjoy the right to work and access the same services as they do now. As I have already said, we will continue to encourage applications to the EU settlement scheme before the deadline, and will implement the new points-based system that treats EEA and non-EEA citizens equally.
The new clause would discriminate in favour of EEA citizens, which is not justifiable after we have left the European Union. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s principled position in the provisions. I have touched on the provisions that are implemented proportionately, where they are applied. There is enforcement, particularly against employers who seek to exploit people. I hope that, in the light of those points, he will withdraw the clause, because it is not one that the Government can support.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to hon. Members for discussing the subject, but I do not think we really got into the meat of it. I do not think that only EEA nationals should be exempt from the criminal offence of illegal working; there are good grounds for getting rid of it altogether. I wanted to find out whether the Government have done any analysis about how it has helped in any way and, in contrast, about the unintended consequences, such as making exploitation more serious and more significant. We will perhaps return to some of those issues when we debate other aspects of the hostile environment later. I might write to the Minister to try to press again for answers to some of the questions that I raised at the outset. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Immigration Rules Advisory Committee for Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals
‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish an Immigration Rules Advisory Committee to consider relevant Immigration Rules.
(2) In this section “relevant Immigration Rules” mean Immigration Rules that apply to persons whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) The function of the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee shall be to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under this Act and in particular in relation to the making of relevant Immigration Rules.
(4) The constitution of the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee shall be set out in regulations.
(5) The Secretary of State shall furnish the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require for the proper discharge of its functions.
(6) No relevant Immigration Rules may be made by the Secretary of State, until the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee is established.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would require an advisory committee to be established in order to provide advice on immigration rules for EEA and Swiss nationals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Procedures for amending Immigration Rules—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection 2.
(2) After section 3(2) insert—
“(2A) Any statement of the rules, or of any changes to the rules, which affect the rights and obligations of persons who will lose their right of freedom of movement under the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act may not be made or have effect unless the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (2B) to (2F) below.
(2B) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (2A) above, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal; and
(b) sets it out in the form of a draft order.
(2C) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (2B) (the “60-day period”), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modification).
(2D) In preparing a draft order under section (2A) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations; and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
(2E) When laying before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document under subsection (2B).
(2F) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is not adjourned for more than 4 days.”’
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that any changes to the UK’s Immigration Rules which affect EEA or Swiss nationals must be made under the super affirmative procedure.
New clause 31—Powers to make immigration rules on specific topics—
‘(1) Powers to make Immigration Rules in relation to certain persons who have lost free movement rights under section 1 and schedule 1 must be exercised only by the relevant Secretary of State as set out in subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of (1), the “relevant Secretary of State” is as follows—
(a) if the rules relate to students, or to family members, the Secretary of State for Education,
(b) if the rules relate to investors, workers, or the self-employed, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.’
Stuart C. McDonald
New clause 16 is about how we make immigration rules. I would like to know how many hon. Members present have ever looked at the immigration rules, at least directly for any considerable period of time, because they would drive anyone round the bend, frankly. I am not looking for raised hands but I make the point because they are vital, but we never really have an opportunity to debate their context in any holistic way or to suggest amendments to them.
Instead, hundreds of amendments to the rules are tabled each year and we barely get a look in. They contain fundamental questions about family, workers, education, business and how we run our economy, yet the Home Office keeps all of those—essentially legislation-making powers—to itself. If we look at immigration rules and immigration statutes, we find that they can be incredibly technical. Hence, we have recently seen the Law Society tasked with the job of trying to simplify them—work that will be incredibly challenging but is nevertheless essential. It is for these reasons that I have proposed new clauses 16 and 30, to change the way the rule making is done in this country, to help MPs to understand immigration law and the changes that have been made and to give them a say in what those rules are.
Last week we heard Jill Rutter from British Future refer to the work done by the Social Security Advisory Committee in providing analysis that aids MPs’ understanding of changes that have been made to social security law and flagging up things that perhaps require greater scrutiny and debate. She supported the idea of something similar operating in the field of immigration. That is why I have tabled new clause 16, as I think I did last year as well. In a similar way, a committee would analyse what the Government are doing and their proposals for changing immigration rules; it would flag up any concerns it might have and allow MPs to decide what further steps were required by way of scrutiny or challenging the Government on the proposals.
Kevin Foster
I am once again grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and to others, for providing a further opportunity to discuss parliamentary scrutiny of the immigration rules and the powers to make them. Parliamentary scrutiny is an important issue, and one that I am aware members of the Committee are rightly very interested in. I will therefore take each new clause in turn.
I will first address new clause 31—I think I can respond pretty swiftly to this one. The UK Government work on the basis of collective responsibility. All policies are collectively agreed and reflect the views of all parts of Government. I may be the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, and I have the good fortune to speak for the Government on matters connected with our new immigration arrangements, but I can assure the Committee that the policies I put forward are the policies of the entire Government, which were endorsed in December’s general election by the British people. No other Minister standing in this spot would advocate any different policies.
The notion of collective agreement and collective responsibility has long been a feature of the way this country is governed, which is why legislation confers powers on “the Secretary of State” generically. Incidentally, this approach also has the benefit of future-proofing our legislation in the event of machinery of Government changes.
I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; both are doing excellent work in their posts and we are lucky to have them. But let me be very clear: were they to make immigration rules, they would be no different from those that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making, because this is a single united Government with a clear policy on these matters.
Our policies were put before and endorsed by the electorate, more detail was set out in a policy statement endorsed by the entire Government, and they represent the settled view of the Government as a whole. New clause 31 would therefore add nothing to the Bill. Having heard the explanation of how the Government system works, I hope the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will withdraw it.
New clause 16 would require the Home Secretary to establish an immigration rules advisory committee to provide advice and assistance on any immigration rules relating to EEA citizens once free movement to the UK has ended as a result of this Bill. I have said previously that our new points-based system will be set out in the immigration rules. Those rules will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. The new clause seeks to add an additional layer of scrutiny, and will prevent the Home Secretary from making any immigration rules before an advisory committee is established by regulation. There is no justification for establishing a statutory advisory body to advise specifically on the rights of EEA citizens, who will be treated as other EEA citizens under the future immigration system.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Migration Advisory Committee carries out much of the work already? New clause 32 is specifically covered by the MAC.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to new clause 32, which is about an annual report on the labour market, in a moment. We are freeing up the MAC to consider matters of interest to it and to provide recommendations on policies, although I expect it will be more nuanced when we come to reports on the labour market overall. That is more to do with the Department for Work and Pensions. We want a coherent strategy where migration is a part of that. We did not want to set it out purely in relation to EEA nationals.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The difference between the MAC, which, as the Minister rightly says, is interested in labour market trends and developments, and the Social Security Advisory Committee, which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East set up as an analogy for the Minister to consider, is that the SSAC looks specifically at the implementation of secondary legislation and advises on new regulations that the Government might introduce. Given the extent of immigration policy introduced in immigration rules, I would suggest that the MAC is not actually set up, and is not even likely to be set up in future, to provide advice to the House on those matters.
Kevin Foster
The hon. Lady makes a not unreasonable point. The MAC gives advice on general policies on immigration. For example, it came up with what occupations should be on the shortage occupation list. It does not necessarily draft the legislation. However, the core of what we are driving at is there. I will continue with my speech because there have been significant changes in relation to simplification since an identical Bill was considered in the previous Parliament. Fundamentally, creating a statutory advisory body would simply delay the Government from introducing new consolidated and simplified rules by 1 January 2021, which could cause considerable confusion and ambiguity about which rules apply to EEA citizens once free movement ends.
In any event, the new clause is unnecessary. The Law Commission, in its consultation paper on simplification of the immigration rules, published in January 2019, asked whether an informal consultation or review of the drafting of immigration rules would help to reduce complexity. In its final report, published in January 2020, the Law Commission recommended that the Home Office should convene at regular intervals a committee to review the drafting of the rules in line with the principles recommended by the Law Commission. That is the more nuanced point that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston referred to. On 25 March the Government published our response to the Law Commission report and recommendations, and we accepted that recommendation. We included in our response the terms of reference for and membership of the simplification of the rules review committee. To be clear, this covers the whole ambit of the rules, not just those as they relate to EEA nationals.
The committee is, as recommended by the Law Commission, made up of Home Office civil servants, immigration practitioners and organisations representative of non-expert users of the rules, including those representing vulnerable applicants such as children. The review committee meets monthly to advise on the Home Office’s proposals to draft simpler rules and accompanying guidance and how they can be made more accessible online.
I hope that, as we have already established a review committee and its terms of reference and membership are transparent, that will give the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East the confidence to withdraw new clause 16.
New clause 30 seeks to introduce the super-affirmative procedure for immigration rules. Typically, that procedure is used only for deregulatory orders that amend or repeal primary legislation, such as legislative reform orders or public bodies orders, or remedial orders under the Human Rights Act. In those circumstances, it is right that the highest level of scrutiny should be applied, but it is not appropriate to apply the same procedure in respect of changes to immigration rules, which obviously are not, and cannot amend, primary legislation.
Under the current, well-established procedure, the Government are able to update the immigration rules in a responsive way, to ensure that we have an immigration system that meets the UK’s needs, commands the confidence of the public and reflects the wider economic, social and political context in the UK at any time. Requiring a minimum 60-day standstill period—that would be a minimum, because if, for example, changes were laid in late June, the period would not expire until late October—would severely hamper our ability to make timely and effective changes to the rules to respond to emerging situations.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
In evidence at the start of Committee proceedings, we heard from Mr McTague from the Federation of Small Businesses, who picked up this point. He said:
“I think the fact that the Home Secretary is in a position to vary it and respond to changes in market conditions is better than if…we had to go through some sort of legislative process”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 14, Q28.]
That is exactly the point that we are trying to get at. Changes are much better if they are in the hands of the Home Secretary, who can then address Parliament on them, rather than having to go through statutory changes like this.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the evidence that was given. The core of the matter is that our immigration rules need to remain flexible to respond to emerging situations. For example, if the conditions around visas were in primary legislation, we would have to be putting through Acts of Parliament to alter and extend visas in relation to the current covid-19 situation, which none of us would feel was a sensible way of handling that type of thing. In addition, this process has been established for a very long time. Parliament, rightly, can oversee the immigration rules, but they can be flexible and adapt. To be clear, putting forward, effectively, an immigration rules change could not, for example, alter the provisions that we have on Irish citizens in this Bill and in the primary legislation.
Kate Green
I just want to make sure that I have understood correctly—I may not have—what the Minister is saying and the provisions of the Bill. I understood him to say that the super-affirmative procedure is appropriate only in circumstances that include amending primary legislation, but is it not the case that the provisions of this Bill give the Government, in some circumstances, the opportunity to do that?
Kevin Foster
They do, subject to the affirmative procedure, but that is—as we discussed under previous clauses and particularly in the clause 4 debate—for specified purposes. The measure does not just give us an unending power.
We could not, for example, change our international obligations and some other areas via this method, the use of which relates to the narrower areas of the Bill. It is not a carte blanche to change all primary law that affects immigration law, but applies where it is consequential to the purposes of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. New clause 31 was simply an opportunity to flag up the idea that we perhaps need to ensure that we look at immigration policy with a slightly broader perspective than simple numbers. The Minister protests perhaps slightly too much about collective responsibility and the idea that other Departments would have come to the same decisions as the Home Office in relation to certain policies, but I will leave that there.
I anticipated in my remarks about new clause 30 that the Minister would speak about the need for flexibility and the ability to act quickly. I am not calling for immigration rules in Acts of Parliament or anything like that; I am just saying that anyone who follows this area of policy closely over time knows that, in essence, Parliament has no realistic role in it whatsoever, and that has to change. It will not be changed by the Bill, but it is something that we should think about in the longer term.
On new clause 16, I absolutely agree with the Minister and totally welcome the ongoing work to simplify the immigration rules; the proof will be in the pudding. That is not an easy task, and I do not envy the folk who are undertaking it, but I wish them the very best of luck. However, new clause 16 is not just about simplifying what is already there, but about understanding the changes that the Government propose as we go along and providing detailed advice to help us in our scrutiny role. As some witnesses said last week, it is every bit as appropriate to do that in this sphere of policy as it is with social security, between which pretty good parallels can be drawn. I insist on pressing new clause 16 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and those of the shadow Home Secretary and my Committee colleagues. The new clause offers a sensible method to help to safeguard the rights of all EEA and Swiss nationals who are registered through the European Union settlement scheme by providing them with physical proof of that registration. We have already discussed some of these issues under new clause 25.
In the largest survey of EU citizens’ experiences of the EUSS, which was carried out by the3million, 89% expressed unhappiness about the lack of physical proof of their status. Simple physical proof would provide citizens with the type of reassurance that is offered only by something that can be held in the hand. Although in principle we largely support the aspiration to move toward a much more digital immigration system, we have already pointed out to the Committee time and again that, as the hostile environment persists, in the shameful shadow of the Windrush scandal, confidence in the system is at an all-time low.
The Home Office works through banks and landlords, and across Departments, actively to query a citizen’s immigration status. To have physical paperwork to hand, in order to put to bed any doubts about a person’s status quickly and confidently, would be a welcome addition to an e-visa.
There are also inherent IT risks when relying on purely digital proof for immigration status. The truth is that the Government cannot completely rule out the possibility of an irretrievable data loss or, even worse, the hacking of a data system. It is less than two years since the so-called WannaCry cyber-attack caused havoc for the IT systems of the NHS, locking users out of personal computers and resulting in 19,000 cancelled appointments. It transpired that the systems that the NHS used included Windows XP, which at the time was already a 17 year-old operating system and so was vulnerable to such interference. It does not bear thinking about, but in a nightmare scenario where such hacking or corruption affected the Home Office, a potential loss of data, or even the inability to access the data for a period of time, could have devastating consequences for those at the mercy of the hostile environment.
As stated by Luke Piper on behalf of the3million in last week’s evidence session, to trial a new digital-only scheme on over 3 million people is quite a gamble, and currently no other group in the UK is managed in this way. We share the concerns of the House of Lords European Union Committee, which were mentioned by Luke Piper in his evidence to this Committee. He said:
“The House of Lords European Union Committee made the point that there are real worries that those without physical proof will face similar problems to those faced by the Windrush generation; there is a risk that they will face discrimination because they do not have physical proof of their status.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 61.]
There are day-to-day practical complications that will be inflicted upon those in the EUSS who do not have physical proof of their status. For example, the Residential Landlords Association has repeatedly called for some form of physical proof to assist its members in both adhering to the law and avoiding discriminatory practices.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants carried out research on the right-to-rent scheme in 2017. Out of 150 emails from migrants requesting that landlords check their identity online, 85% received no response. Only 12% of inquiries received a response that might invite a follow-up, such as a phone call or a viewing. Only three responses explicitly stated that the landlord was willing to conduct an online check. A migrant with documentation received a response rate of roughly 50%. Although there are still indications that renting migrants face unacceptable barriers, that is at least a marked improvement on the previous situation.
The fear is that the lack of physical proof will also act as an impediment for EU citizens applying for jobs. Millions of people work in the gig economy, which is characterised by short-term contracts and freelance work. We have already referred to the work of the Institute for Public Policy Research, which recently used data from the labour force survey in a report that found migrants are more likely to be working in industries or sectors, such as accommodation and food services, that have around 9% of EU workers. Facing competition from British citizens, who can prove their right to work by showing a passport, should that be required, and from non-EEA citizens, who can prove their right to work by showing their physical residence card, EU citizens have to go through the complicated hassle of a nine-step online process and then ask their potential employer to go through a 10-step process. It is inevitable that many employers will not have the desire or the time to complete such an arduous process, and as a result the employment prospects of those registered in the EUSS could potentially suffer.
Those are just a few examples of how a lack of physical proof could affect those who have pre-settled or settled status through the EUSS but exclusively digital confirmation of that status. The inconveniences and delay that could result threaten to permeate through daily life for millions of people, yet that could so easily be remedied by the Government with a degree of physical proof.
I want to take the Minister back to something he said during last week’s evidence session, when he put a question to the Children’s Society on the issue of granting automatic status to children in care and care leavers, which we will come to later. He said to Lucy Leon, the immigration policy and practice adviser for the Children’s Society:
“You talked about automatic status—granting something under a piece of legislation to someone. Under your suggested system, how, in decades to come, would an adult evidence the status that they were granted as a child?”
As it took several attempts for the question to be heard, due to the terrible sound quality, the Minister, in his second attempt, repeated:
“If they had to evidence their status many years later, how would they do it? How would they be able to define their status…?”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; cs. 64-65.]
The Minister put a very good question. In the scenario that he described, he said that if status was granted by the Home Office, how would it then be evidence? We must acknowledge that the granting of a status only solves half the problem. The ability to prove that status is the other half of the problem.
On this issue, I am inclined to agree entirely with the Minister. I politely remind him that he proposes a problem, but he is the architect of the solution to this issue. He can overcome our own reservations by granting the physical proof to his own satisfaction, however he sees fit to do so. The Government should ensure that their systems automatically issue physical proof on granting status to someone, and they should allow the millions of people on the EUSS the certainty and convenience of physical proof of status.
Kevin Foster
It is a pleasure to talk about the new clause and to hear that my shadow agrees with me on some issues, but we slightly disagree on how best to evidence things. I accept that the new clause is well intentioned, but it may help if I explain first that we email everyone granted status under the scheme a PDF document, which they can print and retain for their own records as confirmation of their status and for future reference, as they may wish.
Like many other countries, we are moving away from issuing physical documents to be used as evidence of a person’s immigration status and their entitlement to work and access benefits and services, and towards a system that enables direct checks through online sharing of status by the individual or via system-to-system checks. Our border and immigration system will become digital by default for all migrants, and we intend over time to replace physical and paper-based products with secure online access to immigration status information, which the migrant can share with prospective employers, landlords and service providers.
New clause 19 is unnecessary, as we are already legally required to issue everyone granted status under the EU settlement scheme with a formal written notification of their immigration status in the United Kingdom. The notification also includes information about how they can access and share their immigration status information online, and about where they can find help to do so if needed. However, it is important that we do not return to relying on insecure paper documents, which can be lost, damaged or stolen, to evidence immigration status and entitlements.
The use of digital technology is now a well-established mechanism that people use when banking and shopping. Employers, landlords and service providers are likely to be concerned by any decision to issue what is specified as an insecure physical document, such as a paper certificate. They would also see it as an undesirable retrograde step that places additional administrative burdens on them to ensure that their staff are aware of the characteristics of a certificate, which might be some years old, and what it means. It would also be very susceptible to forgery and being tampered with, which could actually make it more difficult for EEA citizens, employers and others to determine genuine entitlement. We cannot allow that to happen.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that some of the identity documents issued in places such as Greece and Italy are very insecure because they do not contain biometric data? That is an example of why a paper document would not be secure.
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and that is particularly true in an era of modern computing, scanning and high-quality printers available at home. We used to rely on paper documents as standard across society—for example, driving licences. To be fair, the previous Labour Administration moved away from having a paper driving licence that nowadays could probably be easily printed on most printers at home, and towards a plastic version. As we now move on, most people do checks digitally—for example, how many of us have a physical MOT certificate? It is done via an online system, which allows people to check easily. It is even possible to check online whether a car has an MOT before buying it, rather than having to look for a paper certificate.
We all know about the issues there used to be with paper MOT certificates, with blank books being quite valuable. That is why we have started to move towards digital status, which is more secure. It is, of course, retained by the Home Office for many years and allows that access. Again, we touch on some of the lessons learned from the Windrush review. Part of this is about having up-to-date and easier ways to access information, rather than relying on people to recognise documents that could have been issued some decades before. It is better that we have secure digital status that can be easily shared as technology advances and people move forward. That is right, but we are still already obliged to send a PDF confirmation so that if someone wants to print something out and keep it for their records, they can.
Holly Lynch
I just stress the point that we are not talking about an either/or approach to digital confirmation and physical proof. I am open to the taking of physical proof, and whatever format the Minister is most comfortable with. However, we are not talking about a system where someone relies exclusively on physical proof. Something will be issued in addition to digital status. Does the Minister accept that that would address the anxieties felt by the 3 million and more?
Kevin Foster
Again, I appreciate the points that are being made, but a secure, easy-to-share digital status does what it says on the tin. More and more countries are heading towards that, and we have seen it in other areas of life. To be clear, the new clause specifies a paper certificate as the preferred means. I do not think that something like that adds to something that is easily shareable—and easy to update, in relation to changing passport, or in other areas. That is why we have taken this approach and why we are clear that it is what we want migration status to move towards more generally. I do not think that printing out paper certificates, and having that as an either/or, is the best place to be headed, in trying to prove status. It is better that there should be a clear process and that landlords and employers should know the process that they need to engage with when employing EEA citizens beyond the end of the transition period.
As a transition measure, employers, landlords and public service providers will continue to be able to accept the passports and national identity cards of EEA citizens until 30 June 2021—the same day as the deadline for applying to the EU settlement scheme. After that date, EEA citizens with status under the EU settlement scheme will need to share their immigration status online to prove their rights and entitlements in the UK. Alongside that, in future, when an individual accesses public services such as benefits or healthcare, the Home Office will be able to confirm their status to the service provider automatically through system-to-system checks, at the point at which the person seeks to access the service. Their non-EEA family members will also continue to be able to use their biometric residence card until we have completed the roll-out of digital services online.
Eventually, all migrants to the UK—not just from the EEA but from the rest of the world—will have an immigration status that can be accessed and shared online. Having to rely on a document to prove immigration status will be seen as old-fashioned and vulnerable to abuse. By contrast, new clause 19 would impede our ability to encourage migrants to access and share their immigration status securely online, creating confidence that it is the appropriate process, and giving confidence to those who engage with it. I hope that, with the assurances that I have given, the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of why he rejects the new clause. I stress again the vulnerability that people feel in the shadow of Windrush, when they do not have something they can physically hold in their hand, to give an assurance of their immigration status. There is great support for the physical proof approach in the House of Lords and I suspect that we have not necessarily seen the end of the issue, but I do not want to divide the Committee at this time and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Annual review: Impact on health care and social care sector
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the health care and social care sector in the UK.
(2) In undertaking the evaluation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(b) the relevant Welsh Ministers; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it has been completed.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 49—Impact assessment on the social care workforce—
‘(1) No Minister of the Crown may appoint a day for the commencement of any provision of this Act until the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) This condition is that a Minister of the Crown has published and laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on recruitment of EU citizens, EEA nationals, and Swiss citizens working to the social care sector.’
This new clause makes the coming into force of the Act conditional on the production of an impact assessment of the changes on the social care workforce.
New clause 61—Duty to commission an independent evaluation: health and social care sectors—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (5) and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to undertake the evaluation (“the independent evaluator”).
(3) In this section, “independent person” means a person who is independent of Her Majesty’s Government.
(4) No person may be appointed under subsection (2) unless their appointment has been consented to by—
(a) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(b) the relevant Welsh Ministers; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers.
(5) The evaluation under subsection (1) shall consider an assessment of the effects of this Act on—
(a) the health and social care workforce;
(b) the efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social care sectors;
(c) the adequacy of public funding for the health and social care sectors; and
(d) such other relevant matters as the independent evaluator sees fit.
(6) In undertaking the evaluation, the independent evaluator must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(c) the relevant Welsh Ministers;
(d) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers;
(e) providers of health and social care services;
(f) persons requiring health and social care services;
(g) representatives of persons requiring health and social care services; and
(h) such other relevant persons as the independent evaluator sees fit.
(7) The independent evaluator must prepare a report on the evaluation for the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay that report before Parliament no later than one year after this Act is passed.
(9) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion relating to the report to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons; and
(b) a motion relating to the report to be debated and voted upon by the House of Lords.’
This new clause would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the Act upon the health and social care sectors across the UK to be produced and laid before Parliament. It would require that the devolved nations are consulted as well as other interested parties.
Holly Lynch
The new clause would require the Government to commission the Migration Advisory Committee to produce a report on the impact on the health and social care sector of ending free movement.
I very much welcome some of the new developments that the Minister outlined earlier, to do with the changes in the way that the Migration Advisory Committee will operate. The group includes a number of new clauses, and we very much recognise the merits of all of them. In essence, they all plead with the Government fully to think through the implications of putting this hard stop on free movement in place without the systemic reforms to health and social care that would be required to address the workforce issues in those co-dependent sectors.
At the evidence session last week, we heard some pretty damning evidence from witnesses, even though, interestingly, none of them were there explicitly to represent the health or care sectors. Martin McTague of the Federation of Small Businesses told the Committee that the FSB felt that the £25,600 minimum income threshold
“should be lower, because there are quite a few jobs, especially in the care sector, that pay less than £25,600.”
He went on:
“That is why we have called for a care sector visa, because we think the requirements of that sector will always be uniquely different from most of the rest of the economy.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 6, Q5.]
In response to a follow-up question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, Martin McTague said:
“It is clear from the experience that we have had over the last few months that this sector is under massive pressure. Any major changes would be disastrous.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 11, Q16.]
We can all agree that this Bill represents a major change in immigration.
Brian Bell of the Migration Advisory Committee made a number of scathing points, which we should all reflect on. He said that
“immigration has historically been used as an excuse to not deal with the problems of the social care sector.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 21, Q44.]
He is right. The problem is, when we suddenly turn off freedom of movement at the end of December and the Government are not able to deliver the radical reforms required in that timeframe, what happens to social care?
I will answer that. Unless we have a significant breakthrough with a vaccine, care homes and the care sector will still be battling the coronavirus. If we do not do our due diligence on this, by adopting the new clause, the Bill will be set recklessly to undermine social care at a time when it can least afford it.
A MAC report is necessary, and would give the Government an opportunity to develop a coherent strategy by conducting the exercise annually for the health and care workforce. That could inform both the domestic skills agenda and our immigration policy, allowing us to create fast tracks within immigration based on our needs at the time. Without that, the NHS will struggle to function. According to the British Medical Association, 29% of doctors in the NHS are from overseas. Freedom of movement has greatly facilitated that, as for years EEA staff have benefited from the flexibility it grants, allowing them to work in the UK and EEA simultaneously.
We have discussed in earlier stages of the Committee the potential introduction of visas and the costs attached to the changes brought about by the Bill. That might act as a major disincentive against attracting the best talent to the NHS. As always, there should be a clear national commitment to training future healthcare workers. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that the domestic workforce alone will be able to deliver. For a long time, the workforce has been supplemented with EEA workers.
The NHS reported nearly 90,000 job vacancies between October and December 2019. That has already led to rota gaps across the medical profession, and to well-founded concerns about the ability to staff services adequately. It can take up to 10 years to train a doctor. It is unrealistic to believe that a domestic push will address that vacancy shortage or likely subsequent shortages due to the UK’s decision to leave the EU and free movement.
Domestic recruitment drives also have barriers to overcome. The Royal College of Nursing has reported that the Government’s much publicised increase of 50,000 nurses consists of 12,000 more international nurses, 15,000 student nurses and another 15,000 retained nurses who had previously left the profession. In reality, therefore, only about 27,000 nursing vacancies have been filled, and that fails to address adequately the 40,000 nursing vacancies reported in the NHS in November 2019.
In the evidence session, Brian Bell, interim chair of the MAC, stated that occupational shortages were
“a failure of the British education system”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 24, Q49.]
If the Government seek to prioritise domestic healthcare recruitment over immigration, some pretty urgent steps must be taken to address that.
The threat of ending free movement for the NHS is incredibly concerning. The threat of ending free movement for our social care sector is existential. The proposal to extend the tier 2 visa system to EEA nationals would sever recruitment and compound gaping occupational shortages.
The Institute for Public Policy Research modelled the impact on EEA nationals currently living in the UK and working in social care, and found that 79% of EEA employees—about four in five—working full-time in social care would have been ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary thresholds proposed by the MAC. Unison reports that there are currently 110,000 vacancies in social care, and while I suspect the Minister will tell me that his aspiration is to fill those solely through domestic recruitment, I wonder what assurances he can give us that that is possible in the timeframes required.
It was encouraging to hear the MAC report that senior care workers would be eligible to be included in future shortage occupation lists, yet we fear that deterring the recruitment of care assistants and more junior care workers from overseas may lead to a further increase in job vacancies in the care sector. We have all heard the warnings from Brian Bell that migrant workers cannot continue to act as a sticking plaster, working their socks off on low pay to mask the systemic problems in social care, but it is clear that we will be exacerbating the workforce issues impacting on the quality and availability of care unless the Government undertake a full and regular review. I urge the Government to adopt new clause 21 in order to fully understand the ways in which the new immigration system will affect patient care across all health and social care settings.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will speak to new clause 61, which seeks an independent evaluation of the specific impact of the Bill on the health and social care sectors across the United Kingdom. This independent evaluation would follow from consultation between the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the relevant Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers, service providers, those requiring health and social care services, and others. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of that report before both Houses of Parliament
“no later than one year after this Act is passed”,
and would require a Minister to make arrangements
“no later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament”
for it to be debated and voted on in Parliament.
The new clause has gathered support from service users, third-sector organisations, trade unions and charities from every part of the UK, among them the Scottish and Northern Irish councils for voluntary organisations, Disability Wales, Unison, Camphill, Scottish Care, and the Welsh and Northern Irish branches of the British Association of Social Workers. I think the reason why they and many others have supported this independent assessment is that, as people who work on the frontline of health and social care every day, they are extremely worried that the Bill, which will end freedom of movement and introduce a points-based immigration system, will adversely affect hundreds of thousands of their clients: disabled people, children and young people, older people, unpaid carers and those with long-term health conditions—those who rely most on the health and social care services to look after them every day.
There is no doubt that the current coronavirus pandemic has given us all the opportunity to see just how precious our national health service and social care sector are. The NHS has risen to the challenge magnificently, as has everyone who works in it, and we are all hugely indebted to them. It has also reinforced just how lucky we are to have our national health service—should that have needed reinforcing—and we must do everything we can to protect it, so that future generations can have what we currently enjoy. We cannot afford to take chances with the future of our NHS or our social care services, and I believe that anyone who took chances with them would never be forgiven.
That is why so many in the health and social care sector are deeply concerned about what is contained in the Bill: they recognise that there is already a crisis in social care across the United Kingdom. On top of the seemingly relentless pressure on funding, we have an ageing population with increasingly complex care needs. The health and social care sector is battling every day to find and keep the workforce it requires, yet this Government have cut off a source of labour, with no clear plan as to what will replace it.
At the end of September 2019, NHS England reported having more than 120,000 unfilled posts—an increase of 22,000 on the previous year. Both the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Social Services Council have found that 40% of social care organisations have unfilled vacancies going back over a year.
Kevin Foster
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, but I think people outside the House listening to the debate will wonder whether he has looked at today’s worrying figures on the employment market and the economic impact of covid-19. He asks where people might be found, but a significant number of people will be looking for new employment.
I welcome the opportunity to put on the record again the fact that the Government recognise the vital nature of the health and social care sector to the United Kingdom. I recognise that, in their view, hon. Members tabled the new clauses to protect a key sector. I assure members of the Committee that health and social care will be at the heart of the UK’s new points-based immigration system. The new skilled worker route will be open to a broader range of roles than the current tier 2 general route, following expansion of the skills threshold.
Under the current immigration system, only those coming to do graduate-level jobs are able to come to the UK under tier 2. In the future, our points-based skilled worker route will encompass jobs requiring school leaver qualifications. That means that all migrants—not just those from within the EU or EEA—will be able to apply for jobs meeting the skills threshold, including, as has been mentioned, senior care workers, giving a global reach to recruitment in the sector.
The general salary threshold will be set at £25,600, or the appropriate rate for the job that the person is coming to the UK to undertake. For a number of roles in health and social care, the rate will reflect the current national pay scales. We are also removing the cap and resident labour market test to make it quicker and easier to recruit workers from overseas where necessary. That will benefit all migrant workers and their employers, including those in the health and social care sector.
As with all immigration routes, we will continue to keep the points-based system under review. These changes are the first phase, and we will continue to develop and refine the points-based system based on experience.
Brendan O'Hara
On a point of clarity, did the Minister say that there will be sufficient capacity in the labour market to move the people losing their jobs as a result of coronavirus into the health and social care sector? Was that his argument? Does he recognise that there are currently 122,000 vacancies in England alone, and that there are projected to be another 320,000 over the next 10 years due to retirement? Does he really think that that will be made up by people losing their jobs?
Kevin Foster
Many people will be surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that one of the issues that the UK is facing at the moment is a shortage of labour. Sadly, we are seeing the impact of covid, and we know that health and social care will play a key part in providing job opportunities for those who need new employment. I am seeing that in my constituency. Many people would be surprised if there were Members in this building who did not think we should prioritise getting people who have faced the impact of the economic change into new skills and employment. That should not be a controversial point. I suspect that many of his constituents would be rather surprised if that is the point that he wished to make.
Brendan O'Hara
I am trying to stick to the Bill, but is the Minister saying to the country and people who are losing their jobs that, contrary to what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been saying, those jobs are not coming back, and they had better go find something else? The message has been that this is a temporary blip, we will recover from it, and the jobs will be coming back.
Kevin Foster
Thankfully, we will see many jobs come back. The Chancellor himself said that it will be difficult to save every role, and we can see that some of the changes in our economy, particularly in the retail sector, have been sped up. I am sorry that the SNP is looking to put its political philosophy ahead of the practical situation. I do not think it is controversial to say that, in Scotland, where there are vacancies, we should be trying to make sure Scottish-based workers are going back to work. I think the SNP will find it very interesting when it meets the electorate next May and explains why that was not its priority.
Holly Lynch
Does the Minister not accept the example that we have just been through? The Government, having recognised the labour shortage in agriculture, made a co-ordinated attempt to redeploy people who are currently out of work into the agriculture sector, but it proved incredibly difficult and the numbers have not transpired in reality. If he is saying that we can do something similar for social care, we would be keen to see the plan. What is his plan if we cannot redirect those people into social care in the timeframe that we are talking about?
Kevin Foster
There is a slight difference between talking about temporary roles in seasonal agriculture and carers, which is not a seasonal job. I represent a constituency with plenty of seasonal roles. It would be odd to start describing care as a seasonal one; it is not, for obvious reasons. People’s care needs do not vary by the season in the way the agricultural sector’s needs do in terms of picking fruit and veg.
Certainly, there is a need to make sure that we have the appropriate structure. Again, I think that people outside this room would be stunned that Opposition Members do not think that, at the moment, we should prioritise getting UK workers back to work. That might explain why, in December, people did not feel that those were the parties they wished to trust with being in government.
Moving on, our new firmer, fairer and swifter immigration system will have benefits for all sectors of the economy, but we recognise the special role that the NHS and those connected with it have in our society, which the events of the last few months have demonstrated clearly. That is why, in line with our election manifesto, the Government are introducing a healthcare visa, which will provide eligible health and social care workers with fast-track entry, the support of a dedicated team in UK Visas and Immigration and reduced visa fees.
As I said earlier, we are looking to exempt all those working in health and social care from paying the immigration health surcharge. We are also investing in social care. For example, in response to the coronavirus crisis, we have announced £2.9 billion to help local authorities respond to pressures in key services, such as adult social care, and to enhance the NHS discharge service, which allows patients to return home safely. No one should doubt our support for that critical sector of our society.
The hon. Member for Halifax talked about damning evidence, so it is worth remembering the evidence that the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, Professor Brian Bell, gave to the Committee on 9 June. He said:
“If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, ‘Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage,’ first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with, and secondly it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers. You are saying that you are going to keep on allowing their wages to be held down by allowing employers to bring in workers at the minimum wage”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 22, Q44.]
On new clause 21, the MAC is an independent non-departmental public body that advises the Government on immigration matters. It has a UK-wide remit and works across Government to provide transparent, independent, evidence-based advice. It currently undertakes work based on commissions from the Government; the Government determine the matters that they believe require consideration and ask it to consider and advise. As we have touched on, the Government are committed to expanding that role. This will be the first year that the MAC has produced an annual report, which is an important development to increase transparency and provide more regular evidence on issues relating to immigration.
In future, in addition to specific commissions from the Government, the MAC will be able to undertake other work that it considers necessary, including regular reporting on migration matters. I therefore cannot support a clause that requires it to look annually at a specific sector. As hon. Members will be aware, its reviews are thorough, and it takes time to seek views and analyse a broad range of evidence from across the UK. That means that the reports often take many months to complete, and we must be mindful of its finite resource and time. Requiring it to undertake an annual review on health and social care may prevent it from undertaking reviews on other issues where there may be a more pressing need, or may duplicate work that it plans to do.
I am also unable to support new clause 49, which would require the Government to consider the impact of the Bill on EEA citizens, but which ignores the new points-based system that we will implement at the beginning of January 2021. The Government have already published an impact assessment of the points-based immigration system, which sets out the impacts on all those who will use the system, not just those from the EU or the EEA.
We understand fully that ending free movement and the proposals for the future immigration system will have an impact. However, with the dramatic changes that we have seen in the UK labour market over recent weeks, it is right that we focus on getting UK-based workers back into employment and ensuring that employers are investing in and retaining the existing workforce. Migration policies need to be considered alongside that work, not in isolation from it. The Migration Advisory Committee will have the opportunity to decide what it wishes to consider alongside its annual report.
Holly Lynch
I heard the Minister’s comments. I would stress, once again, that new clauses 21, 49 and 61 are genuine attempts to ask the Government to recognise our concern about health and social care when free movement comes to an end. We are not attempting to play politics; our concern is genuine. We would be very happy for the Government to go away and look at any one of those options. Without pushing this to a vote, we ask the Minister to consider these issues in all further deliberations on the future immigration system. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Tier 2 Immigration skills charge
“No Tier 2 Immigration skills charge will be payable on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national and is coming to the UK to work for the NHS.”—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause would exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 35—Immigration skills charge—
“No Immigration skills charge introduced under section 70A of the Immigration Act 2014, or by regulations thereunder, may be charged in respect of an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national coming to work in the UK.”
This new clause ensures no skills charge can be levied in respect of EEA or Swiss nationals coming to work in the UK.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 22, tabled in the name of the shadow Home Secretary, myself and my Committee colleagues. The new clause would exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge.
As I have already stressed in my attempts to win support for other new clauses, the NHS workforce has historically relied on the support of professionals from across the world coming to the UK. In recent decades, that has included a supply of EU nationals. Nearly 10% of doctors, 8% of social care staff and 6% of nurses working in the UK are from EEA countries.
As things stand, NHS trusts pay the skills charge for those coming to work in the NHS from countries outside the EU and will be expected to pay those costs for those coming from EU countries after free movement ends. The immigration skills charge is effectively a skills tax paid by employers who have recruited from overseas instead of from the domestic workforce, to act as a disincentive and to promote recruitment from a local talent pool. That is fair enough, but in the context of the NHS, levelling the tax on NHS trusts is nothing short of an outrage.
If trusts cannot find clinical specialists here in the UK, they have no choice but to find them from overseas. The UK has a number of clinical skills shortages in many specialist areas and, in the absence of any Government strategy to respond to that domestically, the NHS has to hire from overseas.
We have already heard a lot about Brian Bell’s contribution to the evidence session last week. He gave the example of the nurse shortage. He said:
“often the shortage occupation list identifies a failure of the British education system to provide the people who are needed. A classic example of that is nurses. Nurses have been on the shortage occupation list since I can remember ever hearing of it. Every time they are put on the list, we hear statements along the lines of, ‘Yes, we know that they are in shortage, and we have a plan to increase the number of nurses who go through training so that we deal with the shortage in the long run.’ They are still on the shortage occupation list. We should be using the shortage occupation list to signal both to Government and to employers that there are training needs that need to be fulfilled.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2020; c. 24, Q49.]
An NHS trust cannot unilaterally decide to train more nurses from the domestic labour force if it is struggling to recruit; it needs Government intervention to deliver the uplift.
In the MAC’s 2019 full review of the shortage occupation list, where all doctors were added to the list, under section 4B on health occupations, the review was keen to stress that
“the rise in vacancies and concern over lack of staff has occurred under freedom of movement and during a period when many health occupations have been on the SOL. Ultimately it will take more effective workforce planning and efforts to increase the flows into health professions (and decrease flows out) to meet growing demands.”
That is a worrying thought.
We have clinical workforce shortages almost across the board in the NHS, and that has been while we have had free movement. Adopting new clause 22 would be just one small step towards protecting the NHS from the inevitable impact of free movement coming to an end with the Bill.
As constituency MPs, we all have casework relating to patients with rare medical conditions who have been on waiting lists for years to see a specialist, because there may be only one or two doctors specialising in that condition in the country. There may be only a handful in the world, so trusts are regularly looking to recruit from overseas because they seem to have no choice. The immigration skills charge punishes trusts for doing so, with the Government taking back much-needed cash from budgets in order to pay the fees. It seems grossly unfair and counterproductive, and it takes money out of frontline hospital services.
The Labour party has submitted freedom of information requests to 224 NHS hospital trusts in England, asking how much of the charges they are paying back to the Government. So far, only 45 have responded—around 21% of the trusts. To give an indication of what some hospitals are paying out, I should say that Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust had to pay the Government £961,000 in immigration skills charges over the past three financial years. Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust tells us that it paid out more than that in the 2019-20 financial year alone, with a bill for £972,000 in just 12 months; it has paid over £2 million in immigration skills charges since 2017. The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust has paid over £1 million in the same timeframe, and the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust has paid £1,224,509 since 2017.
From the 21% of trusts that have responded to our FOI request, we know that nearly £13 million has been taken out of the NHS and handed back to the Government since 2017—nearly £13 million from just 21% of hospital trusts in England. That some hospitals can pay out nearly £1 million in immigration skills charges in a single year surely has to be a sign that the system is not working as intended. To repeat the point made by the MAC, this is all while people have been able to come under free movement, where fees would not have been applicable. That is about to come to an end. I urge the Minister to adopt new clause 22 to mitigate any further detrimental impact on the NHS workforce and to ensure that NHS funding stays in the NHS.
Stuart C. McDonald
In a sense, this debate echoes the one we had on the immigration health surcharge. I support everything that the shadow Minister has said, but I would push the Labour party to go a bit further and scrap the whole scheme.
I have nothing against the principle that employers should pay a contribution towards the cost of training and developing the skills on which businesses rely, but why should it apply only to those who recruit from abroad? That is not in any way a proxy for determining which businesses, companies and employers are not doing enough training in their own right. In fact, very often the opposite is the case: many of the businesses, companies and employers who recruit from overseas are also the ones who invest considerable sums of money in training and upskilling their workers.
However, skill shortages often arise at very short notice. For all the workforce planning that they do, and for all the training that they invest in, employers regularly have a need to recruit from abroad. As I say, it is a very poor proxy for trying to target companies that are not properly investing in training. The whole thing needs rethinking.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Members for Halifax and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling the new clauses. The objective of the immigration skills charge is to incentive UK-based employers to take a long-term view of investment and training, and it is designed to address the UK’s historical underinvestment in training and upskilling. The income raised is allocated to the Department for Education and the devolved nations to address skills and training gaps in the resident workforce.
We can all agree that immigration must be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s resident workforce, and it is only right that we provide those workers with opportunities to develop skills in order to further their careers and to contribute to the future economy. That is with particular reference to the situation we see at the moment in our country, where many people might need to find new employment opportunities due to the economic impact of covid-19.
The Committee may also wish to note that the introduction of the charge was supported by the independent Migration Advisory Committee as part of its December 2015 review of the tier 2 route.
The Migration Advisory Committee also recommended that the charge be extended and retained to cover employers of EEA citizens in the future immigration framework. In its September 2018 final report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the MAC said:
“We believe that extending the ISC to cover EEA citizens under any post-Brexit work-permit scheme would, on balance, be appropriate.”
It would also make no sense, now that we have left the European Union, to apply exemptions based purely on being an EEA national, as this suggests.
On new clause 22, the Government recognise the vital nature of the health and social care sector to the United Kingdom. Health and social care will be at the very heart of the UK’s new points-based immigration system, and we are doing all we can to ensure that the new system is fair, attractive and welcoming to the best and brightest overseas migrants. The new skilled worker route will be open to a broader range of roles in the sector—following the expansion of the current skills threshold—than the tier 2 general route.
As I mentioned earlier, the income for the immigration skills charge is used to address skills and training gaps in the resident workforce, including the healthcare sector. It is right, therefore, that we focus on providing UK resident workers with the opportunity to develop skills that will enable them to become the healthcare heroes of tomorrow—the revenue from the immigration skills charge does that. For those reasons, the Government are not prepared to accept the two new clauses.
Holly Lynch
We absolutely cannot wrap our heads around that, given how much money is being taken out of the NHS frontline, which seems to be an indication that the whole approach is not functioning as intended. However, with that in mind, I will not seek to divide the Committee. But the Labour party may return to this point at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 18th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 June 2020 - (18 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Today we continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. I remind Members that the Hansard reporters would be grateful if a copy of any speaking notes could be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. We are all beautifully socially distanced.
New Clause 24
Annual review: Impact on the agricultural sector
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the number of seasonal agricultural workers in the UK.
(2) In undertaking the evaluation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Ministers;
(b) the relevant Welsh Ministers; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it has been completed.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again. New clause 24 is in very much the same spirit as new clause 21, which would require the Government to commission a report on the Bill’s impact on the health and social care sectors. New clause 24 would require them to take the same approach to the agriculture sector and food security.
Significant numbers of EEA nationals are employed on a permanent and seasonal basis, making them an instrumental consideration for the agriculture sector. As things stand, it would not function without them. The coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on certain sectors that we have often taken for granted but are absolutely essential. Food security has been a focus for people as never before. It is another area that brings recognition that food production is essential to life. Its workers have been classed as key workers for the purposes of the pandemic, yet so many of those who have worked incredibly hard to keep fruit and veg, in particular, on our tables throughout the pandemic are paid less than £25,600.
The Government’s February policy statement on their future points-based immigration system simply states:
“We will end free movement and not implement a route for lower-skilled workers.”
Members who served on the Committee that considered the Bill presented during the 2017-19 Parliament may remember that James Porter of the National Farmers Union of Scotland gave evidence. I spoke to Mr Porter about the Bill and about the issue of “low-skilled” workers. He was keen to stress that, although some of his workers may not have qualifications or letters after their names, being an agricultural worker and picker of soft fruits and vegetables is their profession. It requires skill and they take great pride in it.
Mr Porter said that most of his seasonal workers have been coming back to his farm for 10 or 15 years. He went on to explain that the exceptional circumstances of this year meant that attempts to redirect people traditionally from different lines of work and professions into agriculture from the local labour pool had brought out the likes of lawyers, electricians and teachers to pick fruit on his farm. That was welcome, but he made the point that although they were educated and highly skilled in their own field, they were not skilled fruit pickers. They took longer and their yield was not comparable with that of people who specialise in that line of work.
The Government’s February policy paper goes on to say:
“UK businesses will need to adapt and adjust to the end of free movement, and we will not seek to recreate the outcomes from free movement within the points-based system. As such, it is important that employers move away from a reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity, and wider investment in technology and automation.”
I sought to make a point about this matter on Tuesday, during the discussion on the social care new clause. I completely accept the Minister’s point that social care and agriculture are very different sectors. He will look to the unemployment figures and say that we will fill labour shortages from the domestic workforce, but I gave the example of how attempts to channel those who are out of work into other sectors over the course of the pandemic had not exactly been an easy or straightforward process.
I cited the Pick for Britain scheme as an example. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures but, after overcoming some initial teething problems with the website, one of the organisations managing the scheme, Concordia, reported that it had 35,000 applications after the initial appeal for domestic workers. However, only 30% of applicants had farming experience—as was probably predictable—and only 16% of people opted to interview after their initial application, with even fewer actually making it on to a farm.
Some of the pressures have been alleviated thanks to specially chartered flights from EU countries such as Romania, which have provided us with the skilled workers we need, but they have been a warning of what is to come. When we have problems in the sector, we will say with absolute certainty that the writing was on the wall.
The seasonal agriculture workers pilot scheme needs to be much improved if it is to sustain the levels of migrant work needed after the end of the transition period. The pilot allows for 10,000 visas, when actually 70,000 would be much closer to the agreed number of people required. The cost of permits is too high and farms simply do not have the administrative capacity needed to process the bureaucracy that accompanies each individual application.
FLEX, the Focus on Labour Exploitation group, has also repeatedly raised concerns about the potential for worker exploitation in the scheme, citing the issue of tied visas, where the worker is tied to one specific employer and prohibited from changing employer while in the UK under that visa. Debt bondage, where the worker’s wages go towards paying off costs of entering the scheme, such as visa charges and flight costs, alongside recruitment fees paid to labour brokers, is another worrying trend that will need to be addressed in any future scheme.
Right across the sector there are problems. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took evidence on this in May, with Ian Wright, the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, telling the Committee that the crisis had shown how vital the food industry was. He said:
“If you can’t feed a country, you don’t have a country. That has been borne out in this crisis in massive order.”
He went on to explicitly say:
“We don’t think the current Immigration Bill addresses the sort of country we want to be. I think it is surprising that, given the lessons of the last eight or nine weeks, the Immigration Bill is back in parliament unchanged, given what we have learned about the people working in food and drink, in distribution centres and the care sectors.”
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right to identify some of the exploitation that can occur. Does she agree that the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 addressed many of those problems and that the situation is much better than it was because of legislation passed by the Conservative-led Government?
Holly Lynch
I am grateful for that intervention and I welcome the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby—
Holly Lynch
Further to my hon. Friend’s correction, James Porter was keen to stress that that has been a helpful intervention to improve standards for workers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is still much more to do to ensure that we are looking after these workers.
Mr Goodwill
May I correct the record? It was because of legislation passed by the last Labour Government, which I do not recall that we opposed.
Holly Lynch
That is one of the best interventions I have taken during the course of this Committee, and it was a welcome addition.
The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has estimated that in the UK, 56% of dairy farmers have employed workers from the EU; 60%––around 22,800 EU migrants––make up the workforce in poultry farming. According to the NFU, the UK’s horticulture sector is completely reliant upon seasonal migrant workers to collect crop yields: 99% of all harvesters in the UK come from Europe. All these working relationships have been forged over time due largely to the flexibility granted by freedom of movement.
The British Poultry Council has warned that the new immigration plans are likely to have a crippling impact on UK food businesses. A report of the kind outlined in new clause 24 is therefore necessary to safeguard the UK’s agriculture industry, during a time of much upheaval. As both the National Farmers Union and National Farmers Union of Scotland have stressed, fruit and vegetable picking requires a high level of manual skills, and farms can only operate efficiently when they recruit workers with this skillset.
This is the one sector where we can say that we have just been through a trial for the ending of free movement, brought about by lockdown. Migrant labour dried up due to lockdown and the Government tried to recruit from the domestic labour force. Nowhere near the required numbers joined up, fruit and veg started to rot in the fields and we were forced to very quickly get migrant labour from Europe back in on chartered flights. It is vital that the Government learn from our experiences during the crisis and develop a proactive and pragmatic agricultural policy for implementation after the transition period. New clause 24 would give us the information required to do this.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. I can be relatively brief because the shadow Minister has spoken to the National Farmers Union of Scotland and represented its interests pretty well. There is real concern about shortages in the labour market for agriculture, particularly in relation to seasonal workers. Research on seasonal migrant labour from 2018 showed that in Scotland alone the number of seasonal agricultural workers required in any year is not far short of 10,000.
More recently, the NFUS and the UK farming unions have given evidence to the UK Government, demonstrating that for the whole UK around 70,000 seasonal staff are required in the horticultural sector and 13,000 seasonal staff are required in the poultry sector every year. That is obviously many times more than the number of places in the current pilot.
Challenges in recruiting seasonal workers have already been seen in recent years. In 2018, the NFUS conducted a survey of its horticultural membership in which every single respondent reported being “concerned” or “very concerned” about the impact worker shortages would have on their businesses in 2018 and beyond. Almost 60% of respondents said they were “likely” or “very likely” to downsize their business and the remaining 42% said they would have to cease current activity.
The NFUS was opposed to the end of free movement but, even while free movement was retained, farmers increasingly needed to look beyond the EU to fill such posts, with countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova already supplying a significant proportion of the workers required. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme pilot has been described as a step in the right direction, but it does not provide nearly enough permits if shortages such as those experienced in recent years are going to continue.
The NFUS is calling for a seasonal scheme that is open to both EU and non-EU workers, with capacity to provide farmers with access to returnee employers. It also calls for the scheme to be open to a wide number of labour providers and direct recruiters. Some concerns have been expressed about the expense and the somewhat laborious processes that are involved in taking advantage of the scheme.
The NFUS has also expressed concerns that the future immigration system proposed by the Government is not based on realistic expectations of the ability of the UK to fill the jobs currently carried out by migrant workers. It says that
“to maintain the productivity of the agricultural sector, immigration policy must allow recruitment on a seasonal basis for workers from both the EU and non-EU, at a non-restricted level.”
I echo what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, said about the SAWS scheme and how we always have to be cautious about the need to carefully protect workers against exploitation. She was right to highlight concerns raised by Focus on Labour Exploitation during the passage of the Bill last year.
To come to the rescue of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the gangmasters legislation was very welcome, but so too was the introduction of the director of labour market enforcement in 2016, under the Conservative Government, which may have been what he was thinking about. Those are both welcome moves, but we have a long way to go to build on the creation of those posts in ensuring that migrant workers—and workers generally—are properly protected.
One criticism of the new clause is that it is not just on seasonal workers that we need to have a report; we need a broader report on the impact on access to labour in the agricultural industry. The concerns of organisations such as the NFUS go further than seasonal work, and include the cost of sponsorship under tier 2, which it has described as
“prohibitively expensive in terms of both financial and administrative burden.”
It is fair to say that the NFUS has welcomed some of the recent developments, for example the decrease to the salary threshold that has been introduced by the Government, but it asks how non-salaried roles will fit into the points-based system; how the revised shortage occupation list will generally take account of the range of occupations that exist in agriculture; whether the Government will consider targeted routes for remote and rural areas—unfortunately, from what the Minister said the other day, it sounds as if it will be disappointed in that regard—and how the expense and bureaucracy of the system can be improved. It simply calls for close engagement as we move towards the implementation of the new system.
The new clause is sensible and will contribute to our understanding of what is going on in a future debate about labour in the agricultural sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the general tone of the debate that we have had so far.
As the Migration Advisory Committee—or MAC—has already made clear in its report of September 2018, agriculture is an exceptional case, as we believe the labour market is totally distinct from the labour market for resident workers. For this reason, although the MAC recommended against a dedicated route for recruiting workers based on paying at or near the legal minimum—advice that this Government accept—it did consider that the position was different in respect of the UK’s world-leading agricultural sector.
Accordingly, on 6 March last year the Government announced the implementation of a nationwide pilot to enable non-EU migrant workers to undertake seasonal work on UK farms. The seasonal worker pilot admits temporary workers from outside the European Union to work in edible horticulture for up to six months. The pilot scheme ran last year on the basis of 2,500 places, and on 19 February, in line with the commitment made in our election manifesto, we increased the annual quota for the second year of the pilot from 2,500 places to 10,000 places.
Stuart C. McDonald
Can the Minister give us a rough outline of when a review of the pilot scheme will take place and when any sort of decision can be expected on how it will look in the future?
Kevin Foster
We expect to undertake that evaluation later this year and then announce the results as part of confirming the final details of the future migration scheme. If the hon. Gentleman’s next question is about whether we will take into account the unique circumstances this year, the obvious answer is yes, given the restrictions on travel. We have found that the net is going wider in trying to recruit. Just creating migration opportunity does not automatically bring workers to the United Kingdom, as we have seen with free movement—for example, it used to be common for people from parts of western Europe to come here to do this work, but now it is not. Again, migration cannot be seen as an alternative to providing attractive terms and conditions that will encourage people to wish to do the work. Our intention is to make that announcement later this year and then confirm our intentions, in good time for next year’s season.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already conducts quarterly seasonal labour in horticulture surveys, explicitly looking at the questions of supply and demand of seasonal labour in horticulture. I am therefore not persuaded that a further annual MAC report would significantly add to our knowledge on this matter, especially when the MAC will in future have more ability to work on matters of its own choosing, including an annual report on the migration system, in which it can choose to cover the areas suggested in the new clause. If we are giving the MAC the ability to choose what it sees as the priorities in its annual report, with debate in the House on that report, it seems strange to give it that freedom and then compel it to do a number of reports by primary legislation. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax will feel able to withdraw her new clause.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. We welcome the increased flexibility that the MAC will have. I wonder whether there will be an opportunity for Opposition parties and MPs to cast a particular spotlight on an area, so that MPs can feed into that process with the MAC.
It is in everyone’s interest that we continue to see the wide availability of fresh fruit and veg for families. I accept the point made by my friend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that we would like to see any assessment of this sector be broader than seasonal agricultural workers and take into account the requirements of the workforce right across the food sector.
Having said that, I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Report on status of EEA and Swiss nationals after the transition
“(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must clarify the position of EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK during the period between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to, what rights EEA and Swiss nationals resident in the UK on 31 December 2020 have to—
(a) work in the UK;
(b) use the NHS for free;
(c) enrol in education or continue studying;
(d) access public funds such as benefits and pensions; and
(e) travel in and out of the UK.”—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause would require Government to provide clarity on the rights of EU nationals in the EU in the grace period between the end of the transition period, and the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have been through a great deal of this subject matter earlier in the debate on clause 2. I was grateful to the Minister for some of the clarity he was able to provide at that stage. New clause 27, however, goes that little bit further and asks the Government to produce a report on the associated rights given to citizens in the common travel area.
The aim of this proposed change is to ensure that Ministers set out in detail the scope of what has been officially referred to as the reciprocal rights of the common travel area, and to compare and contrast them with the rights that can be retained under part two of the withdrawal agreement, as provided for domestically under the EU settlement scheme. The Minister’s predecessor stated that Irish citizens do not need to apply to the EU settlement scheme because of the CTA, but since then the Government have instead suggested that individuals whose immigration status is covered by the CTA may wish to register under the EU settlement scheme. Inevitably, this has caused a degree of confusion about possible gaps between where free movement rights finish and CTA rights start.
As highlighted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the EU SS is enshrined in law through the withdrawal agreement. Comparatively, however, the CTA is upheld essentially by a gentlemen’s agreement, the non-legally binding memorandum of understanding between the UK and Ireland on the CTA of May 2019. A report on the associated rights of the CTA would therefore be incredibly helpful to ensure that Irish citizens can receive equal rights to EEA and Swiss nationals.
We also believe that the report on the associated rights granted through the CTA would provide scope to begin to answer the pertinent questions about clause 2 raised during the evidence given by our expert witnesses. As previously discussed, while we welcome the provisions set out in clause 2 for Irish citizens, there is still outstanding ambiguity regarding the status and legality of the associated rights that are prescribed by the common travel area.
We believe that it would be incredibly welcome if the Government were to take this opportunity to clarify any ambiguity before the Bill takes effect. A report would provide unequivocal guidance on the status of Northern Irish citizens who identify solely as Irish. It would hopefully guarantee the same provisions for deportation and exclusion as those for Northern Irish citizens who identify as British. It would also clarify issues raised by the Committee on the Administration of Justice on questions relating to cross-border provisions and the right to vote in referendums. More must also be done to tackle the current problematic loophole whereby someone with an Irish passport is not granted protections on arriving in the UK, because they have travelled from a country outside the common travel area. Professor Ryan illustrated the opacity surrounding the status of acquisition of British nationality for British-born children, children born to Irish parents and Irish citizens wanting to naturalise. He stressed that this is currently an unanswered question in British citizenship law.
Finally, the report could also lead to a more sustained debate on Alison Harvey’s proposal on the right to abode, which was raised during evidence. The right to abode would grant citizens a plethora of citizenship rights, while simultaneously safeguarding people’s right to identify solely as Irish. We hope the new clause will catalyse discussions on this issue that will lead to a definitive conclusion.
Stuart C. McDonald
I can be very brief. I echo and support what the shadow Minister has said. I am not going to repeat what I said on clause 2; that is a welcome clause, although we have one or two concerns about the detail. What this whole debate has shown us is that, even though we are told that the common travel area pre-existed the European Union and everything is fine, in actual fact it is hard to discern what precisely is involved in the CTA and precisely what rights it confers on individuals.
My understanding from the debate we had last week is essentially that the Government propose to progress this in a rather piecemeal way, changing bits and bobs of the legislation on different subjects to ensure that Irish citizens will continue to enjoy equivalent rights in this country. Okay, that will get us to where we want to be, but it does prohibit us from having a comprehensive overview of what progress has been made and what exactly we are trying to achieve by restoring the common travel area and making sure that there is not a loss of rights because of the loss of free movement.
The new clause would be genuinely be helpful for MPs to understand what the CTA is all about, what exactly the Government are trying to achieve and what progress they are making towards that. It is a genuinely helpful suggestion.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for tabling new clause 27 because it gives me a chance briefly to outline the Government’s commitments to maintaining the common travel area arrangements, including the associated rights of British and Irish citizens in each other’s states, and the status of Irish citizens under the EU settlement scheme arrangements.
For brief background, the common travel area is an arrangement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as well as the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. It allows British and Irish citizens to travel freely between the UK and Ireland, and to reside in either jurisdiction. It also facilitates the enjoyment of several associated rights and privileges—in effect, by forming one area for immigration entry purposes.
As mentioned when we debated clause 2, both the UK Government and the Irish Government have committed to maintaining the CTA. The CTA is underpinned by deep-rooted historical ties, and maintaining it has been and continues to be a shared objective of both nations. Crucially, it predates the UK’s and Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It has been agreed with the EU that the UK and Ireland can continue to make arrangements between ourselves when it comes to the CTA.
Irish citizens in the UK and British citizens in Ireland will continue to have access to their CTA associated rights. Both Governments confirmed that position on 8 May 2019, when we signed a common travel area memorandum of understanding, which I have mentioned previously to the Committee. It is worth noting that that also builds on our commitments in the Belfast agreement that are part of international law.
The Government continue to work closely with the Irish Government to ensure that our citizens can access their rights as set out in the memorandum of understanding. This has been and will continue to be taken forward through bilateral instruments, and we have committed to updating domestic legislation. This is why we are proposing clause 2 of this Bill, which will ensure that Irish citizens can enter and remain in the UK without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from, except in a very limited number of circumstances, which we debated under clause 2.
New clause 27 would also require the Government to publish details of the rights and benefits provided by the EU settlement scheme. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 protects the residence rights of European economic area citizens who are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period and eligible family members seeking to join a relevant EEA citizen in the UK after that time. EEA citizens and their family members can apply under the EU settlement scheme for UK immigration status, so that they can continue to work, study, and, where eligible, access benefits and services such as free NHS treatment. We continue to make every effort to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of applying to the EU settlement scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
Given what the Minister says, people will have to decide whether they want to apply for the EU settlement scheme, or whether they want to continue to rely on their CTA rights. They could make that decision much more easily if they knew precisely what their CTA rights would be. Can he say anything about when the Government will take forward a programme of work to ensure that Irish citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they have now? When can people can see this on the statute book, rather than just hear it being spoken about? People are describing these as rights written in the sand.
Kevin Foster
Clause 2 explicitly puts Irish citizens’ rights on the statute book and removes the anomaly by which an Irish citizen is treated differently depending on how they enter the country—whether they arrive on a flight from Dublin or a flight from Brussels, whether under EEA free movement or CTA rights. That difference is removed completely by clause 2; it makes it clear that the same position applies, however an Irish citizen arrives in the United Kingdom.
I am very much a supporter of the provisions of the Belfast agreement, under which a person can identify as British, Irish or both. Effectively, in the United Kingdom, the person will be treated as if they were a British citizen, in terms of their rights, including their right to live here, and the services they can access. There is a very tiny number of exceptions. On this Committee, we have all struggled, as have the witnesses, to find in recent times and under modern legislation an example of an Irish citizen being deported from the United Kingdom. The position outlined in a written statement in 2007—and yes, I know who was in government in 2007—still stands, and we have not had any representations from the Irish Government on changing that. I suspect that if we looked to behave in an unreasonable way towards an Irish citizen, the Irish Government would be very clear in their response.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is obviously doing his bit by putting clause 2 into the Bill, but what I am really asking—I suspect that he does not have the answer today—is what other work is under way across Government to make sure that Irish citizens have rights on housing, health and everything else on exactly the same basis as before, and to make sure that the loss of free movement rights does not mean that they will be in a worse position. Some sort of timetable on what is going on, and how the change is being processed, would be useful for lots of citizens.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for quite a constructive intervention. He obviously will appreciate that those arriving after the transition period would not have free movement rights, but those arriving before are covered by the withdrawal agreement. I am more than happy to get a letter to him setting out how we will make sure of the position that he mentions. I suspect that his concern is that when an Irish citizen is in the United Kingdom, talking to a person at a Department for Work and Pensions office, or a landlord, and presents them with an Irish passport, it should be understood inherently that it has exactly the same status in terms of renting, or accessing a service or employment, as a British passport, particularly given the different commentary. I am more than happy to set out in writing to the Committee the work that will be done on that point.
In summary, the Government have already made clear the rights available to individuals under the common travel area and the EU settlement scheme following the end of free movement, and we will continue to do so. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Halifax not to press the new clause for the reasons I have outlined.
Holly Lynch
I welcome the fairly constructive way in which the Minister has engaged on this point. The points made in intervention by my friend from the SNP, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, do still stand. I reinforce that there will continue to be a desire and unanswered questions in this area. There are certainly merits to committing more of what we have discussed to primary legislation, but I will not press the new clause at this point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Annual review: Higher education
(1) The Secretary of State must commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the number of overseas students in the UK from the EEA and Switzerland.
(2) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after it has been completed.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.—(Kate Green.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again this morning, Sir Edward. The new clause would require the Government to commission an annual report from the Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on the higher education sector.
As the Committee will know, the UK higher education sector has a world-leading reputation, which helps it to attract international students. The proportion of international students is a measure in most global university rankings, meaning that by choosing to study here, international students contribute directly to the sector’s world standing. Today, 18 of the UK’s universities rank in the world’s top 100, and 76% of UK research is ranked as excellent or world-leading. International staff and students are crucial to the UK’s economic success, and it is important that the UK continues to attract both EU and non-EU students and staff in the future.
International students deliver more than £26 billion to the UK economy. They bring more than £6.9 billion in income to universities in tuition fees. They generated £13 billion of export revenue in 2016, an increase of 41% since 2010. Universities UK estimates that universities supported more than 200,000 jobs and were worth £3.3 billion in tax revenues.
Aside from the direct economic benefits, international students and staff are crucial to the provision of skills, the conducting of research and the culture of the UK’s universities. In 2017-18, UK higher education institutions reported a £4.3 billion deficit between research income received and the costs of delivering research activity. Much of that gap was covered by international tuition fees, so international students are key to the UK’s research capacity.
In 2018-19, there were 485,645 international students enrolled at UK universities, an increase from 436,600 international students in 2014-15. Some 342,620 of those international students—that is 70%—were from outside the European Union. The remaining 143,025 students were from EU countries, but the UK’s market share has dropped in 17 of the world’s top 21 sending countries. The Office for Budget Responsibility has identified higher education as the sector likely to take the hardest hit from the covid crisis.
Given the pressures, it will be vital to understand the impact of immigration policy on future student numbers. The impact assessment attached to the Bill is optimistic, suggesting that a potential reduction in the number of EEA students attending UK universities of 25,000 after the first five years of the new points-based system will be offset by a corresponding increase in non-EEA students.
However, some of the assumptions in the impact assessment are highly speculative—as, indeed, the Government themselves acknowledge. Paragraph 160 of the impact assessment states that
“measures such as proof of funds and employment rights might have an additional deterrent impact—but there is little evidence on which to base an estimate. The impact of any administration cost or visa fee or change to student funding will also impact student choices. Therefore, the estimates presented here will only reflect the potential impacts from changes in immigration policy and not the overall impacts on EU student numbers.”
Paragraphs 163 and 164 state:
“The restrictions on the rights to bring dependants, which will apply to EU students from 2021, may also have an impact on inflows under the future system, as only those who are studying a full-time course which is a least nine months long at a postgraduate level of study are allowed to bring family members to the UK…Applying these potential deterrents, the reduction in EU student inflows are estimated to be around 15,000 per annum in the first five years of the policy.”
In paragraph 165, expected-length-of-study data is applied to the change in inflows, pointing to:
“an estimate of up to 25,000 fewer EU higher education students in the UK by academic year 2024/25 relative to the baseline.”
The paragraph also argues that
“any places not taken by EU students may be occupied by non-EU students, so the overall impact on foreign student numbers is not clear.”
In paragraph 166, the Government estimate that
“non-EU enrolments might increase by up to 10 per cent, depending on the level of study”,
but the paragraph also notes:
“This assumption is very uncertain, not least because other drivers could have affected non-EU inflows over the period of the last post-study work visa.”
None the less, paragraph 167 states:
“The assumption of around 10 per cent increase in enrolments is estimated to lead to an average annual increase in non-EU enrolments by around 25,000 over the first five years of the policy.”
That is a strikingly convenient conclusion in the light of the assessment of 25,000 fewer EU students at the end of the same period.
Paragraph 172 notes:
“Changes in the numbers of students enrolling will affect tuition fee income for universities. Overall, projected tuition fee income is estimated to increase under the future immigration system. This is primarily driven by the”—
assumed—
“increase in tuition fee income from additional non-EEA students which is expected to more than offset the decline in EEA student tuition fee income. The increase is estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion over the first five years of the policy.”
However, paragraph 172 goes on to state:
“Estimates do not take any account of behavioural impacts, nor any changes in universities expenditure.”
Paragraph 173 expands on that, stating:
“EU students are currently classified as ‘home’ students, and therefore benefit from accessing student loans and paying domestic tuition fees which are currently capped at £9,250 for undergraduates. Estimates above assume home fee status and access to student loans will remain the same as the current system. However, any changes to this will have an impact on both EU student enrolments and the projected tuition fee income of universities.”
Paragraph 175 concludes:
“As a result of changes to net student enrolments modelled above, a cumulative net fiscal benefit is estimated of under £1 billion over the first five years of the forecast period.”
That is a bold statement that will be true only if the assumptions in the impact assessment are correct and the reductions in EU students are indeed replaced by non-EU students.
We can already identify a number of policy choices that could affect those assumptions. The current situation for EEA students coming to the UK is that for academic year 2020-21, they retain the same status as domestic students. However, delays in start dates and term times as a result of the covid crisis may mean that there will be students who enrol on to academic year 2020-21, but do not enter the UK until 2021. Which immigration system will apply in such circumstances is uncertain.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, I fully support and echo much of what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has said. If anything, I would argue that the review requested in the new clause should be slightly broader and encompass not only student recruitment but staff recruitment, because that is an important issue for our universities. I also suggest that the report needs an urgent timeframe, because the clock is ticking down to a new academic year and a new recruitment period, but she made all sorts of valuable points.
Some changes made to the Government’s original White Paper have improved matters, such as the reduction in the salary and skills thresholds, but there remain lots of challenges, and of course just now universities are under immense pressure in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and its fallout. I have spoken with Universities Scotland about the review suggested in the new clause, and what follow are some of the issues it raised. What steps are the Minister and the Government taking to get the visa system working again—lots of visa processing centres remain closed—and how can alternative measures be put in place to ensure we can recruit students at the moment?
What steps will the Government take to ensure that students can start courses online with confidence—for example, by extending the window from three months to six months so that people can have extra time to arrive in the UK from when their visa becomes valid? What steps are being taken to ensure that online study does not disqualify students from the graduate route, and will the Minister consider increasing the graduate route length to three or four years and promoting it intensively, because as we he heard awareness rates are still very low?
Finally, the report should also look at whether consideration has been given to waiving tier-4 visa fees for one year only? In the longer run, what steps are being taken to ensure that our visa fees are competitive and allow us to compete with countries such as Canada and Australia, which have such strong offers in terms of fees and post-study work. These are all things the Government should think about as part of the report, and we think the new clause would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
Kevin Foster
The new clause provides the Committee with a useful opportunity to consider the important issue of international students in the UK, and I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling it.
I want to start by picking up on the point made about Erasmus by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. My constituency sees a large number of Erasmus students, and we very much welcome it. At the moment, the scope and content of EU programmes post 2020, including Erasmus, is being negotiated within the EU institutions and has not been finalised. The Government have made it clear that the UK is ready to consider participation in certain EU programmes, in particular Erasmus+, once the EU has agreed the baseline in its 2021-27 multiannual financial framework. Given that that has not yet been agreed, we are preparing for every eventuality and considering a wide range of options with regard to the future of international exchange and collaboration in education and training if it is not possible to secure a deal on Erasmus+. I want to give reassurance that the will is there. Once the EU has agreed its baseline, we will look to continue to be part of that valuable programme.
The Government strongly welcome international students, as I know Members across the Committee do. We see the academic and creative energy they bring to communities across our Union, including Belfast, Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham and Exeter. The Committee will be pleased to hear that the UK is one of the world’s leading destinations for international education, and hundreds of thousands of talented students choose to come to the UK’s world-leading institutions.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency has found that the total number of international students in higher education in the UK increased by 10% between 2014-15 and 2018-19, with the latest data suggesting that around 140,000 EU domiciled and 340,000 non-EU domiciled students enrolled in higher education institutions in the UK. The most recent set of immigration statistics show some very welcome growth in the number of people studying at our institutions from China and India in particular.
I want to reiterate that the Government place no limit on the number of international students who can come to study in the UK and have no intention ever to introduce any such limit in future under the new migration system. Indeed, as set out in the “International Education Strategy”, published last year, it is the Government’s ambition to increase the number of international higher education students studying in the UK to 600,000 by 2030. However, I recognise that we must not stand still if we are to continue to be a leading destination for international students. The Minister of State for Universities recently announced a new international education champion, Sir Steve Smith, to spearhead the UK’s efforts in the international student market. The Minister and I liaise regularly about the role that the migration system can play in facilitating that.
In summer 2021, we will launch a new graduate route, which will enable international students who have successfully completed their degree to remain in the UK for two years post study to work or look for work at any level, in order to kick-start their career. That will ensure that the UK continues to attract the brightest and the best and that our offer to prospective international students remains competitive internationally. I know that this policy change has significant cross-party support. It was even one of the first requests made by an SNP MP in a recent Opposition day debate on migration, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and I took part, and I am pleased that it has been welcomed by the education sector.
I want to respond to the points made about eligibility for this route. We have published guidance, which confirms that those having to study overseas by distance learning due to the current circumstances will still be eligible for the graduate route. I do not blame Opposition Members for not having seen it, because it came out this morning, so I do not make that point to have a go at them. That followed discussions that the Minister of State for Universities and I had.
We will not penalise people for circumstances that are beyond their control, and we are working to finalise some of the details. Particularly for those on a one-year course—who will predominantly be postgraduate students, where we probably have a record of compliance and they have a very high skill level—we will be working to find that they have spent some time in the United Kingdom. For those starting three-year courses, we will not hold against them an absence from the United Kingdom caused by having to do distance learning, as a general principle.
We are looking at a range of other measures we can take to facilitate applications for tier 4, particularly from those who are applying to a new course having already been in the United Kingdom, many of whom are postgraduates or have done foundation courses. We have had strong representations on the extension to six months. It is clear that that will not be a huge advantage to someone looking to start a course in late September or October, given that it is now mid-June, but we are looking at where we can make some appropriate changes to the migration rules to reflect the unique situation. We will of course continue to work with Universities UK to ensure that those changes are appropriate. As I say, we have today published some guidance, which I am sure Committee members will find interesting. I will make sure that a link to it, or perhaps a copy of it, is sent round, to make one or two of these points clear.
Kate Green
I welcome much of what the Minister has said. I welcome his and the Government’s ambition to be and to continue to be a leading player in the international student market. I very much welcome what he said about the commitment either to continue our association with Erasmus+, if that is possible, or to find other ways to continue to offer international exchange opportunities to students. He gave useful assurances in relation to the guidance published this morning—which I apologise for not having read—on greater flexibilities in respect of the covid-19 crisis. I am sure that the MAC will have heard what the Minister said about encouraging its continued active review of the international student market. Given the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Report on arrangements for temporary entry and stay for business purposes for EEA and Swiss nationals
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effects of this Act on the arrangements for temporary entry and stay for business purposes for EEA and Swiss nationals.
(2) That report must include—
(a) the qualification requirements for a short-term business visitor
(b) the activities that can be undertaken by a short-term business visitor;
(c) consider the reciprocal arrangements for UK nationals travelling to the EEA and Switzerland.”—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause would require the Government to consider the requirements of short-term business visitors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is not unlike some of the other proposals we have made in this sitting to ask the Government to go away and develop an evidence base, shining a spotlight on certain sectors, which we hope would then inform more concrete proposals. This proposal has a particular focus on the creative industries, temporary migration and visa requirements for working arrangements.
We understand that the Government are currently negotiating a reciprocal agreement with the EU that would allow UK citizens to undertake some paid business activities in the EU without a work permit on a short-term basis. However, the precise details, including the range of activities, the documentation needed and the time limit, are all still to be negotiated; certainly the details are still to be put into the public domain.
One sector directly affected is culture, music and the performing arts. The creative sector contributes over £100 billion a year to the UK economy and employs over 3 million people, according to the Confederation of British Industry. There are growing concerns in this sector about the lack of progress on a reciprocal agreement being reached before the end of the transition period, and whether it would guarantee short-term work and visits for EU nationals, all of which is critical for the survival of the music profession.
Britain’s music industry has long attracted world-class artists, entertainers and musicians to perform in the UK, but this is all very precarious if visa issues are not resolved by the end of the year. This is also one of the sectors hardest hit by the coronavirus, as events and performances will no doubt be one of the last elements across society to return to normal.
Working in the European Union, whether that involves performing, recording, teaching or collaborating, is an essential part of the music professional’s ability to earn. The music industry is very transient and often there is not enough work available in the UK for musicians to sustain livelihoods, but going abroad has often provided a solution. We are not talking about performers earning megabucks, although of course we want the UK to be an attractive stage for them and for our international talent in the rest of Europe—for example, UK performers who may go to work in a holiday resort for two months of the year, or may tour venues in a number of European countries.
If the UK leaves without a comprehensive arrangement in place, musicians could very quickly find themselves trying to navigate the entry requirements for each of the 27 EU member states, which risks causing major disruption to the UK’s music industry. Without effective reciprocal arrangements, the UK may see a decline in skilled culture sector workers entering the country from the EU. If the music industry is to survive and we are to continue attracting the best talent from across the world, musicians and performers must be able to continue travelling abroad to work with ease after the transition period. It is the same for many other businesses and industries.
The Home Office previously pledged that it would allow EU bands to enter the country freely for gigs post Brexit, and that it would continue to include special arrangements for creative workers. A potential solution might be a multi-entry touring visa valid for about two years and EU-wide, covering all 27 member states, which I know is the preference of the Incorporated Society of Musicians.
I hope the Minister agrees that the UK must continue to attract musicians and performers from all over the world with an immigration system that is fit for purpose. Providing the best possible situation to do that would be achieved by commissioning the report set out in new clause 29.
Kevin Foster
It might help if I briefly outline how the current system for those visiting the UK for business purposes operates. I note the shadow Minister has focused on creative purposes, but the wording in the new clause is “business visitor”.
The Government welcome genuine visitors to the UK, and this is not going to change once free movement has ended. We want to ensure legitimate travellers who support our economy and enrich our culture can continue to come to the UK smoothly in future. The UK’s current immigration rules for visitors are already fairly generous. Visitors can, in most cases, come to the UK for up to six months, and take part in a wide range of activities beyond simply tourism, or visiting family and friends.
Visitors can attend conferences, carry out independent research, undertake work-related training and maintain and install equipment where there is a contract with a UK company. We also allow audit activity and knowledge transfer where these take place in an intra-company setting. Visitors can undertake creative and sporting activities, and there are also some exceptional instances in the visitor rules whereby we allow payment by a UK source for certain activities, including performing at a permit-free festival, such as the Edinburgh festival. There are also provisions for paid performance engagement—or PPE, as we call it—whereby an individual who has been invited by a creative organisation can be paid for a short period for performing in the UK.
Those are already available to non-visa nationals, such as Canadian, Australian, Japanese and New Zealand citizens, and we have made it clear that EEA and Swiss citizens will not need a visa to undertake these activities, and will be able to travel and enter the UK on that basis. The EU has already legislated so that UK nationals will not need a visa when travelling to the Schengen area for short stays of up to 90 days in any 180-day period, as opposed to our slightly more generous provisions for visitors.
The Government recognise that it is desirable for UK nationals to have greater certainty about what they can do when travelling to the EU on a temporary or short-term basis, hence future arrangements on entry and temporary stay in the EU are subject to ongoing negotiations. Further, we look forward to reaching agreement on the future entry and temporary stay of natural persons with Switzerland and the EEA-European Free Trade Association states. For obvious reasons, we cannot legislate that the 27 member states of the EU offer a deal to the UK, but we hope we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement.
The UK’s visitor rules are kept under regular review. In our points-based system policy statement from February, we committed to
“continue our generous visitor provisions, but with simplified rules and guidance”.
We have engaged with stakeholders to understand how the rules can be simplified and improved and will continue to do so once free movement ends. For these reasons, there is no requirement for an additional report, and the new clause would be an odd addition to the Bill, for reasons I have set out in response to previous new clauses. I would therefore ask the hon. Member for Halifax to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. At this stage, we will continue to follow the negotiations on the additional reciprocal arrangements, and on that note I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 29.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Procedures for amending Immigration Rules
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection 2.
(2) After section 3(2) insert—
“(2A) Any statement of the rules, or of any changes to the rules, which affect the rights and obligations of persons who will lose their right of freedom of movement under the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act may not be made or have effect unless the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (2B) to (2F) below.
(2B) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under subsection (2A) above, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal; and
(b) sets it out in the form of a draft order.
(2C) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (2B) (the “60-day period”), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modification).
(2D) In preparing a draft order under section (2A) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations; and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
(2E) When laying before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document under subsection (2B).
(2F) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is not adjourned for more than 4 days.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that any changes to the UK’s Immigration Rules which affect EEA or Swiss nationals must be made under the super affirmative procedure.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Question negatived.
New Clause 32
Annual report on labour market
“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out how any changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected the extent to which UK employers have adequate access to labour.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would mean the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how changes to Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals are affecting access to labour.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I can be relatively brief, since we covered much of this territory in earlier discussions, but it is a useful opportunity to push the Minister on a few issues. What progress can he report on raising awareness of the new tier-2 procedures in which so many small and medium-sized enterprises will have to participate, and what support is being rolled out for those businesses to help them to navigate the new system? What change has he noticed in the number of applications for tier-2 sponsorship licences, and what work is under way to streamline the system, which we have spoken about at length previously?
I suspect the Minister’s answer to the new clause will be that there is to be an annual MAC report. If so, can we ask that it is laid before Parliament and then have a debate on it? The Home Affairs Committee spoke about an annual debate on migration in a repot two or three years ago in trying to build a consensus on migration. It looked at how other countries developed immigration policy, and one issue that featured heavily in other jurisdictions was, at the very least, an annual debate on immigration policy generally.
We are talking about seismic changes to the way in which many businesses will go about recruiting and accessing the labour market, and the number of industry bodies that have come to me to express concerns is unbelievable—industry bodies I did not even know existed until they got in touch—across food and drink, agriculture, tourism and hospitality, fishing, manufacturing, engineering, logistics, financial services, social care, education, and many more. There is significant apprehension, and it is not because any of these industries want to exploit low wages; it is their realistic assessment that they are struggling already to access the labour they need in the UK at a price they can afford and which keeps them competitive. Now they are going to struggle to access labour from abroad, because of immigration rules.
Holly Lynch
I lend our support to the new clause. I anticipate that the Minister will reflect on the developments with the MAC, in that plans are afoot for an annual assessment of labour requirements across the UK, which will influence our immigration approach. However, I echo what my friend from the SNP, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, has said. We would very much welcome that report being placed before both Houses, so that there can be further debate across this place.
We have called for reports on the sectors we are most concerned about, which we have debated and discussed this morning, but there will be so many others. As with any change like this, there will be unintended consequences. We want the opportunity to mitigate the impact of the end of free movement, and to debate that in Parliament. That would, we hope, lead to much more dynamic decision making on changes to mitigate the impact of the ending of free movement on further sectors. We welcome the new clause.
Kevin Foster
I thank the shadow spokespeople for their comments and the constructive way in which they have put forward the new clause, which hits on an important point. Certainly neither I nor anyone else in government wants businesses to fail due to an unavailability of labour, although, sadly, as many outside this room would note, the impact of covid-19 on our economy means that not many people would see that as a likely issue over the coming period, for all too obvious reasons.
It is precisely for that reason that the Government are bringing forward the new points-based immigration system. It will be a single global system that will treat everyone alike and will allow people to come to the UK on the basis of their skills and the contribution they can make, not their nationality or where their passport is from. It will be a fair system, and we are introducing a number of important elements, such as reducing the skills and salary threshold below those in the tier 2 system, and abolishing the cap and resident labour market test, which will remove a lot of bureaucracy for employers engaging with the system.
The system will also be flexible. We are making it points-based, precisely so that we can facilitate the entry of those with the greatest skills or those who are coming to fill jobs where there is the greatest need. The system will be kept under careful review.
I do not think anyone would disagree that it is profoundly important to look at the effect that immigration is having on the labour market. That means looking at the situation for employers and the impact on UK workers seeking employment. The new clause, focusing as it does solely on employers, would give only one side of the story, leaving workers’ interests at a disadvantage. I also do not believe that the Government are best placed to look at this issue; this type of request is why the independent Migration Advisory Committee exists and is commissioned to produce expert, independent reports on the interplay between immigration and the labour market. I do not believe that what it produces could be further improved by another report from the Government. As part of its work, the MAC already looks at which occupations in the UK are currently experiencing a shortage of workers and, crucially, where it thinks it would be beneficial to fill vacancies through immigration. We maintain shortage occupation lists to recognise that.
The work of the MAC and the reports it produces go beyond the narrow scope of the work proposed by the new clause. The MAC looks at the whole immigration system, rather than just changes to the immigration rules. The MAC also looks at the impact of all migration, rather than limiting itself to EEA and Swiss migration, as the new clause seeks to do, although I accept that the wording is probably because of the scope of the Bill. The future immigration system will be a global one, where an EEA citizen has the same basic rights to migrate to the UK as someone, for example, from the Commonwealth.
The new clause would simply result in duplication of work already being undertaken by the pre-eminent labour market economists and migration specialists of the MAC. Parliament regularly debates the MAC’s reports. I hope that the MAC’s annual reports will help to inform regular, structured debates on migration—something to which Opposition Members alluded—allowing us to take a more considered view, rather than simply reacting to particular proposals or events. I have outlined the role that the MAC will play. I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: Entitlement to remain
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act, and who are in the care of a local authority, or entitled to care leaving support, shall, by virtue of this provision, be deemed to have and be granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must, for purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.
(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;
(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister
(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose and no further immigration control purpose.
(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted status after the deadline of EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”) will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with the status from the time of the Scheme deadline.
(6) This section comes into force upon the commencement of this Act and remains in effect for 5 years after the deadline of the EU Settlement Scheme.
(7) For purposes of this section, “children in the care of the local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following—
(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of accommodation for children: general);
(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (Care and Supervision);
(c) section 75 Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);
(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Provision of accommodation for children);
(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Interpretation); and
(f) Article 50 Children of the (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Care orders and supervision orders).
(8) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance.).’—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 58—Settled status: children in care—
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act has the right of settled status in the United Kingdom if that child is in care, is subject to the public law outline process via a declaratory system, undertaken on the child’s behalf by the Local Authority whose care they are under, or is entitled to care leaving support.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “a child in care” means a child who is under 18 and is—
(a) living with foster parents;
(b) living in a residential children’s home; or
(c) living in a residential setting like a school or secure unit.”
(3) For the purposes of this section, “public law outline process” is as set out under Family Court practice direction 12A of 2004.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance).’
This new clause would seek to provide automatic settled status for all looked after children in the care of local authorities and for children entitled to care leaving support, removing the requirement on the local authority to make an application to the EU Settlement Scheme on that child’s behalf.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. New clause 41 is a cross-party amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is respected particularly for his knowledge and expertise on children in care, having formerly been the Minister for Children. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee has also added her name to the new clause, so I am sure the Minister will want to give it his usual careful consideration. I also support new clause 58, tabled by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
This Bill focuses on bringing an end to freedom of movement, but the system for dealing with those who arrive before 31 December 2020 is far from problem-free. New clause 41 deals with looked-after children and care leavers. The Minister is well aware of the concerns about that group. I want to stress at the outset that every Member of this House, as an elected representative, has a role as corporate parent to those children, and it is our duty to ensure that every single one is able to secure permanent immigration status.
The Home Office has estimated that there are 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers in the United Kingdom who would need to apply to regularise their immigration status before the end of the transition period. That figure is likely to have increased, as more children entered care this year, and it is just an estimate, because local authorities do not ordinarily collect the nationality data of children in their care. A recent analysis by the Children’s Society found that, as of January 2020, 153 out of 211 local authorities across the United Kingdom had identified just 3,612 EU, EEA or Swiss looked-after children and care leavers. Only 404—11%—of those young people have settled their status. It is unlikely that many more applications have been made in the past few months; owing to coronavirus, it is not a priority for busy local authorities. We also know that helplines to assist with applications have been closed or are operating a reduced service.
I know the Government are concerned about that issue and have conducted their own survey to get a better understanding of the number of looked-after children who need to apply to the scheme, but that information has never been published. It would be interesting if the Minister agreed to publish the Home Office’s data. We have yet to receive reassurance from the Minister that sufficient work is under way to regularise the immigration status of those children before the EU settlement scheme deadline. Why is the application rate so much lower for those vulnerable children? Like any children, looked-after children and care leavers need the help of their parents, and it is the local authority that is responsible for their care and for making the application to the EU settlement scheme.
Local authorities first need to identify which children in their care have an EU nationality. That can be problematic, as many children who have entered care at a young age do not know their or their parents’ nationalities. They may have no passport or birth certificate, and the local authority’s engagement can be difficult or non-existent. The children see themselves as British, as they have often not known any other home. The responsibility of identification and application has fallen on social workers, many of whom have stretched caseloads and do not have the expertise or legal knowledge to deal with these issues, particularly if they begin to encounter problems in the process.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that, outside this scheme, it is prohibited for social workers to give immigration advice. During the pilot phase of the EUSS, every application that the Coram Children’s Legal Centre made on behalf of a child in care or care leaver included detailed nationality advice, which requires expert legal knowledge and understanding. Social workers had to be supported at every stage of the process.
I am aware that the Government produced non-statutory guidance to local authorities on the EUSS, regarding their roles and responsibilities. As recently as April, they reminded local authorities of that responsibility. However, many local authorities still seem to be unaware of the existence of that guidance or their responsibilities under it. Even before we come to the issue of rates of application and status received, there is an issue of oversight. How many children are we talking about, and who is making the applications for them?
I have already briefly referred to the problems with applying. There is difficulty acquiring nationality documents and evidencing the length of residence in the UK. Social workers have to spend their time chasing various European embassies to acquire the appropriate paperwork. Right now, when so many embassies and services are shut, that is proving difficult. The previous Immigration Minister stated that the group could apply with alternative documentation, but operating a system of discretion can be very dangerous, and often has the opposite effect. It requires children to receive a significant amount of additional extra support.
Of course, local authorities are very stretched. They have limited resources and do not have the legal immigration expertise to handle complex cases that arise for children in their care and care leavers. The risk is compounded by the covid-19 pandemic. The Home Office has stated that children who do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. That includes children in care and care leavers. However, there has not been a formal policy statement to that effect. In any case, I am sure the Government would rather act to prevent a child in their care becoming undocumented than rectify mistakes after they were made.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
The Chair
I thank the Whip for that. Mr Stringer is chairing the Committee this afternoon, and I understand that the Committee intends to report then, so I will not see Committee members again. I thank you all for your courtesy. Even the Government Whip has been well behaved.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 18th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 June 2020 - (18 Jun 2020)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering new clause 58—Settled status: children in care—
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act has the right of settled status in the United Kingdom if that child is in care, is subject to the public law outline process via a declaratory system, undertaken on the child’s behalf by the Local Authority whose care they are under, or is entitled to care leaving support.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “a child in care” means a child who is under 18 and is—
(a) living with foster parents;
(b) living in a residential children’s home; or
(c) living in a residential setting like a school or secure unit.”
(3) For the purposes of this section, “public law outline process” is as set out under Family Court practice direction 12A of 2004.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance).’
This new clause would seek to provide automatic settled status for all looked after children in the care of local authorities and for children entitled to care leaving support, removing the requirement on the local authority to make an application to the EU Settlement Scheme on that child’s behalf.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you very much and welcome back, Mr Stringer; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who made a powerful and persuasive contribution earlier to reinforce the merits of new clause 41.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 58, about which we feel strongly and which is not dissimilar to new clause 41. As things stand, it is currently the responsibility of local authorities to make an application to the European Union settlement scheme for children under 18 who will be eligible to apply but who are currently in the care of the local authority. The Committee heard evidence on that from the Children’s Society, and I noted the Minister’s scepticism about aspects of that approach. I will seek, with genuine sincerity, to persuade him of the merits of taking an alternative approach.
Children are taken into care only if they have had the worst possible start in life. The cohort of children who would be affected by the new clause have the fateful combination of absent parents and precarious migration status. If we do any good with the Bill, it should be by giving those kids some stability on just one those fronts, in the hope that they can go on to a much brighter future.
In answer to a written parliamentary question, the Home Office said that it estimates—as we have already heard—that around 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers in the UK would need to apply to the EU settlement scheme, but the exact numbers are unknown. Any further investigations undertaken by the Home Office to better understand those numbers have not been published, so, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to update the Committee on those estimates.
My hon. Friend referred to the incredibly informative survey work of the Children’s Society on this matter, in the absence of any further official data. It conducted its own research, sending freedom of information requests to every local authority or children’s services provider in the UK. That totalled 211 providers, 153 of which responded to the FOI requests by January this year. Those local authorities identified just 3,612 European economic area or Swiss looked-after children and care leavers, which is only 40% of Home Office estimates. Of those 3,612 children and young people, only 730 had so far applied to the EU settlement scheme. Of those, only 404 were in receipt of status—282 had settled status and 122 had pre-settled status—meaning that, of those identified by local authorities, only 20% have applied and only 11% have been granted status. Although the data represents 73% of local authorities or service providers, and as such is not fully representative, it offers a strong indication that there are serious and urgent concerns about identifying and settling the migration status of vulnerable children whose status and future will be significantly affected by the Bill.
The Minister might argue that as those figures relate to data gathered in January of this year, progress may since have been made. However, considering that we started to enter lockdown in mid-March, I suspect that not a great deal of progress has been made in the intervening weeks. The Minister might argue that because only 153 local authorities responded and 58 councils did not contribute data, the stats might actually be better than that sample suggests, but a number of those councils said they did not have that information and could not provide it to the Children’s Society. In fact, 32 local authorities said that they were unable to provide the data or that they did not hold the information in a reportable format.
Whether through the Government’s proposed approach, which means going through the full application, or through the streamlined alternative proposed in the new clause 58, for those children the local authority has responsibility for securing their status either way. If those very councils are saying that they do not know how many children in their care are eligible, we all ought to be incredibly concerned.
The Government have produced non-statutory guidance to local authorities on the EUSS regarding their roles and responsibilities in making or supporting applications for looked-after children and care leavers. However, in its oral evidence last week, the Children’s Society said that it had engaged with several councils that were still unaware of the existence of the guidance or their responsibilities as set out within it. Although the Children’s Society has attempted to address that by providing councillors with resources aimed at helping them in their accountability, overview and scrutiny roles, we clearly still have a number of barriers to overcome.
Even where local authorities are aware of their responsibilities, the young people in their care often have extremely complex cases that require considerable support and legal advice. Many require nationality advice, others have complex family arrangements, and most simply do not have the required documentation. Social workers are consequently spending months navigating advice and acquiring the necessary documents from European embassies. Social workers are by no means specialists in that area of work, and do we really want them to be acting as immigration caseworkers when we know the incredible case loads that they face?
All those factors were in play before they were compounded by the coronavirus. Local authorities are in the fight of their lives to keep communities going. The resources are, and will continue to be, spread incredibly thinly, diverting efforts to the frontline of fighting the virus for the foreseeable future. We have vulnerable children at home without day-to-day interaction with services. Although those children can still attend school we know that, disappointingly and worryingly, numbers are still low.
The challenges presented for children’s services are enormous. Identifying and assisting children in care to apply for an immigration status that is seemingly non-urgent has inevitably been de-prioritised. The most recent EUSS statistics show that applications fell by 46% in April this year, and anecdotal evidence from practitioners indicates that the number of applications and referrals of EU children in care or care leavers has been low, as we would expect during this time.
Even when applications have been made, the Children’s Society research found that in its sample only 404 EU national children in care or care leavers were in receipt of status through the EUSS, out of an estimated 9,000. In just over a nine-month period, only 11% of the vulnerable children identified through the survey, which is just 4% of the Home Office estimate of 9,000, were able to settle their status, compared with 79% of the overall official estimate of 3.4 million EEA citizens over the same nine-month period.
If those trends continue, thousands of European children either currently in the care system or who have recently left care will fall through the gaps, becoming undocumented and left without immigration status—rubbing salt into the wounds of what has already been a troubled start in life. The Home Office previously stated in answer to a written question that children who
“do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. This includes children in care and care leavers.”
That is welcome, but both local and national Government must work to ensure that no child in the care of the state becomes undocumented, and we can do that with the new clause.
Having discussed some of the practicalities on the matter at length with my local director of children’s services, Julie Jenkins, for whose assistance I put my gratitude on the record, we propose that local authorities, on a declaratory basis, provide a list of names to the Home Office of the children and young people who would be eligible. In responding to reservations raised by the Minister at last week’s evidence session, the Home Office would then grant those young people settled status, as they would for a person who had made an application.
The Minister asked the Children’s Society how these young people prove their status. To answer his question: in the same way any other person with settled status would. We have been unable, sadly, to convince the Minister of the merits of physical proof, so they would have confirmation through an e-visa. On the issue of pre-settled and settled status, of the 404 children in the sample that we are talking about who are in receipt of status, 282 were granted settled status and 122 were granted pre-settled status.
Given everything that those kids have been through, why are we giving them pre-settled status? Let us just give them settled status. Let us not simply sign them up for yet more years of paperwork and burdens of proof; let us just take all that uncertainty off the table for them in this instance by giving them both settled status and proof of it.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
On burden of proof, is it not the case that the Government have made it clear that alternative types of documentation might be available for children who cannot get access to birth certificates or other documents because they are estranged from their parents?
Holly Lynch
I would welcome that in the event that there is no alternative and that some of the more regular items of documentation are not available. In taking that route, however, we are still asking children to go away and gather a potentially enormous amount of information and documentation. When we know that such children are eligible, why can we not just deal with this issue in a streamlined way through local authorities and the Home Office?
I hope I have satisfied the Minister’s reservations about this approach. We are talking about a cohort of children and young people who are our responsibility; we the state are acting as their legal guardians. Let us do the best we can for them and at least give them confidence in their immigration status, in the hope that they can go on to overcome all their challenges and build happy lives here in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will speak to the two new clauses that have been moved. I appreciate the intentions behind them, and the concerns and genuine points that have been raised. That is why, from the outset, there have been arrangements in place to ensure that the EU settlement scheme is accessible to all, including looked-after children and care leavers. Prior to the full launch of the scheme in March 2019, agreements were reached and plans put in place with local authorities to ensure that relevant children and care leavers receive the support they need in securing their UK immigration status under the scheme.
Local authorities in Great Britain, and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, are responsible for making an application under the EU settlement scheme on behalf of an eligible looked-after child for whom they have parental responsibility by way of a court order. Their responsibilities to signpost the scheme and support applications in other cases have also been agreed. They concern children for whom there is no court order but where the local authority has a clear interest in supporting the best interests of the child—for example, children accommodated by the local authority, children in need and care leavers.
The Home Office has implemented a range of support services to ensure that local authorities and health and social care trusts can access help and advice when they need to. We have engaged extensively with relevant stakeholders, such as the Department for Education, the Local Government Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and equivalents in the devolved Administrations, to understand and address the needs of looked-after children and care leavers, and to ensure they are all supported. Guidance has also been issued to all local authorities on their role and responsibilities for making or supporting applications under the EU settlement scheme for looked-after children and care leavers. The Home Office is holding regular teleconferences specifically for local authority staff who are responsible for making relevant applications, in order to support them and provide a direct point of contact for them within the Home Office.
A new burdens assessment has been conducted, and funding has been issued to local authorities that have responsibilities for carrying out specific duties in relation to looked-after children and care leavers, to ensure they are adequately funded to do such work. Along with the Minister for Children and Families in the Department for Education, I have written to lead council members to underline the importance of the work that their local authorities are undertaking to ensure that eligible looked-after children and care leavers make applications to the EU settlement scheme, and to highlight the support available. Home Office caseworkers are directly working with local authority staff who are responsible for making applications, as well as with organisations that specialise in working with children, such as the Children’s Society and Coram.
Additionally, the Home Office has provided £9 million of grant funding to 57 voluntary organisations across the UK in order to support vulnerable citizens in applying to the EU settlement scheme. They include several organisations specialising in support for vulnerable children and young people. We have now committed a further £8 million for such work, allowing charities and local authorities to bid for grant funding to provide support to vulnerable people and help ensure that no one is left behind. To reassure the Committee, we are continuing the existing arrangements until new arrangements and a new bidding process are completed.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to all the steps that the Home Office is taking, but is the Minister now in a position to publish the information about the number of children affected by needing to apply for the EU settlement scheme? I understand that his Department has already undertaken that work.
Kevin Foster
It is probably worth saying that, as of today, we cannot publish a final list of all who will be eligible under the EU settlement scheme because the transition period extends to 31 December this year. Therefore, people may yet arrive in the country who would be eligible to apply under the scheme. As part of the quarterly statistics publication—not the monthly one—we publish the number of applications from children. A large amount of work is going on, but it would be impossible today to have a definitive number of all who will finally be eligible, because eligibility, along with freedom-of-movement rights, runs up to 31 December.
Mr Goodwill
Is it not also the case that there may be children claiming to be EEA citizens who may turn out to be, for example, from Albania, so publishing a figure based on what people claim would not be the true figure?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, there is always that possibility. For example, one of the reasons why we will not look to accept EEA identity cards in the long term at the border and internally for certain right-to-work checks is that some EEA identity cards are very prone to abuse, unlike secure passports. There are always going to be such claims, but certainly there is strong work going on. However, as we touched on, the core reason is that we cannot produce today a final list of who will be eligible, but we are working closely with local councils. Of course, each day children come into care, sadly, so again, snapshots do not reflect the work that needs to be done.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I do think that a running total—albeit one that would be changing from quarter to quarter—would give us a sense of the scale of the challenge, especially as we are now within six months of the end of the transition period and a year from the end of the extended period in which applications can be made. This point was raised, I think, a year ago in a debate in Westminster Hall when the Government first gave the undertaking to collect the data, and to do so through local authorities, which ought to give us a bit more confidence about its validity than if children or their families were simply providing it themselves. I say to the Minister that it would reassure Parliament if such information as is available were made public as soon as possible, although we understand that it is a bit of a moving feast.
Kevin Foster
I have outlined the work that we are doing with local authorities to identify who is eligible. As the hon. Lady said, it is a moving feast, and we particularly want to make sure that those responsible for making these applications are aware of how to apply and who qualifies, and that they then proceed to do so.
I understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members about looked-after children and care leavers, and we must ensure that their corporate parents secure the best possible outcomes for them.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the best way that we can support looked-after children is by ensuring that they can take full advantage of the EU settlement scheme through local authorities, rather than having a two-tier system?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. Once someone has their status under the European settlement scheme, they join another—why, we have had over 3 million decisions taken on granting status. That will be part of how our border system will operate in future. One of the lessons learned from the past is this—status was granted under an Act of Parliament, but then in several decades’ time it has to be explained to someone how their status was under a different approach from how status is granted to those who are in the same cohort, in terms of nationality and citizenship. That is not helpful to anyone. That is one of the lessons learned, of course, from the experience of the Windrush generation. That Act of Parliament was in 1971. The status was granted on 1 January 1973 and the issues then started to be encountered 30 years later, and not just since 2010— the first case mentioned on the front of Windrush lessons learned review is from 2009. Again, it is about how those issues are created.
A declaratory scheme as proposed in new clauses 41 and 58, under which those covered automatically acquire UK immigration status, would cause confusion and potential difficulties for these vulnerable young people in future years, with their having no solid evidence of their lawful status here. They will need evidence of their status when they come to seek employment, or access to benefits and services to which they are entitled. A declaratory system would leave them without that evidence, struggling to prove their rights and entitlements over decades to come.
I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, in which she outlined the process local authorities could go through to list the children and send those lists to the Home Office. I thought, “If local authorities are going to go through all this, then the logical thing for them to do is make the applications that are required under the EU settlement scheme, and ensure the children they are listing have the status they need.” It is hard to see what the benefit to councils would be if we introduced a different process that did not produce a better outcome. If that is what we are going to ask people to do—arrange a working identifier—the next stage is to ask them to make quite a simple application to the European settlement scheme to get the status that child deserves.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister must accept that a declaratory system does not leave people without a means of proving their status. They have every incentive to apply to the settlement scheme to get the document they need to access the services the Minister has referred to, and would have the facility to do so.
Kevin Foster
Again—here we go—this would mean that someone who had a status could not be distinguished from someone who did not have a status, and would then have to make an application. We have been clear that we cannot allow people to have a status without going through the process, but that we have some generous provisions in place. Similarly, physical documents that are decades old, that date from when someone is a child, are unlikely to be particularly convincing proof in many instances. That is why we need to move towards a digital system that is a permanent record, and if the children are being identified—as Opposition Members are suggesting—the next stage is to make that application, make it simple, and get their status secured. That means the children are then secure for the rest of their life, which is a better outcome.
Fundamentally, changing a system that is working well overall would have the exact opposite effect to that which the new clauses appear intended to achieve, leading to confusion and uncertainty. We have also made it clear that where a person eligible for status under the scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the deadline—for example, if their council did not apply to the EU settlement scheme on their behalf—they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We will ensure that individuals who have missed the deadline through no fault of their own can still obtain lawful status in the UK, which I suggest is a far better response to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members than the new clauses they are proposing. That is why the Government will not accept them.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 41. It is also disappointing that the Minister is not able to update the Committee with some information, recognising that that information about numbers may be changing over time. This is a matter that will not go away, and rather than test the opinion of the Committee today, I may wish to return to it on Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
Immigration: no recourse to public funds
“Section 3(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot be applied to persons who have lost rights because of section (1) and Schedule 1 of this Act, until such time as may be specified in a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to delay application of No Recourse to Public Funds rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 56—Recourse to public funds—
“(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that P can access social security benefits, where P is habitually resident, including repealing or amending the following provisions insofar as they relate to P—
(a) section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(c) any provision in subordinate legislation, which imposes a “no recourse to public funds” condition on grants of limited leave to enter or remain; and
(d) any other enactment or power exercised under any other enactment, which makes immigration status a condition to access social security benefits.”
This new clause seeks to restrict measures prohibiting recourse to public funds.
New clause 59—Analysis of exemption from no recourse to public funds condition—
“(1) The Secretary State must produce a report on the impact of no recourse to public funds conditions for those who meet the criteria in subsection (2).
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include the impact on EEA and Swiss nationals—
(a) with children;
(b) with pre-settled status; and
(c) who are victims of domestic abuse.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a public fund is defined as any of the following:
(a) attendance allowance;
(b) carer’s allowance;
(c) child benefit;
(d) child tax credit;
(e) council tax benefit;
(f) council tax reduction;
(g) disability living allowance;
(h) discretionary support payments by local authorities or the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund;
(i) housing and homelessness assistance;
(j) housing benefit;
(k) income-based jobseeker’s allowance;
(l) income related employment and support allowance (ESA);
(m) income support;
(n) personal independence payment;
(o) severe disablement allowance;
(p) social fund payment;
(q) state pension credit;
(r) universal credit;
(s) working tax credit; and
(t) Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS).
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
“victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.”
This new clause will require the Government to consider the impact of no recourse to public funds exemption.
New clause 62—Recourse to public funds: EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants—
“(1) EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants under the age of 18 must be exempt from any no recourse to public funds condition that would otherwise be placed on them under Immigration Rules.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a public fund is defined as any of the following—
(a) attendance allowance;
(b) carer’s allowance;
(c) child benefit;
(d) child tax credit;
(e) council tax benefit;
(f) council tax reduction;
(g) disability living allowance;
(h) discretionary support payments by local authorities or the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund;
(i) housing and homelessness assistance;
(j) housing benefit;
(k) income-based jobseeker’s allowance;
(l) income related employment and support allowance (ESA);
(m) income support;
(n) personal independence payment;
(o) severe disablement allowance;
(p) social fund payment;
(q) state pension credit;
(r) universal credit;
(s) working tax credit; or
(t) Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS).”
This new clause would allow EEA nationals and Swiss nationals with children under the age of 18 to access public funds.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In tabling new clauses 45 and 56, my party wants to set out our opposition to how the no recourse to public funds regime is working, both in general and specifically during the current covid crisis. We think it is having some drastic effects, and therefore refuse to extend it to EEA nationals during the current public health crisis, or indeed more generally. Of course, we urge the Government to go further by also disapplying NRPF rules in relation to other migrants.
Because of this Bill, any EEA migrants coming to the UK under the new system will face the same problems as those coming from outside the EEA. They will be prohibited from accessing public funds until they are granted permanent residence, something that will take five years for some migrants and 10 for others, if it is granted at all. No recourse to public funds conditions will be applied to the family members of UK citizens and settled persons, as well as those to whom we have extended an invitation to come on a work visa. That means that individuals, families and children are prevented from accessing most in-work and out-of-work benefits, including child benefit, tax credits, universal credit, income-related employment support allowance, income support, local welfare assistance schemes, housing benefit and social security.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the term “no recourse to public funds” is slightly misleading, because there are a number of benefits that people are entitled to, including the furlough scheme, should they be entitled to that?
Stuart C. McDonald
It is welcome that the furlough scheme is extended to these individuals, but it is nowhere near enough. I will come to specific problems in relation to covid later in my short speech.
In short, if these new clauses are not agreed, many thousands more people who are here because they are family members or because they are wanted for their work will be put at risk of poverty and insecurity.
Those who come here with limited leave visas certainly do not expect to have to rely on public funds, but as we have seen all too well in recent months, unforeseeable events that are completely beyond their control can have a dramatic impact on their capacity to sustain themselves and their family. I am talking about coronavirus, but the ability of individuals to support themselves can be affected for reasons that are many and varied. It could be economics, illness within the family, relationship breakdown, accidents or the death of a loved one.
We have allowed and welcomed people who come to work here or to join their families. There is no reason or justification for denying them the safety net and security that we regard as essential for everybody else.
Included in those impacted by the NRPF rules are parents who are working hard in roles that are absolutely crucial at this time, including care workers, NHS staff, cleaners and people involved in food preparation. Some are working extraordinarily long hours but still cannot access even limited top-up benefits to help them meet the needs of their children.
Thanks to the Children’s Society, we know that many of the families detrimentally impacted by the rules are headed by single mothers, often from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. There are also significant numbers of families that include children with special educational needs who require additional help from supporting agencies.
It is also important to note that many of the children who will be victims of the NRPF rules will have been born and brought up here. I link back to my amendment on fees for registering British citizens; some of these children would be entitled to British citizenship, but cannot access it, either because they are not aware of it or because they are priced out of it. There will even be British citizens among those children, who are being punished because their parents’ immigration status prevents them from accessing support.
The disastrous impacts of all the rules are well established. People who are prohibited from accessing public funds are clearly at risk of destitution, with no access to the social safety net. The impact on children can be particularly devastating, in so far as deprivation is clearly detrimental to their long-term growth and development. As the Children’s Society points out, living in poverty even for short periods of time has significant detrimental effects on children’s outcomes, both in childhood and in later life, affecting their school attainment, cognitive and behavioural development, and physical and mental health.
Recently, the High Court found no recourse to public funds policies to be unlawful, holding that the relevant immigration rules and casework instructions did not adequately account for human rights obligations. That case was brought by an eight-year-old boy whose mother was subject to NRPF conditions and on the 10-year route to settlement. She was a carer for mentally disabled clients, before the imposition of the NRPF conditions led her and her son to experience periods of destitution. They moved house repeatedly, with the boy having been moved five times before the age of eight, and at one point they were street homeless. The court found that the Home Secretary must not impose or should lift NRPF conditions when it is clear that a person is at risk of imminent destitution in the absence of public funds, rather than waiting for that destitution to take place. As legislators, we should be doing better than that; we should avoid families being at risk of destitution at all. We invite families and individuals to come to undertake vital work here, and we should extend the safety net that we enjoy ourselves.
As in other areas, the Home Office sometimes attempts to pass the buck to local authorities and argues that support under legislation relating to children should mean a safety net of sorts is provided, but the number able to access such support is extremely limited, and the support is also incredibly restricted—sometimes as little as £3 per day per child. As I understand it, children are not even allowed to access free school meals.
The Home Office will also point out that, on application, NRPF conditions can be lifted, but those on the frontline say that such applications are incredibly difficult to have success with and have to be repeated multiple times. Those who apply who are currently on five-year routes to settlement will instead be placed on a 10-year route to settlement, with none of their residence to date being counted towards that target. The price of access to that safety net is insecurity.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that benefits that people are entitled to by virtue of their paying national insurance contributions are able to be paid, including important ones such as contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit and, of course, retirement pension?
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not think I have denied that certain benefits are still available to people, but none of that explains or resolves all the challenges that I outlined. For all these reasons, we believe that the no recourse to public funds rule should be got rid of altogether.
That is all the more urgent in relation to the covid-19 crisis, for which the implications of these policies are absolutely counterproductive. People who are prohibited from accessing public funds will feel compelled to continue to work, even when doing so is not safe for them or their families. As I said, their inclusion in the furlough scheme is welcome, but someone who is subject to NRPF and is dismissed from their job will obviously not have access to the furlough scheme, and nor can they claim universal credit. They are at real risk of destitution.
We all watched the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee recently. He was questioned, quite memorably, by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who provided an example to the Prime Minister of parents who had lived in the UK for at least 15 years and who had two children, aged 11 and 13. They found themselves facing destitution for reasons entirely beyond their control. It was telling that the Prime Minister could not explain why the family was not able to access support. Of course, they should be able to access support, and these new clauses would allow that to happen.
Kate Green
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak to new clause 59, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an analysis of the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition on EEA and Swiss nationals, including those with children, those with pre-settled status and those who are victims of domestic abuse.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, no recourse to public funds conditions can prevent access to some welfare benefits, to free school meals and to other support for working families who may have been paying tax. That may include families with children, including British-born children, and other vulnerable people. As we heard, application can be made to lift the condition, but it is necessary to reapply at each visa renewal, and the condition can be reinstated.
The impact of no recourse to public funds conditions on the poorest households has been magnified, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the covid crisis. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit reports that applications to lift the condition are subject to considerable delay; that the process for applying is overcomplicated, and that is exacerbated for those who struggle to make digital applications; that the evidential requirements are high and unnecessarily onerous; and, as a result, that decisions are still awaited weeks after applications have been submitted.
This makes it harder for those subject to the condition to achieve social distancing or to self-isolate if they need to. They are more likely to be living in overcrowded accommodation, with many building up rent arrears. Even though they may, as the Minister rightly says, be eligible for the Government’s furlough scheme, they are under considerable pressure to keep working in many cases. Often, their children are not in school and they cannot access free childcare, forcing them to rely on friends and family to provide that care, meaning that children are moving between households, further increasing the covid risk.
Meanwhile, Safety4Sisters tells me that local authority housing services in Greater Manchester have been turning women subject to no recourse to public funds conditions away from the emergency homeless accommodation set up during the crisis, even though that should not happen. This has resulted in at least one vulnerable woman becoming street homeless in Manchester in recent weeks, until she was found by the police and taken to safety.
Given these shocking circumstances, Labour has called for the no recourse to public funds condition to be suspended during the covid emergency. As we heard, new clause 45, proposed by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, would give effect to such a suspension, while ensuring that, if Parliament wishes to reinstate the regime as soon as the crisis ends, it can do so. Suspension of the condition now would not only provide vital relief to families who have had their livelihoods catastrophically affected by covid, but would give the Government the opportunity to give full consideration to the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition more broadly and to future policy.
As we know, and as we have just heard, the Prime Minister was apparently surprised to hear about the effects of the condition during his recent session with the Liaison Committee, and he was right to say that
“people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support”.
Sadly, just a week later, on 3 June, in his response in Prime Minister’s questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), he appeared to backtrack on his commitment to see what could be done to help them.
It is, of course, welcome that the Government have now issued guidance to give effect to the judgment in the case described by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, but this still leaves many potentially vulnerable people at risk of being subject to the condition. That includes those EU nationals who are here now but are able to secure only pre-settled status. They will not meet the habitual residence test and will be ineligible for non-contributory benefits; that includes disabled people, who will not be able to claim universal credit. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North will speak to her new clause 62 and the damaging effect the condition could have on EEA and Swiss national families with children.
Given the potential impact on vulnerable groups, I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion of an analysis of the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. If the Prime Minister’s commitment to review the application still holds, and if, as is reported, the Government intend to bring forward a further immigration Bill in the near future, they could take that opportunity to legislate to make any changes Parliament then deems necessary. The evidence base that such a review could supply would also be a useful prerequisite for a decision on the broader proposals set out in new clause 56 by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, were the Government minded to consider them. I commend our new clause to the Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr Stringer. I wish to speak to new clause 62, on the no recourse to public funds policy and to support new clause 59, tabled by my hon. Friends.
New clause 62 would exempt EU, EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants under the age of 18 from being subject to any NRPF condition that would otherwise be placed on them under the immigration rules. Many believe that these protections should apply to all families, regardless of their nationality, but for the purposes of the Government’s tightly drawn Bill, the new clause is limited in the way I have described.
Many find it astonishing that this condition is applied to children at all. Having NRPF means that the life chances of thousands of children are dictated by their parents’ inability to access support from the social security system because of their immigration status, even though the children themselves might be British.
I know that the Minister will use his concluding remarks to say that limiting access to public funds for these children and families is in the public interest and that they should be paying in to the system before they benefit from it. He will know that many of the families affected are those of key workers, who are at the frontline at this very moment in the fight against coronavirus. We are talking about NHS hospital cleaners, and about people who work in food preparation or social care, but they are being denied the same access to the safety net that they are working within. These families are paying income tax, council tax, immigration application fees and the health surcharge. It is calculated that if a family started their 10-year settlement journey in 2012, assuming they were not successful in getting fee waivers, and fees did not increase again, a single mum with two children would be expected to pay more than £23,000 for the family to settle in 10 years. A family of five—a couple with three children—would be expected to pay more than £39,000 to settle in the UK.
The NRPF does the opposite of making work pay, because families may end up forced into destitution if parents try to work but cannot access benefits. Working parents, single mums, mothers fleeing domestic violence, parents who have children born in the UK and children with British citizenship currently cannot access benefits to which they should be entitled. For children and families, that includes not being able to access benefits to support children’s upbringing and families’ wellbeing, to ensure that children have the same life chances as their peers.
As we have already heard, in May 2020, the Unity Project and Project 17 supported an eight-year-old British boy in taking the Government to court over the policy. The court ruled that the NRPF policy breached article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment.
Applicants can apply to have their NRPF condition removed if they are likely to become destitute, but the process is time-consuming and requires specialist advice, which is difficult to obtain, especially during the current pandemic. NRPF families may be able to access support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which is often the only safety net available. That is payable, as we all know, through local authorities, but the pressure of austerity and cuts to local council budgets have left councils largely unable to offer much support.
Section 17 is often referred to by the Government as the basic safety net for migrant families with NRPF, but there is little support—sometimes as little as £3 per child per day—which makes it nearly impossible to meet the basic needs of a child, let alone support them to have a healthy, happy childhood. We have to acknowledge that that, again, puts an unnecessary strain on stretched local authority budgets.
Most, if not all, services that support migrant families with NRPF state that having no recourse to public funds increases the risk of families becoming trapped in a cycle of extreme poverty, vulnerability and abuse. Many children in NRPF families go without things that other children get to enjoy and that are important for their development, including, for example, days out as a family or school trips. One example that the Children’s Society gave me was of Hamid, who said that if his son’s classmates were going on a school trip, he would not take his son to school that day, because he did not want him to see his friends going while he stayed behind because they just could not afford it.
Other Government Departments are beginning to recognise the consequences of NRPF. The Department for Education has temporarily allowed children with NRPF to access free school meals, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has instructed local authorities to house homeless people with NRPF. In the longer term, the solution lies with the Home Office, so I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the Committee that safeguards will be put in place to ensure that more families will not be forced into destitution as a result of a condition placed on their leave to remain.
The Government have made it clear that they want to wrap their arms around everyone during this time of crisis. Vulnerable children are at the heart of the Government’s agenda, so the new clause will ensure that that can happen. I commend it to the Committee.
Kevin Foster
After the end of the transition period, EEA citizens coming to the UK will be subject to the same requirements as non-EEA citizens and the same conditions restricting access to public funds under our new global immigration system. The new clauses would maintain a system in which EEA citizens, including those arriving in future, continued to enjoy preferential treatment over non-EEA citizens in relation to their access to benefits. That is not the Government’s intention, nor would it be fair, and it is not something that the British people would support, given the mandate that they have given to the Government.
New clause 45 would delay the introduction of the no recourse to public funds condition to EEA citizens until Parliament had decided on the matter in the light of the current pandemic. However, as has been touched on by some Opposition Members, to their credit, the Government have already made provision to support people through the pandemic, including those subject to no recourse to public funds, and are keeping the situation under review.
It should also be noted that the no recourse to public funds condition does not bar access to all benefits, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. People covered by it may still, for example, access contribution-based benefits and statutory sick pay. Exceptions are also made for vulnerable migrants, such as refugees and those granted humanitarian protection. Those granted leave on the basis of their family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights can apply to have the conditions lifted if they would otherwise be destitute.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend know whether any other EU countries have extended to UK citizens living in the European Union the type of benefits proposed by the new clauses?
Kevin Foster
It is probably worth saying that many European welfare schemes are based on slightly different premises—for example, social insurance schemes. As we reflected on when we talked about healthcare costs, people accessing healthcare services in other European countries may be required to pay for things that the NHS provides free at the point of need to UK nationals. It is hard to give different examples, but there are protections in the withdrawal agreement for UK citizens living in the EU before the end of the transition period. To be fair, many countries have been good in wanting proactively to support UK citizens living in their nation. I cannot give a list of each countries’ individual migration system off the top of my head, but it is probably safe to say that it is relatively common around the world for those who have newly arrived in a country to be unlikely to be able to access and qualify for a range of welfare provisions.
EEA citizens who apply under the EU settlement scheme secure their rights in UK law, so they can access benefits and services on at least the same basis as before they were granted that status. The Government have provided guidance for local authorities to enable them to support vulnerable EEA citizens in making an application under the scheme. The Government have also made available to local authorities and charities a further £8 million, in addition to the £9 million announced last year, to help them to assist vulnerable EEA citizens in making applications.
New clause 56 would risk impacting the Government’s ability to make regulations under the power in clause 4, the importance of which I have set out previously in Committee: to ensure that our laws operate coherently once free movement ends; to align the immigration treatment of newly arriving EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens from 1 January 2021; and to make relevant savings and transitional provisions for resident EEA citizens that cannot be made under powers in the 2020 Act.
New clause 59 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the no recourse to public funds condition on certain groups of EEA nationals. This is not necessary; the Government are already required to consider the impact of policies on all those to whom they apply, not just certain groups.
On new clause 62, I share the interest of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in ensuring the wellbeing of children, but I do not believe the new clause is necessary. Immigration law already provides that local authorities may intervene where required, regardless of the immigration status or nationality of the child or parent. The safeguards in place for the vulnerable will be retained, but it is only right that the future immigration system continues to play a part in ensuring that taxpayers’ funds are protected for the residents of the UK, whose money it is, and in assuring them that immigration continues to benefit the country as a whole and is not based on creating new costs and burdens for public resources.
I understand and appreciate the intentions behind new clause 62, but it would provide EEA citizens with greater access to benefits in the UK than they currently have under UK law. Generally speaking, under EU free movement law, EEA citizens may currently access benefits when they exercise a qualifying EU treaty right—for example, through employment or self-employment, or when they have become permanent residents. The new clause would remove that qualification and provide that any EEA citizen in this country with a child, for whatever period and in whatever capacity, may qualify for welfare benefits.
We believe that a general qualifying threshold of five years for access to benefits in immigration procedures is the right one, as it reflects the strength of a person’s connection to the United Kingdom and the principle that people should come to the UK to contribute, rather than to take advantage of, and place pressures on, taxpayer-funded services and welfare payments. Non-EEA migrants who come to live in the UK are currently expected to provide for any children they have without recourse to public funds. There can be no reasonable justification for adopting a different principle for EEA citizens arriving in the UK when the new immigration system is introduced, given that we have now left the European Union.
Finally, new clauses 59 and 62 incorrectly reference the immigration health surcharge. The immigration health surcharge is not a public fund. It is a contribution made by temporary migrants towards the costs of the NHS services they can access from day one. These new clauses would undermine the intention to establish a unified immigration system that builds public confidence in its operation, and therefore the Government cannot accept them.
Stuart C. McDonald
People do not come to this country to take advantage of the social security system; they come here to work or because they are family members of British citizens or settled persons. Having asked them to come to work or join family members here, I regard it as unfair that we do not extend the same social safety net to them. We are not arguing for a discriminatory system.
As the Minister knows, we are limited by the scope of the Bill. I feel that we have not got to the fundamental principle of why we can ask people to contribute on the one hand and yet not provide them with the same safety net. This is particularly urgent in relation to the coronavirus, and we need fast action. The Minister referred to this matter being under review, but we are several months into the crisis and we will have to revisit this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Family reunion and resettlement
“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that an unaccompanied child, spouse or vulnerable or dependant adult who has a family member who is legally present in the United Kingdom has the same rights to be reunited in the United Kingdom with that family member as they would have had under Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) make regulations amending the Immigration Rules in order to preserve the effect in the United Kingdom of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependant adults; and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring the continued opportunity for relocation to the UK of unaccompanied children present in the territory of the EEA, if it is in the child’s best interests.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member”—
(a) has the same meaning as in Article 2(g) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
(b) also has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in Article 2(h) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
(c) also includes the family members referred to in Article 16 (1) and 16 (2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(4) Until such time as Regulations in subsection (2) come into force, the effect of Commission Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependent adults with their family members in the UK shall be preserved.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would have the effect of continuing existing arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, spouses and vulnerable adults to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to address new clause 46, this time with a cross-party hat on, rather than my usual SNP hat. I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others for co-ordinating on this new clause.
As Members will know, the European Union has in place a fairly mature—it is certainly not perfect, but it is long standing—system of deciding which member state should appropriately consider a claim for asylum. For example, if an unaccompanied child is found on one of the Greek islands seeking asylum and it is known that they have family members in another EU country, few of us here would argue against the notion that the child should be reunited with their family and the claim considered in that member state.
In January this year, Parliament passed section 37 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which regrettably abolished the previous requirement on the Government to seek to negotiate an alternative to replace the family reunion provisions in the EU’s Dublin regulation. At the time, the Government were full of assurances that this did not represent a downgrading of their ambitions and said that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children in the Brexit negotiations, but in its current form, the UK’s proposal to the EU rows back on those assurances and would leave hundreds of children stranded.
There are numerous problems with what the Government propose. Most fundamentally, the proposed text removes all mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate family reunions and would make a child’s right to join their relatives entirely discretionary. The text also intentionally avoids providing rights to children. It does not provide for appeals and attempts to put these issues beyond the reach of UK courts. Other categories of vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children and adults, would lose access to family reunion altogether. A series of other key safeguards are removed, including strict deadlines for responses and the responsibility for gathering information being on the state rather than the child.
This issue is hugely important. Between 2009 and 2014, before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK were carried out at an average rate of 11 people annually. Between 2016 and 2018, after the mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK were carried out at an average rate of 547 people annually. The Government were not straight with Parliament when they proposed clause 37 of the withdrawal Bill earlier this year, and I think they have behaved in a rather upsetting manner, if I can put it like that.
We now have a situation where there are unaccompanied child refugees and refugees more generally living in appalling conditions in Greece and France. Of course those countries are under an obligation to do more to support and assist them, but many of those kids have family here, and I cannot see how any reasonable person can argue against the logic, the sense and the simple compassionate idea that that child should be reunited with their family in this country and have their asylum claim decided here.
The Government should stop messing about, stop trying to water down their previous commitments and revert to the obligation that Parliament previously placed upon it, which is to negotiate a full and proper replacement of the Dublin regulations, including an obligation to allow children to be reunited with their families in the United Kingdom.
Holly Lynch
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the SNP spokesperson, who used his experience to make a very convincing contribution.
Labour will support new clause 46, which was tabled by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee with the support of a number of its members, as well as the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
As we have heard, as a member of the EU, the UK has participated in the Dublin III regulation, which has allowed people seeking asylum in Europe to be transferred to the UK on the basis of family unity and to have their asylum claims considered in the UK. The Dublin III mechanism generally affects a small number of children, but it has a transformative effect on their lives. It has become an increasingly important family reunion route, with more than 1,600 people having been reunited through it since the start of 2018.
However, this route will end once the transition period comes to an end on 31 December 2020. While the Government have committed to seeking an arrangement through the UK-EU negotiations that would maintain a family reunion element of the Dublin system for separated children, we would very much like assurances that the Government are firmly committed to this.
We are concerned that, unlike Dublin III, the current proposals would not be mandatory and would take us back to the days when child refugees were reunited with family only at the discretion of the national Government. That would require the transferred person to make an asylum claim and only secure family unity pending a decision on that claim. Labour, along with the Families Together coalition, supports new clause 46. We want to see a system that retains the family reunion route under the Dublin III regulation for all families.
This is Refugee Week, and family reunion has been a long-standing feature of the UK’s immigration system. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that
“there is a direct link between family reunification, mental health and successful integration.”
By diminishing children’s chances of reaching their relatives legally, restrictive rules sadly only drive people to take more and more perilous alternatives, putting lives at risk and empowering people smugglers.
Labour joins Safe Passage, Amnesty International, the British Red Cross, Oxfam, the Refugee Council, the UNHCR and so many others who make up the Families Together coalition to urge the Government to prioritise family reunion, so that children, spouses and vulnerable adults can reunite with their family and close relatives, by maintaining safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK.
At a time when we are all feeling the effects of separation from our families due to the pandemic, the Government must recognise the need to protect all child refugees adequately and provide a legal and safe means for the reunification of families.
Dame Diana Johnson
In speaking to new clause 46, I want to be clear that this is not about placing additional burdens on the Home Office or Government; it is about asking the Government not to water down their obligations to child refugees, but instead to carry on doing what they already do.
As we have heard, new clause 46 is intended to ensure that the safe and legal routes to the UK for refugees with relatives here and for unaccompanied children without family are protected in domestic legislation. I gently say to the Minister that he may well talk about the Dubs scheme—I know that all the places on the Dubs scheme have been filled—but I do not think that that discharges us of our moral duty to help children on the continent.
Indeed, Lord Dubs says that some of the conditions that he has seen in camps in Europe are worse than those in the region, because of the utter lack of hope of those living in those camps. We can give them hope by adopting the new clause and showing that we are not turning our back on child refugees just a few hundred miles away. In all his campaigning on these issues, Lord Dubs has always maintained that he believes that public opinion is behind him when it comes to child refugees. It is heartening to know that recent Ipsos MORI polling suggests Lord Dubs is entirely right in his assessment of British feeling on this. Some 79% of people polled said that children should be able to reunite with parents, and over half said children should be able to reunite with siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. The British public supports refugee family reunion and I hope the Minister will do the same.
Kevin Foster
The Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children. We recognise that families can become separated because of the nature of conflicts and persecution, and the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country.
We will continue to provide safe and legal routes for families to reunite in the UK. We have a proud record of providing protection to those who need it, including children, and of reuniting families under the existing immigration rules. The new clause fails to take into account our negotiations with the EU, which I will come to later.
The UK continues to be one of the world’s leading refugee resettlement states. We resettle more refugees than any other country in Europe and are in the top five countries worldwide. Since September 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable refugees in need of protection through our refugee resettlement schemes, with around half being children. We can be proud as a country of our ambitious commitments and achievements. The Government are delighted that their overall approach was endorsed in the general election in December by the British public.
Furthermore, the UK already has a wide range of provisions in existing immigration rules that allow UK-based family members to sponsor children and other relatives to enter the UK for family reunion purposes. Those rules apply to a sponsor who is a refugee, a settled person or a British citizen. All those rules are unaffected by the UK leaving the EU and they will continue to be available after the transition period ends.
Our refugee family reunion policy is intended to allow those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK to sponsor pre-flight, immediate family members to join them here. Where appropriate, our policy includes scope to allow other family members to reunite with refugees in the UK. This may be on an exceptional basis or simply under a different route.
The new clause fails to distinguish between the very different circumstances of sponsors who are refugees and those who are asylum seekers—those seeking refugee status. It is important that the sponsor already has refugee or humanitarian leave in the UK before they are able to sponsor family members to join them. Allowing individuals to sponsor family members to join them in the UK before a decision on their asylum claim is made creates greater uncertainty for families, who may be unable to remain in the UK.
Very careful consideration is required before we extend family reunion provisions, to guard against significantly increasing the number of people who could qualify for family reunion, but who do not necessarily need protection themselves and who may be making unfounded claims of our protection systems for economic migration purposes. That could reduce our capacity to assist the most vulnerable refugees.
In the year ending March 2020, over 7,400 refugee family reunion visas were issued to partners and children of those previously granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the UK, which—hon. Members may be interested to know—is 37% more than in the previous year. There are further provisions in the immigration rules that allow those with refugee leave or humanitarian protection to sponsor adult dependant relatives living overseas to join them. This is where, as a result of age, illness or disability, a person requires long-term personal care, which can only be provided by their relative in the UK, without recourse to public funds. The same approach is applied to British citizens who wish to sponsor such relatives.
Furthermore, under part 8 of the immigration rules, children with relatives in the UK with refugee status or humanitarian protection are able to apply to join them in the UK, where there are serious and compelling family or other considerations that make exclusion of the child undesirable and where suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care. In addition, appendix FM of the immigration rules already provides routes for British and settled sponsors, and those with protection-based leave, to sponsor family members to join them in the UK. We are aware that financial and other requirements are in place in those rules, which have been upheld as lawful by the Supreme Court. It is appropriate that all those who seek to sponsor a family member under these routes can meet a consistent set of requirements.
The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is based on the Dublin regulation, which is an EU provision. The UK is no longer an EU member state. As a sovereign country, we already have our own routes for adults and families to be reunited in the UK, which are substantial, as I have just set out. As a sovereign state, it is important that we do not seek to recreate EU laws unilaterally, without considering what we want the UK’s migration and humanitarian protection system to look like. Importantly, we have been very clear that, while we are no longer in the EU, the UK and the EU have a long history of working together and we have recognised that it is in our best interests to continue to do so. That is why we are pursuing, through formal negotiations, new reciprocal arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in either the UK or the EU with specified family members in the EU or the UK, where it is in the child’s best interests.
We published our draft legal text as a constructive contribution to the negotiations. A negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity, yet these guarantees cannot be provided for in domestic UK provisions alone because they are inherently reciprocal. In addition, subsection (2)(a) of the new clause would require immigration rules to be made by regulations. That is not how immigration rules are made; they are made under the procedures set out in the Immigration Act 1971.
Finally, the new clause would require the Government to lay before Parliament a strategy on the relocation of unaccompanied children. The scope of this strategy is ambiguous. It is unclear whether it relates only to family reunion or whether it covers asylum-seeking children. The explanatory note accompanying the new clause suggests that it is solely about family reunion, but that is not reflected in the drafting. Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, the Government are not able to accept the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to the principle of family unity. Indeed, the Minister was right to point out some of the good work that has been done in recent years, particularly in terms of resettlement. Currently, some of that tends to be forced upon the Home Office, rather than being designed and promoted within it, but nevertheless it is welcome and that has been a success.
In other senses, I fundamentally disagree with the Minister. He cited some rules that had been deemed lawful by the Supreme Court. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement, but, nevertheless, it is clear that some of the rules he was referring to and the financial requirements are absolutely impossible—so impossible that the rules are almost worthless.
The SNP wants the UK to go further on family unity. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) had the endorsement of Parliament to expand the family reunion rules and, of course, the Government managed to use the system to ignore that vote. Given what we have heard today and in previous weeks, including the publication of that text, I fear that we are in danger of going backwards, and not just in terms of Dublin. We urgently need to hear what the future of resettlement will be, so we will be watching carefully.
In the meantime, Mr Stringer, we will revisit this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Immigration Detention: Removal from Association
“(1) Section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) Rules made under this section must prohibit the involuntary removal from association of any affected person detained in a removal centre save for where that is—
(i) reasonably necessary to protect that person or another person from immediate harm; and
(ii) for no longer than is necessary for this purpose and for no longer than maximum 24 hours.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“affected person” means any person whose rights are affected by repeal of legislation by or under Schedule 1 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Act 2020 or by regulations made under section 4 of that Act.
“removal from association” means any restriction on a person associating with others that is not common to all persons then detained at the same removal centre.’” .—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to prohibit removal from association with others in detention save for removal where that is necessary.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I had originally anticipated that this would be part of a much wider debate on immigration detention, but it looks like we will be having that on Report instead of in Committee. I am grateful to Medical Justice for flagging up the continued use of segregation in immigration removal centres, which we believe risks causing severe and permanent damage to detainees. In the past decade, at least two deaths in IRCs have been directly linked to the use of segregation. Segregation has played a role in four High Court cases in which a detainee’s detention or conditions of detention were found to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights. Countless more detainees have suffered the negative impacts of segregation on their mental and physical health.
What we are really talking about is the practice of keeping a detainee separate from the rest of the IRC population. It is usually done by placing the detainee in a special unit at the centre, either alone or with other detainees being held under similar conditions. Segregated detainees can be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day, with severe restrictions placed on their activities and interactions with others.
In short, segregation is one of the most severe and draconian measures used in any detainment setting. Detainees can be held for an initial period of 24 hours, but that can be extended to seven days and 14 days with the authorisation of the Secretary of State. It can then be subsequently renewed, if required.
The effects of segregation on physical and mental health can be devastating. It has been found to lead to increased rates of anxiety, social withdrawal, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. Even after relatively short periods of time, the damage done to a person’s health can be long-lasting and in some cases permanent. Research has shown that segregation can have a negative effect on the health of anyone who experiences it, and the risk for those with pre-existing mental health conditions or other vulnerabilities is particularly high. People who have been held in similar conditions in the past as part of torture, for example, may find the experience extremely re-traumatising.
The stated justification for the use of segregation in IRCs is the interests of safety and security or for refractory or violent detainees. However, a report from Medical Justice in 2015 showed that segregation is being used as a form of punishment and to house individuals with mental health issues that cannot be adequately managed in detention, including to manage detainees at risk of self-harm.
Inspection reports from independent monitoring boards and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons continue to raise concerns about the use of segregation in IRCs. Examples of such practices include detainees inappropriately segregated for months and years, with one detainee being segregated more or less continuously for 22 months. Another detainee was only transferred to psychiatric hospital following 80 days in segregation, and yet another was segregated more than eight times during her 800 days in detention. The issues are ongoing. Segregation is not helping people, but is, on the contrary, making things much worse.
The key point is the availability of segregation, which perpetuates the inappropriate detention of those who often end up subject to it. It allows for problem individuals or vulnerable individuals who cannot be managed in detention to nevertheless still be detained. Despite their detention being inappropriate, the Home Office knows that there is always a possibility of placing them in segregation, should their condition deteriorate or their behaviour grow increasingly difficult to manage. Once these vulnerable detainees end up being segregated, they are housed in an environment that is totally unsuited to their needs. They are placed in forced isolation, removing them from the support of their peers, as well as limiting their visibility and access to organisations that could provide help.
If the use of segregation was not an option, proper attention would need to be paid to whether it was appropriate for the individual to be in detention at all, whether they can be managed safely in an IRC or whether an alternative approach should be sought with more appropriate support in the community. That is why the safeguards and protections in place under rule 40 and rule 42 can never be adequate. We need to abolish the practice altogether.
The new clause would still allow and make provision for crisis intervention where there is an imminent risk of harm to the individual or other individuals in the IRC, but that should be the purpose of those interventions, and that should be it. Too often, that intervention is being used and abused by the Home Office. People who belong either in police custody if they have breached the criminal law, or in a mental health institution should not be detained in IRCs in inappropriate conditions for days on end. I hope the Minister will address those points and seriously look at the issue I have flagged up, because the situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to debate this topic. As he will be aware, in recent years the numbers in detention overall, excluding the current period, have been declining, but a process obviously still needs to be in place to manage the detentions, the detention centres and the detention estate, as we still have it.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of what should happen, but I suspect that the theory of the rules does not match the practice. The view of Medical Justice is that what the Minister has just described does not reflect what is actually happening in detention centres. I am sure this is something that we will revisit, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 53
Private life
‘(1) This section applies when a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts in respect of a relevant person—
(a) breaches a person’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8; and
(b) as a result would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) In subsection (1) a “relevant person” is any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other amendments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(a) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, or immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1 continued, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be recognised and available in the United Kingdom.
(3) In a case to which this section applies, section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 shall be read subject to the following modifications.
(4) Section 117C(5) shall be read as if the words “and the effect of C’s deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh” were replaced with “and either
(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh; or
(b) it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without C.”
(5) Section 117C(6) shall be read as if—
(a) the word “(“C”)” were inserted after “foreign criminal”; and
(b) the words “there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2” were replaced with “either
(c) C has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without C; or there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause modifies the threshold for deportation of EEA nationals and family members who are parents of “qualifying children” – children who are British or have lived in the UK for 7 years or more.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 54—Family life—
‘(1) This section applies when a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts in respect of a relevant person—
(a) breaches a person’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, and
(b) as a result would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) In subsection (1) a “relevant person” is any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other amendments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, or immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1 continued, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be recognised and available in the United Kingdom.
(3) In a case to which this section applies, section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 shall be read subject to the following modifications.
(4) Subsection (4)(a) shall be read as if the words “C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C’s life” were omitted and replaced with “one of criteria (a) to (c) in subsection (4A) is satisfied”.
(5) Section 117C shall be read as if after subsection (4) there were inserted the following words—
“(4A) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C’s life,
(b) that C was born in the UK, or
(c) that C arrived in the UK aged under 18 and has lived in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of seven years or more.
(4B) If the criterion in subsection (4A)(b) or the criterion in subsection (4A)(c) is satisfied, it shall be presumed that C is socially and culturally integrated in the UK for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).
(4C) A presumption under subsection (4B) is rebuttable.’
This new clause modifies the criteria for the deportation of third country nationals with very significant connections to the UK who are impacted by this Act.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am optimistically—and perhaps naively—attempting to spark a sensible, measured and constructive debate on laws relating to deportation, and the balance and interaction with family and private life. It is my fault, but I think the headings on the new clauses should probably be the other way around. The one relating to family is more closely linked to private life and vice versa.
Of course, there are people who commit serious crimes and have no connection with the UK, and they must be deported without any real hesitation. However, there are also many other cases where the impact of any such decision has such serious consequences—not just for the individual, but for the family member—that deportation is not appropriate in the minds of most reasonable people. Once a person has completed the punishment provided for by our criminal laws, they resume their life in this country.
There is also a second category of case, where to all intents and purposes the Home Office is not deporting foreign national offenders. In reality, it is deporting British people—people who have lived pretty much all their lives here and have no connection with the place to which they are being deported, other than the passports that they have never used or used only once when they were toddlers. From time to time, we need to be brave enough to confront the question of where we draw the line. I make the case that the line has been drawn in the wrong place, and that powers of deportation are now used too often and in inappropriate circumstances. That is a challenge to MPs on both sides of the House, because much of our deportation legislation has been in place under Labour Administrations as well as Conservative Administrations.
I turn first to new clause 53, where other family members are affected. As hon. Members will be aware, those from EEA countries and Swiss nationals and their family members cannot generally be deported, except on grounds of public policy, public security and public health, and where their conduct poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of our society—a forward-looking assessment that allows for consideration of competing family life considerations. By contrast, people from outside the EEA are subject to automatic deportation if sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. No consideration is given to whether a person continues to pose a risk, and those sentenced to less than 12 months can also be deported if the Secretary of State believes it to be conducive to the public good.
Consideration of matters relating to family has been seriously restricted. There are only two very narrow circumstances in which issues of family will trump deportation. A person must show that they have either a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner, or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and they must show that the experience of deportation for the partner or child would be unduly harsh. The test is even higher where there has been a sentence of four years or more, but where very compelling circumstances must be shown.
The new clause concerns children, and we argue that the test set out just now is unduly restrictive and not in the best interests of children. Instead of requiring unduly harsh circumstances, the new clause would stop deportation where it would be unreasonable for a child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without the parent. It is important to appreciate just how demanding the current test is. Home Office policy states that the words “unduly harsh” must be given their ordinary meanings. It notes that the Oxford English Dictionary defines “unduly” as “excessively”, and “harsh” as “severe” or “cruel”. In short, Parliament has put in place a regime that allows for child cruelty; only where that child cruelty becomes excessive do we think again.
It is little wonder that judges have sometimes expressed great sympathy with appellants and surprise at the effect of the legislation that this place has enacted, but their hands are tied. As Lord Justice Baker remarked in the case of KF Nigeria:
“For those lawyers, like my Lord and myself, who have spent many years practising in the family jurisdiction, this is not a comfortable interpretation to apply. But that is what Parliament has decided.”
Two tribunals had found that KF should not be deported because of the significant impact it would have on his son, despite a three-year sentence for burglary and robbery. Being a parent does not exempt someone from facing the criminal justice system if they break the law, but deportation goes further; it can effectively and summarily end a child’s family life for at least the duration of their childhood. There are well-documented long-term negative impacts on a child’s upbringing, education and social behaviour, with repercussions for their communities. There are also, of course, implications for a partner left behind in the United Kingdom, who is now responsible for bringing up the child alone.
I am not submitting that parents can never be deported; I am submitting that we need to be much more careful and sensitive about the circumstances in which it happens. This is not about people escaping justice, because they will still face the criminal justice system; it is about protecting innocent children. Deportations would still be possible, even where a child was involved, but only where a court assesses that it would be reasonable for the child to leave the UK along with the parent, or for the child to remain in the UK without the parent.
I turn to new clause 54, which challenges the Government on the criteria used to decide on the deportation of people who have significant connections with the United Kingdom. The issue was summarised by the former prisons and probation ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, in his 2018 review of treatment of vulnerable adults in immigration detention, which was commissioned by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). He reported that, time and again, those he met who were being held under immigration powers after serving custodial sentences were long-term British residents who had often been brought to the UK as young children and who were, to all intents and purposes, British.
To quote Stephen Shaw’s review:
“I find the policy of removing individuals brought up here from infancy to be deeply troubling. For low-risk offenders, it seems entirely disproportionate to tear them away from their lives, families and friends in the UK, and send them to countries where they may not speak the language or have any ties. For those who have committed serious crimes, there is also a further question of whether it is right to send high-risk offenders to another country when their offending follows an upbringing in the UK.”
It bears remembering that some of those individuals would have been entitled to British citizenship had they been aware, or not been priced out of it by the Home Office, to reference my earlier amendment on that subject.
I agree absolutely with Stephen Shaw, and I have personal experience of representing, very occasionally, clients who faced deportation. I remember in particular one Glaswegian lad—and he was Glaswegian—who was 18 years old and had been in this country since the age of four. He had been essentially abandoned, and passed from pillar to post around the care system. Persistent fairly low-level offending resulted in custody. In those circumstances, it was outrageous to deport him.
Some of the people on the charter flights to Jamaica in February 2020 were in that cohort, including young men whose offending involved belonging to county lines operations, which we all know are closely associated with coercion and modern-day slavery. Some were deported for offences committed a long time ago, with no account taken of rehabilitation.
A terrible example of that type of case is the ongoing saga of Osime Brown, a 21- year-old who is severely autistic. He arrived in the UK at the age of four from a country to which the Home Office now wants to deport him. I urge Members to have a look online at the facts and circumstances of the case and to say, hand on heart, that they have no problem with what the Home Office is up to.
The new clause changes the exceptions so that greater consideration is given to people established here at a young age and the reality that they are usually, to all intents and purposes, British, even if they do not hold that passport. It adds exceptions for people who were born in the UK, or who arrived in the UK under the age of 18 and have lived here for seven years or more. It also establishes a presumption that if a person was born in the UK, or arrived in the UK aged under 18 and has lived in the UK for a continuous period of seven years or more, they are considered socially and culturally integrated into the UK—albeit that that presumption would be rebuttable. The person would still have to show that there are very significant obstacles to reintegration.
The 33rd recommendation of Stephen Shaw’s review was:
“The Home Office should no longer routinely seek to remove those who were born in the UK or have been brought up here from an early age.”
Instead of commissioning reviews, it is time for the Government to start implementing the reviews that they have already heard from. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to look favourably on the new clauses.
Kevin Foster
The new clauses concern the principles that a court or tribunal is required to take into account when assessing what is in the public interest for the purposes of determining whether a foreign national offender’s deportation breaches article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The article 8 ECHR right to respect for private and family life is a qualified right, which can be circumcised—[Interruption.] I will have to ensure I write that one out again next time. It can be circumscribed where lawful, necessary and proportionate, in the interest of a number of factors including national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that, when assessing whether deportation breaches article 8 of the ECHR, the deportation of a foreign national offender is in the public interest unless certain exceptions apply. The new clauses seek to alter those exceptions and therefore undermine Parliament’s clear position on what the public interest requires in such cases.
New clause 53 would amend the exception at section 117C regarding foreign national offenders who have been sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, and who have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or child, meaning that deportation would not be in the public interest if it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK, or to remain in the UK without the foreign national offender. That would be in addition to the existing exception that applies when the effect of the deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We need to look at this issue much more closely, as we have only skimmed over the issues today. The Government must start collating data on the number of kids who end up being separated from a parent because of deportation, including a number of British citizens. We will ask questions and revisit the issue, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I would like to speak to new clause 55, Mr Stringer. I did not speak to it because new clause 47, with which it is grouped, was not moved.
The Chair
Sorry. My script is completely wrong. I call the hon. Member to move new clause 55.
New Clause 55
Hostile environment
“(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that hostile environment measures do not apply to P, specifically—
(a) sections 20-43 and 46-47 of the Immigration Act 2014;
(b) sections 34-45 of the Immigration Act 2016; and
(c) schedule 2, paragraph 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018.” —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to limit the application of the hostile environment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It used to be that the Home Office enforced immigration rules by good old-fashioned intelligence-led investigation and action, but under political pressure and the influence of austerity, increasingly the Home Office has decided to rely on essentially outsourced immigration control, hoping that if they made life tougher for unauthorised migrants, they would leave of their own accord. This is of course the hostile environment, and it has been ramped extensively in the last two Immigration Acts, such that little landladies and landlords, as well as bank staff and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency workers, all have to work as immigration officers now. All sorts of Government Departments are tasked with helping the Home Office with its work by sharing information, which makes people wary of accessing public services.
When these measures were introduced, Opposition MPs warned that there would be all sorts of negative consequences and that errors would be made, meaning that people would be denied housing or would have their bank accounts closed when they should not have been. We warned that there was little to suggest that attempts at enforcing destitution and desperation would persuade people to leave, that its impact would lead to all sorts of injustices, and that it could actually make immigration enforcement harder, not easier, as undocumented migrants are forced into the hands of unscrupulous landlords and employers and made ever more difficult to trace.
Four and six years on from the relevant Immigration Acts, the Bill would see that same hostile environment impacting on many more people. We should not allow that to happen without first assessing whether the Government have achieved what they set out to achieve with the hostile environment measures, or whether the warnings from Opposition MPs have been proven correct. Has the hostile environment achieved anything, or has it caused relentless problems, as was forecast?
It appears that the Home Office cannot tell us what the impact of the hostile environment has been in contributing to its policy goals. As the National Audit Office said only yesterday, it is currently unable to assess whether these measures have had any meaningful impact on the likelihood that an individual will leave the UK voluntarily. In fact, the number of voluntary departures has reduced significantly since 2015—in 2015 there were an average of 1,200 such voluntary departures each month, and by 2019 that was down to 460.
That echoes previous findings by the chief inspector of borders and immigration in relation to the right to rent, which is probably the most dangerous of the hostile measures, in that it leaves private citizens with the job of doing immigration checks. He concluded that the scheme had yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool for encouraging immigration compliance, with the Home Office failing to co-ordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while doing little to address stakeholder concerns.
I want to emphasise those concerns. Time and again, the Home Office has been warned about the discrimination in the housing market caused by the right to rent scheme. These warnings came from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and from the Residential Landlords Association. It is not difficult to understand how this comes about. Let us imagine a close relative who happens to let properties. How easy would it be for them to assess immigration status? How easy would it be for them not to be influenced by the fact that if they made a mistake in that assessment they would face criminal prosecution, a fine and even imprisonment? It is blindingly obvious that there is a huge danger of discrimination. Repeated surveys and assessment by organisations such as JCWI and the Residential Landlords Association have shown that to be the case.
We now have a court case proceeding to the Supreme Court. Both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, the finding of fact was made that this scheme has in fact resulted in discrimination. The Home Office had success at the Court of Appeal stage, on the basis that on paper and in theory the scheme could be operated in a way that did not lead to discrimination, but that is not anything to celebrate. The scheme has been ruled lawful, but it has been found to operate in a discriminatory way.
This is a time when we really must have a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of what has happened to immigration policy and the functioning of the hostile environment. That is exactly what Wendy Williams suggested in her Windrush lessons learned review, yet today we have been asked to extend the scope of that hostile environment without such a review taking place, and without any evidence being provided by the Home Office that the scheme is having an impact or contributing towards any of its policy goals.
Right to rent is the most scandalous of these problems, but it is causing all sorts of problems in other areas as well. For example, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that something like 10% of the bank accounts that have been closed as part of the scheme related to people who had every right to be here. That is a huge number of people who have been caused problems by this way of doing things, and they are not only migrants; of course, several million UK citizens do not have a passport and therefore struggle sometimes to prove their right to access services and housing, and to go about their lawful business.
We need to know from the Minister what work is being done to assess the impact of the hostile environment. Rather than celebrating the finding that, in theory, the right to rent scheme could operate without discrimination, what work has been done to make sure that it operates without discrimination? If no such work has been done, or if it cannot be guaranteed that the scheme will operate without discrimination, when will it be repealed?
Holly Lynch
I support new clause 55 and I would have supported new clause 47 had it been moved. Both new clauses seek to safeguard EEA and Swiss nationals from the reality of the Home Office’s hostile environment policy.
We have cited examples of potential problems relating to the hostile environment throughout the sittings of this Bill Committee, but the Windrush lessons learned review highlighted the structural flaws that permeate the hostile environment approach. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of the Home Office machine, that approach has instead led to the hounding of those unable to prove their status, while simultaneously disregarding the legitimacy of independent cases.
Throughout the sittings of this Committee, we have been at pains to articulate our concerns that unless the European Union settlement scheme is 100% successful, we will never be in a position to know whether it has been or not. People will suddenly find themselves subject to the hostile environment.
Of the Windrush generation, it has been said:
“Paulette Wilson was detained in an immigration removal centre and warned that she faced removal after living in the UK for 50 years. She spent decades contributing to the UK—working for a time in this very House—yet she was treated like a second-class citizen.
Junior Green had been in the UK for more than 60 years, raising children and grandchildren here, but after a holiday to Jamaica he was refused re-entry despite holding a passport confirming his right to be in the UK. The injustice he suffered was compounded when, because of this action, he missed his mother’s funeral.
Lives were ruined and families were torn apart.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 1154.]
Those words, setting out those examples, are an extract from the Home Secretary’s statement to the House on presenting the Williams review in March. Yet we are still waiting for the necessary structural reforms to be made at the Home Office to give us any confidence that those who missed the EUSS deadline, because of reasons that should be looked upon favourably, will not be refused by one of the same decision makers who made misguided judgment calls on Windrush cases in the pursuit of Home Office targets.
In trying to mitigate the impact of the Windrush scandal, the Government launched a number of initiatives to go into communities and undertake almost a tidying-up exercise, to ensure that people had the paperwork they needed to protect them from such encounters with the Home Office in future. The Commonwealth citizens taskforce and the vulnerable persons team have delivered that work in communities, but we know that comparable preventive initiatives seeking to support those most at risk of not applying to the EUSS on time have had to stop work, due to the coronavirus. I hope the Minister might be able to update us on how those activities will be super-charged to make up for lost time, once it is safe for them to continue.
Kevin Foster
I would like to start by reassuring Opposition Members. We are making plans for what will be a major restart of engagement and promotion of the European settlement scheme in a face-to-face way. Work is still being done online. The latest statistics have been published and we always use those as an opportunity to promote the scheme and make it clear to people what their entitlement is. We still have a good flow of applications coming in even during the lockdown, which partly reflects the fact that the vast majority of people are applying by using an app on their phones. So strong work is being done there.
On the list of reasons for late applications being accepted, as I said on Tuesday it will be a non-exhaustive list because, as the hon. Member for Halifax rightly says, we cannot predict every single circumstance that would be a reasonable reason for being late. A common reason would be a child in care where the council did not apply, but the list will be non-exhaustive because no one could write all the reasons that we as individuals might find reasonable. So far, the scheme has operated by being flexible and pragmatic in working with those applying. That is why the grants of status are in the millions and the refusals in the hundreds.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I share their desire to ensure that EEA citizens and their family members who are currently in the UK lawfully are not denied access to work, healthcare or anything to which they are currently entitled.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Does the Minister share my frustration when Opposition Members talk about the hostile environment? It was in fact a former Labour Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who, in May 2007, introduced the new immigration regulations that created a hostile environment in this country.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. Many of the enforcement mechanisms that we use originate from before 2010. There is a little amnesia among some of the people who were here and voted for them. It is right that there are protections in place around public welfare benefits and suchlike. That has not been particularly controversial for parties of all colours over the past 10 to 20 years. We need to consider carefully the lessons learned review. In the Wendy Williams report there is a 2009 case of someone who was unable to return to the United Kingdom, even though they had a status granted under the Immigration Act 1971 as someone who had been settled in the UK before 1 January 1973.
As with many of the amendments that we have debated, the new clause is at odds with our commitment to the British people to introduce a single global migration system. New clause 55 is unnecessary, unworkable, and risks being detrimental to the cohort in question. As we have been clear before, free movement is ending, and from 1 January 2021 EEA and non-EEA citizens will be treated equally. Under the new system, everyone will be required to obtain the correct immigration status, and we will clearly distinguish between those who are here lawfully and those who are not, regardless of their nationality. Allowing EEA citizens to rent accommodation or exempting them from other measures, even if they do not have lawful immigration status, would contradict the Government’s stated position. It would in practice result in different rules applying, depending on a person’s nationality. This would be inherently discriminatory, given that there would be no justifiable reason for them after the end of the transition period.
New clause 55 would also weaken the UK’s new points-based immigration system. The measures in question are designed to encourage individuals to comply with UK laws and rules, and they have all been approved by Parliament. In the future, once free movement has ended, it is right that these measures will apply on the basis of whether or not someone has lawful status, rather than on the basis of their nationality, although I appreciate that the wording would probably be done to bring this within the scope of the Bill.
EEA citizens are already subject to the universal eligibility checks carried out by employers, landlords and the NHS, as these checks apply to everyone regardless of nationality, including British citizens. I had to show my own passport recently, when renting a flat. Disapplying the measures for a certain group would increase the scope for illegal migration and place taxpayer-funded services at risk of abuse.
It is not clear how new clause 55 would actually work. To exempt an EEA citizen from an eligibility check, it would first be necessary to establish that they are part of the exempt cohort. It would not be possible for those carrying out the checks, including employers and landlords, to do this without checking everyone, as they do now, to establish eligibility. Alternatively, they would have to second-guess who was in a particular cohort, which brings the obvious risks of leading to potential discrimination and unfair treatment.
I recognise that the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Halifax wish to ensure that EEA citizens and their family members who are currently resident in the UK are not adversely impacted by such measures. This is why we have set up the EU settlement scheme, making it free and easy to get UK immigration status and to enjoy the same rights as now. That is why I believe it would be unhelpful to accept the new clause, and the Government will not do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I feel he rather skirted around getting to the heart of the issue, and he knows full well that the new clause is as it is because of issues of scope. When he talked about how this would not work because there would have to be checks on whether an EU national was seeking to take advantage of this new clause, he spoke about the dangers of guessing whether an individual may or may not be an EU national. That is exactly the problem with the right to rent scheme at the moment, in that some landlords and landladies are guessing people’s nationality when they are approached with inquiries about accommodation. I am glad that he has recognised that there are dangers in the scheme that causes such judgments to be made. Yes, there are problems with the wording of the new clause because of scope, but I shall drop it for now and think about this again in advance of Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Data protection
“(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has made provision to ensure that P has safe and confidential access to essential public services by ensuring the Secretary of State, or any other individual or body on his behalf, must not process personal data, by any means, for the purposes of immigration control or enforcement, where that personal data has been collected in the course of the data subject accessing or attempting to access the public services identified in subsection (3).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the relevant public services are—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare services;
(b) primary and secondary education; and
(c) the reporting of a crime by P, where P is a witness to, or the victim of, the crime, any investigation or prosecution of it.
(4) The prohibitions contained in subsections (2) and (3) do not apply where the data subject has given his or her explicit and informed consent to the disclosure of the personal data, for the purposes of immigration enforcement.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause seeks to limit use of data gathered by key public services for immigration enforcement control or enforcement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to speak to new clause 57, which brings us to another discrete example of the broader hostile environment and the ever-expanding powers of the Home Office to gather information and require information to be shared with it. The new clause requires that the Government take measures to prevent the sharing of data for immigration purposes where that data has been collected or provided in the course of a person accessing healthcare and education or reporting a crime.
The fear of information being shared with the Home Office can have a pernicious effect on people’s willingness to seek help or to access vital public services, and of course it can also lead to injustice, as we saw in the Windrush fiasco. This is about supporting the survivors of serious crimes—such as domestic abuse, human trafficking and other forms of exploitation—to report them to the police, seek healthcare and escape to safety.
Essentially, the new clause challenges us about our priorities. Is our priority to ensure that people can feel safe when reporting crimes, and that they do not have to be anxious when sending their children for education and do not have to be in two minds about seeking healthcare when that is required, or is our priority to provide the Home Office with endless additional powers to snoop and gather information on the off-chance that it might be able to detain and remove another few individuals, even if that comes at an incredibly hefty price, including injustices such as Windrush? I say absolutely clearly that my priority is protecting safe access to vital public services, and that is why I am moving new clause 57.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do understand his concern that those who come to this country should have safe and confidential access to essential public services. However, new clause 57 would restrict the ability of the immigration authorities to use data that has been collected in particular circumstances for immigration enforcement purposes, as far as those who now benefit from freedom of movement are concerned. In so doing, it would maintain the status quo for those cohorts as far as the use of such data collection is concerned. However, the crucial difference is that they would now be subject to the same measures of immigration control as people from the rest of the world subject to the same restrictions.
The new clause would severely restrict the ability of the immigration authorities to take enforcement action against that cohort. It would thereby result in differential treatment in respect of a migrant whose data would be collected in the same way, but which would continue to be used for immigration enforcement purposes when deemed appropriate, as it is now. It would also weaken the effect of the immigration system, as we are concerned to encourage compliance with immigration laws as approved by Parliament. We welcome the contribution made to the United Kingdom by those who are lawfully present, but it must be in accordance with the laws and rules that have been set out and agreed. No cohort should be exempt from measures that are put in place to ensure compliance with those laws and rules.
On the prohibition on sharing data collected by the police in respect of witnesses or victims of crime, we believe that could lead to unintended consequences. It could prevent those with unresolved immigration status, particularly those who are vulnerable, from being brought into the immigration system, regularising their status and receiving necessary support. In some cases, such as where someone has been the victim of domestic abuse, it could prevent the Home Office from providing information to the police on known vulnerabilities or safeguarding concerns, thereby reducing a perpetrator’s ability to control or coerce their victim. Engagement with immigration enforcement could, for example, reveal previously undisclosed evidence of domestic abuse, which the Home Office could then pass on to the police, leading to the provision of support from a specialist domestic abuse team and potential access to a refuge. Data sharing in those circumstances would be proportionate and necessary, and in the best interests of the victim. Data sharing also enables the Home Office to trace missing families and protect children who may be at risk, working collaboratively with social services, the police and local authorities to ensure safeguarding actions are taken. We will always have due regard for the safety and best interests of any children.
The Home Office has robust safeguards and controls in place to ensure data are handled securely, lawfully, ethically and in accordance with relevant data protection regulations. It must have a legal basis for processing data, and comply with the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 when doing so. Individuals’ rights are protected by the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the UK’s independent body which upholds information rights. I remind the Committee of the comments I made at one of the last Home Office oral questions that were held physically in the Chamber before the current arrangements. When asked, for example, about whether the details of those approaching the NHS for treatment for covid-19 would be passed on to immigration enforcement, we were clear that, purely for the purposes of immigration enforcement, that would not be something we would be doing. Our approach is proportionate.
Stuart C. McDonald
The purpose of the new clause, and what it says expressly, is that information cannot be shared with the Home Office for the purposes of immigration control or enforcement. To my mind, that does not mean, for example, stopping the police making inquiries with the Home Office about whether somebody has been the victim of domestic abuse. I therefore think that is a rather unfair interpretation of what we are proposing.
Kevin Foster
Part of how we respond to victims and others is sometimes to look to resolve their immigration status as well. I would say it is quite proportionate that two parts of the Home Office work together on the enforcement of the UK’s laws, subject to it being proportionate and appropriate to do so. I think people would find it strange if that did not occur.
For the reasons we have outlined, with the robust safeguards in place, and the proportionate and legitimate aim of ensuring our immigration laws are not completely undermined, the Government will not accept the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am not sure I agree with his reasoning on what the new clause would or would not allow, but I will take that away and give it further thought. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 60
Report on the status and social security entitlements of UK nationals in the EU member states
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish quarterly reports on the progress being made by EU member states on the migration status and social security entitlements of UK nationals in their countries.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than a month after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”—(Kate Green.)
This new clause would require the Government to update the House of Commons on the progress being made by the EU27 countries on the implementation of protections for UK nationals in their countries on a quarterly basis.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kate Green
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Government to report quarterly on the status and social security entitlements of UK nationals in EU member states. I am grateful to British in Europe for its comprehensive briefing in preparation for this debate.
Implementation in the EU of the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement is still in its early stages, with few countries having final or even draft legislation in place. Application processes have begun in only a handful of countries. The situation has understandably been exacerbated by delays caused by the covid crisis. However, that creates uncertainty for thousands of UK families and individuals in the EU, who are awaiting the outcome of applications to be allowed to stay in countries in which they have made their home that have opted for an application or constitutive system.
The European Commission’s promised guidance note, which was eventually published on 12 May, is helpful in clarifying some of the uncertainties, but outstanding issues include how dual UK-EU nationals and other citizens who do not rely on the withdrawal agreement for residence rights can evidence their rights; how the withdrawal agreement applies to UK citizens who are eligible for protection under the withdrawal agreement in their own right and for protection under EU law as family members of EU citizens; and whether UK citizens eligible for protection under the withdrawal agreement, which of course confers no right of free movement to third EU countries, can obtain the rights at least to some mobility enjoyed by other third-country nationals, either in addition to their withdrawal agreement rights or by waiving that protection and opting to register as non-withdrawal agreement third-country nationals.
In addition, the common format of the card evidencing withdrawal agreement rights, mandated by the Commission for UK nationals in the EU, fails to distinguish between permanent residence and ordinary residence. The conditions for lawful residence under EU law, which applies during the transition period, and under the withdrawal agreement for those who have not yet acquired permanent residence or had permanent residence confirmed, include requirements to be employed or self-employed, or economically self-sufficient with comprehensive health insurance.
Those conditions are applied strictly in many EU countries. The lockdown restrictions of the covid crisis, however, have caused people to lose their jobs or much of their income, and some will be unable to obtain comprehensive health insurance because of exclusions—students studying abroad and recent graduates are at particular risk.
We know the Government do not intend to extend the transition period. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to ask EU member states to grant extensions to time limits for securing rights under the withdrawal agreement, which people have been unable to comply with because of covid restrictions on travel or the closure of administrative offices? That applies not only to residence rights across the EU, but to citizenship applications where 31 December this year is a cut-off date, such as is the case in Germany or Italy.
With much still unresolved, British in Europe and the3million have suggested that they should attend the specialised committee on citizens’ rights of the joint committee on implementation of the withdrawal agreement established—
The Chair
Order. The new clause is about the Government reporting to the House of Commons. I understand the points that the hon. Lady is making, but if she would relate her comments to the reporting, I would be grateful.
Kate Green
Of course, Mr Stringer; that is very helpful guidance. These are matters on which I hope the Minister may be able to give some immediate answers about the Government’s current actions, but obviously the report to the House would be able to demonstrate the effect on UK nationals in the EU of our withdrawal from the European Union, which I think the public as a whole will be concerned about. As I go through further remarks about possible effects, I will naturally seek to come back to the point that I seek the approval of the Committee on regular reports on these matters being made to the House, including on the suggestion by British in Europe and the3million that they should be able to attend the specialist committee on citizens’ rights of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee.
There are other uncertainties for UK nationals who are not covered by the withdrawal agreement. Jeremy Morgan of British in Europe agreed in our oral evidence session last week that UK nationals resident in the UK but who own second properties in the European Union will potentially now be caught by the 90 out of 180 days rule under the Schengen arrangements. It is not clear whether the UK Government have given up on negotiating up to 180-day stays for UK citizens visiting the European Union, so it would be useful to have regular reports to the House on whether negotiations are continuing, or on the impact if they are not.
The concerns I have outlined so far affect UK nationals who already live, work or own property in the European Union, but there will also be concerns about UK nationals moving to the EU in the future after the end of the transition period. In our evidence session on 9 June, Jeremy Morgan of British in Europe drew attention to whether UK nationals will be able to buy property in certain EU countries after the transition, which again I think would be of interest to the House and the wider public, and future reports on that would be welcome.
On Tuesday, we debated the implications of clause 5 and the draft social security arrangements published by the UK and the EU. I am grateful to the Minister for the letter he sent me late yesterday evening, which I think has been copied to all Committee members, in response to a number of issues I raised in that debate. The analogy drawn in the letter with other treaties between the UK and third countries simply exposes the more limited protection that those treaties provide, and that such treaties seem to be the model for our future arrangements with the European Union—for example, on aggregating contributions, sharing information or healthcare. If those are to be a model for future coverage for UK nationals in the EU, again I think that is something that should be drawn regularly to the attention of the House.
The draft social security agreement attached to the free trade agreement published in February makes it clear that the Government envisage that short-term visitors would be covered, but what of those who go to work or make their home in the EU in future? The Minister’s letter says that contributory employment and support allowance will be available for four weeks. I note in passing that a decreasing number of people get contributory ESA anyway, and that that four-week grace period will be of no use to disabled people moving abroad, or even visiting for five, six or seven weeks. I think the House would like to be aware of the implications of new arrangements for disabled people.
Similarly, on healthcare, the Minister’s letter may try to gloss over this, but for those who are not going to be covered by the withdrawal agreement, the S2 will be scrapped, so they cannot in future go abroad and have treatment paid for in the EU, even if the NHS cannot provide that treatment. Importantly, we will lose the mutual recognition of prescriptions, which could have quite significant consequences for some UK nationals.
My assessment is that, for those UK nationals moving to the European Union after the transition, the unspoken thrust of the letter sent by the Minister last night is a levelling down of protections and rights, which I feel the House should want to track on a regular basis. I recognise that a number of bilateral reciprocal arrangements—some going back many years—between the UK and certain member states may fill in some of the gaps in social security co-ordination arrangements in the future, but it is unclear whether either country will regard them as remaining effective. In any event, many of the arrangements offer only very limited protection. Again, I think it would be useful for the House to be updated on the standing of, and application of, these bilateral agreements.
If no agreement is secured with the European Union and the Minister hopes that instead a series of new bilateral arrangements might be negotiated between the UK and each individual member state, there may be a fear in those member states that that could impinge on the co-ordination arrangements that apply in relation to other member states, and that fall within the scope of European Union co-ordination regulations. It would be useful for the House to have regular updates on that.
The picture that I have painted suggests at best confusion, and at worst the prospect of less favourable protections for UK citizens in the European Union—those already there, and those who move to European Union countries in future. The UK Government have an obligation to look after the welfare of their citizens wherever they are located. Quarterly reporting to Parliament will make it possible to conduct scrutiny of the way in which the Government meet the obligation.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for moving new clause 60, which is well intentioned but ultimately unnecessary. The Government are monitoring closely the implementation of the withdrawal agreement for UK nationals in the EU and information on citizens’ rights in each EU member state is already provided by the Government on our “Living in” guides on gov.uk.
Having ratified the withdrawal agreement and legislated for it domestically in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 in January, the Government are now closely monitoring the progress of member state implementation during the transition period, via our network of embassies, high commissions and consulates across Europe. We are committed to providing UK nationals overseas with clear and appropriate information and are working with member states to ensure that any introduction of, or changes to, administrative procedures that are in line with the withdrawal agreement will be communicated to resident UK nationals.
The EU’s social security co-ordination rules will continue to apply in full to individuals in full scope of the withdrawal agreement, including UK nationals living and/or working in the EU, and EEA citizens living and/or working in the UK by the end of the transition period. Those rights are protected for as long as they remain in full scope of the withdrawal agreement.
Information is available via our “Living in” guides on gov.uk, and UK nationals should sign up for the latest information on the actions they need to take. The “Living in Europe” guide, which is also on gov.uk, provides further information on citizens’ rights to UK nationals in the EU.
Beyond that, we also have a governance structure established by the withdrawal agreement to monitor the correct implementation and application of the withdrawal agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has already met twice, on 30 March and 12 June.
The Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, co-chaired by UK and EU officials, met on 20 May. As set out in the joint statement following the meeting, both the UK and the EU exchanged updates on the implementation of the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement and discussed preparatory work for future meetings. The Government and European Commission share the objective of ensuring the correct and timely implementation of the withdrawal agreement to provide certainty to UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. The Committee will therefore meet regularly during the transition period and thereafter.
Finally, I reassure the Committee that we are calling on the European Commission and all member states to ensure timely implementation and clear communications to UK nationals in the EU, in line with what has been agreed in the withdrawal agreement.
I will briefly cover some of the points that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston made. The Government are continuing their negotiations with a view to a future partnership. We have already looked to extend our generous visitor visa provisions to EEA nationals from 1 January, on the same basis as we have to many of our traditional international friends and allies, such as Canada, the United States and Japan. We continue in discussions to seek a productive partnership. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not possible for us, in domestic UK immigration measures, to legislate for what other nations should offer the United Kingdom.
On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Kate Green
I feel that the Minister’s response has rather missed some of the points that I was trying to make. In seeking a report to Parliament, I am asking for something a little bit different from information to UK nationals about what they should be doing at any given time, whether or not they moved to the EU before or after the end of transition. Intergovernmental discussions—or discussions between the UK Government and the European Union—taking place in the joint committee are very important, but they are not a parliamentary event that ensures full public information and scrutiny of those discussions. My point on the bilateral treaties was also about thinking of protections for UK nationals, which, if I may say so, are in the gift of the UK Government. The signs are worrying when looking at the Government’s draft agreement, published earlier this year.
I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I gently suggest to the Minister that keeping the House updated on such matters is not only important to hon. Members, but of considerable importance to our constituents. We have found at times that Ministers are quite tardy in coming to the House to inform us about the progress of negotiations with the European Union, at least in relation to these important matters. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to encourage his colleagues to keep us as well informed as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Kevin Foster
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. I thought it appropriate to thank you and Sir Edward for your very effective chairmanships and for keeping us all in order—even me, with the interesting slip that I managed to make earlier today. I hope that it did not cause too much hilarity in the Committee.
Kevin Foster
I am sure it did. I should also thank the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson for the spirit in which we have debated the Bill, put on the record a number of important points and explored a number of issues of concern to a range of constituents. I am sure that hon. Members would want me to express gratitude to the Clerk, who has ensured that the Committee was conducted professionally and well. I also thank my officials at the Home Office and those at the Department for Work and Pensions who have supported me both by preparing for the Committee and by preparing briefings on a range of amendments.
I can imagine how you will rule on this point of order, Mr Stringer—probably in line with every other point of order that has ever been raised in the five years that I have been here—but I wanted to put those few comments on the record as we come to our conclusion.
Holly Lynch
On a point of order, Mr Stinger. I echo the Minister’s sentiments—I am grateful for the points that he just made. I thank my Committee colleagues, not least the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston—I am eternally grateful for her support on a personal basis; her experience in this subject area is second to none—the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North and Coventry North West, and our Whip, the hon. Member for Ogmore, for their support. I also thank you, Mr Stringer.
I echo the Minister’s sentiments: the Clerk has been incredibly helpful to Members across the Committee and her efforts have been nothing short of herculean, often responding to emails in the early hours of the morning. We are eternally grateful to her for that. I also put on the record my thanks to my staff members, Jamie Welham and Charlotte Butterick, as well as to Heather Staff in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston.
Putting politics and the subject matter to one side, we can always collectively breathe a sigh of relief when the intensity and pace of any Bill Committee comes to an end. I very much look forward to returning to some of these issues on Report and Third Reading.
The Chair
That was outrageously out of order. Thank you for the kind comments.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 30th June 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 344 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:53 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 342 / Noes: 248 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: Entitlement to remain—
‘(1) Any child who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act, and who are in the care of a local authority, or entitled to care leaving support, shall, by virtue of this provision, be deemed to have and be granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must, for purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.
(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;
(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and
(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister.
(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose and no further immigration control purpose.
(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted status after the deadline of the EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”) will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with the status from the time of the Scheme deadline.
(6) This section comes into force upon the commencement of this Act and remains in effect for 5 years after the deadline of the EU Settlement Scheme.
(7) For purposes of this section, “children in the care of the local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following—
(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of accommodation for children: general);
(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (Care and Supervision);
(c) section 75 Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);
(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Provision of accommodation for children);
(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Interpretation); and
(f) Article 50 Children of the (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Care orders and supervision orders).
(8) For the purposes of this section, “children entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following—
(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 Children Act 1989 (Preparation for ceasing to be looked after);
(b) s.23A(2) Children Act 1989 (The responsible authority and relevant children);
(c) s.23C(1) Children Act 1989 (Continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);
(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (Young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);
(e) sections 29-30 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities) as amended by s.66 Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Provision of aftercare to young people); and
(f) Article 35(2) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Persons qualifying for advice and assistance.).’
This new clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
New clause 7—Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(i) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(ii) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(iii) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) as defined in subsection(1) under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(3) If “P” remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) the Secretary of State shall release P forthwith; and
(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since “P’s” release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] are met.
(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which “P” is first detained under a relevant detention power.
(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’
New clause 8—Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies, under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) “P” can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;
(b) detention is strictly necessary to affect “P”’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and
(c) the detention of “P” is in all circumstances proportionate.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) who section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies to under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—
(a) “P” has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section [Bail hearings (No. 2)]; or
(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to “P” in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section [Bail hearings (No. 2)] and that hearing has not yet taken place.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall authorise the Secretary of State to detain “P” under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.
(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” has the meaning given in section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals].’
New clause 9—Bail hearings (No. 2)—
‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.
(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—
(a) release “P”;
(b) grant immigration bail to “P” under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to “P”.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.
(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.
(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—
(a) grant immigration bail to “P” under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to “P”.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to “P” at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] are met and that, in addition—
(a) directions have been given for “P’s” removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;
(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of “P’s” removal or deportation; and
(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.
(8) In subsection (6) above, “a bail hearing” includes—
(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2) above; and
(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.
(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to “P” or “P’s” legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.
(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to “P” or “P’s” legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—
(a) “P” consents to the documents being considered; or
(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to “P” or to “P’s” legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).
(12) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—
(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail within the meaning of section [Bail hearings (No. 2)] of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2019.”’
New clause 10—Commencement of detention provisions (No. 2)—
‘Sections[Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss Nationals],[Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)]and[Bail hearings (No. 2)]come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.’
New clause 11—Report on the impact to EEA and Swiss nationals—
‘(1) This Act shall not come into effect until a Minister of the Crown has laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out the impact of the Act on EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact on EEA and Swiss nationals of having no recourse to public funds under Immigration Rules;
(b) the impact of NHS charging for EEA and Swiss nationals;
(c) the impact of granting citizenship to all EEA and Swiss health and social care workers working in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic;
(d) the impact of amending the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove all fees for applications, processes and services for EEA and Swiss nationals; and
(e) the merits of the devolution of powers over immigration from the EEA area and Switzerland to (i) Senedd Cymru; (ii) the Scottish Parliament; and (iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(4) In this section, “health and social care workers” includes doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, social workers, care workers, and other frontline health and social care staff required to maintain the UK’s health and social care sector.’
This new clause would ensure that before this Act coming into force, Parliament would have a chance to discuss how EEA and Swiss nationals will be affected by its provisions, including no recourse to public funds conditions, NHS charging, the possibility of granting British citizenship to non-British health and social care workers, removing citizenship application fees and the potential devolution of immigration policy of EEA and Swiss nationals to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 12—Status of Irish citizens—
‘In addition to any rights enjoyed by virtue of their Irish citizenship under UK law, Irish citizens must be treated as having all rights enjoyed by persons with settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme.’
This new clause will ensure that Irish citizens enjoy the same rights in the UK as someone with settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme.
New clause 13—Exemption from no recourse to public funds—
‘(1) This section applies during the current Covid- 19 pandemic, as defined by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020.
(2) Section 3(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot be applied to persons who have lost rights because of section (1) and Schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) This section could not be disapplied unless a resolution was passed by each House of Parliament.’
This new clause would delay application of No Recourse to Public Funds rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides.
New clause 14—Immigration Health Charge: Exemption for EEA and Swiss citizens who are healthcare and social workers—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38 (Immigration health charge) insert—
“38A Health care workers and social workers from the EEA or Switzerland
(1) Any person who but for the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 would have the right of free movement is exempt from the Immigration health charge if that person is—
(a) a healthcare worker; or
(b) a social care worker.
(2) The exemption will also apply to a person who is a family member or dependant of an EEA or Swiss national who meets the conditions in section (1)(a) and (b).
(3) For this section—
“healthcare worker” means a worker who works in a healthcare setting within and outside the NHS who may come into contact with patients, including clinical administration staff, and care home staff;
“social care worker” means a worker as defined by section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000.’
This new clause would ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK to work as a healthcare or social care worker would be exempt from the Immigration Health Charge.
New clause 15—Tier 2 Immigration skills charge—
‘No Tier 2 Immigrations skills charge will be payable on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national and is coming to the UK to work for the NHS.’
This new clause would exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge.
New clause 16—Immigration health charge—
‘No immigration health charge introduced under section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 may be imposed on an individual who is an EEA or Swiss national.’
This new clause would prevent EEA or Swiss nationals paying the immigration health charge.
New clause 17—Report on cost of recruitment—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the costs associated with the recruitment of overseas workers to the UK as compared to such other countries the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The report must also set out the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impact of the costs referred to in subsection (1) on different sectors of the economy.
(3) No regulations relating to costs for the recruitment of overseas workers may be made until such time as the report has been laid before Parliament and debated.
(4) In this section “costs” include, but are not limited to, the following in relation to the UK—
(a) fees paid by an employer to register as a Tier 2 sponsor;
(b) visa fees paid by a Tier 2 worker and family members;
(c) immigration health surcharges for Tier 2 workers and family members;
(d) the immigration skills charge
(e) recruitment costs; and
(f) legal costs,
and in relation to other countries, includes such fees and costs as the Secretary of State believes equivalent or otherwise relevant.
(5) “Overseas worker” means a worker whose right to work in the UK have been impacted by section 1 and schedule 1.’
This new clause would mean Parliament is aware of costs relating to recruitment of EEA workers to the UK compared with competitor countries, before it has to consider any regulations on fees tabled by the government.
New clause 18—Hostile environment—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that hostile environment measures do not apply to P, specifically—
(a) sections 20-43 and 46-47 of the Immigration Act 2014;
(b) sections 34-45 of the Immigration Act 2016; and
(c) schedule 2, paragraph 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018.’
This new clause seeks to limit the application of the hostile environment.
New clause 19—Data Protection—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has made provision to ensure that P has safe and confidential access to essential public services by ensuring The Secretary of State, or any other individual or body on his behalf, must not process personal data, by any means, for the purposes of immigration control or enforcement, where that personal data has been collected in the course of the data subject accessing or attempting to access the public services identified in subsection (3).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the relevant public services are:
(a) primary and secondary healthcare services;
(b) primary and secondary education; and
(c) the reporting of a crime by the data subject or, where the data subject is a witness to, or the victim of, the crime, any investigation or prosecution of it.
(4) The prohibitions contained in subsections (2) and (3) do not apply where the data subject has given his or her explicit and informed consent to the disclosure of the personal data, for the purposes of immigration enforcement.’
This new clause seeks to limit use of data gathered by key public services for immigration enforcement control.
New clause 20—Recourse to public funds—
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that P can access social security benefits, where P is habitually resident, including repealing or amending the following provisions insofar as they relate to P—
(a) section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(c) any provision in subordinate legislation, which imposes a “no recourse to public funds” condition on grants of limited leave to enter or remain; and
(d) any other enactment or power exercised under any other enactment, which makes immigration status a condition to access social security benefits.’
This new clause seeks to restrict measures prohibiting access to public funds.
New clause 21—British Citizen registration fee—
‘(1) No person, who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end, may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.
(2) No child of a person who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen if that child is receiving the assistance of a local authority.
(3) No child of a person who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.
(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of people to whom subsection (1) applies of their rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to register as British citizens.’
This new clause would mean that nobody whose right of free movement was removed by the Bill could be charged a fee for registering as a British citizen that was greater than the cost of the registration process and would abolish the fee for some children.
New clause 22—Visa requirements—
‘Section E-LTRP.3.1 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules will not apply to persons who have lost free movement rights under section 1 and schedule 1 until the Coronavirus Act 2020 expires as set out under section 89(1).’
This new clause will ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals are not prevented from qualifying to remain in the UK as partners, merely because they cannot meet financial requirements in the Immigration Rules during the coronavirus pandemic.
New clause 23—Amendment of the Scotland Act 1998—
‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 5, at paragraph B6, delete the words “free movement of persons within the European Economic Area;”.
(3) In Schedule 5, at paragraph B6, insert at the end—
“(none) Retained EU law relating to free movement of persons from the European Economic Area; and the subject matter of section 1 and schedule 1 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020.”’
This new clause would devolved retained free movement law and the subject matter of clause 1 and schedule 1 of the Bill to the Scottish Parliament.
New clause 24—Remote Areas Pilot Scheme—
‘(1) Within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the government must introduce a Remote Areas Pilot Scheme to encourage EEA and Swiss nationals to live and work in remote areas.
(2) The scheme in subsection (1) must be designed in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(3) The scheme in subsection (1) must operate for at least two years after which an evaluation report must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’
This new clause would require the government to introduce a Remote Areas Pilot Scheme, similar to the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee.
New clause 26—Right to rent (EEA and Swiss nationals)—
‘The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals, and dependants of EEA and Swiss nationals, are not subjected to right to rent immigration checks.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that landlords do not carry out immigration checks on EEA and Swiss nationals under the Right to Rent scheme.
New clause 28—Data protection: immigration (EEA and Swiss nationals)—
‘(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In paragraph 4 of schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(5) This paragraph does not apply if the data subject is an EEA or Swiss national or a dependent of an EEA or Swiss national.”’
This new clause would ensure that the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals.
New clause 29—Family reunion and resettlement—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that an unaccompanied child, spouse or vulnerable or dependant adult who has a family member who is legally present in the United Kingdom has the same rights to be reunited in the United Kingdom with that family member as they would have had under Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) amend the Immigration Rules in order to preserve the effect in the United Kingdom of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependant adults; and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring the continued opportunity for relocation to the UK of unaccompanied children present in the territory of the EEA, if it is in the child’s best interests.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member”—
(a) has the same meaning as in Article 2(g) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
(b) also has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in Article 2(h) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013; and
(c) also includes the family members referred to in Article 8 (1), Article 16 (1) and 16 (2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(4) Until such time as Regulations in subsection (2) come into force, the effect of Commission Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 for the family reunion of unaccompanied minors, spouses and vulnerable or dependent adults with their family members in the UK shall be preserved.’
This new clause would have the effect of continuing existing arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, spouses and vulnerable adults to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.
New clause 30—Impact assessment on the social care workforce—
‘(1) No Minister of the Crown may appoint a day for the commencement of any provision of this Act until the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) This condition is that a Minister of the Crown has published and laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on recruitment of EU citizens, EEA nationals, and Swiss citizens to the social care sector.’
This new clause makes the coming into force of the Act conditional on the production of an impact assessment of the changes on the social care workforce
New clause 32—Non-applicability of hostile environment measures to EU citizens, EEA nationals and Swiss citizens—
‘(1) No amendment to the definition of ‘relevant national’ in section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014, so as to alter the provision made for a national of an EEA State or a national of Switzerland, may be made by regulations under—
(a) Section 8, Section 23 and paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(b) Section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020; or
(c) Section 4 of this Act.
(2) In Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“Immigration”)
(a) Omit “.” at the end of sub-paragraph (4),
(b) At the end of sub-paragraph (4), insert—
“, and
(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) do not apply where the personal data is that of a national of an EU Member State, an EEA State or Switzerland.”
(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’
This new clause would prevent the application of key aspects of the hostile/compliant environment to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens.
New clause 33—Differentiated immigration rules—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of a system of differentiated immigration rules for people whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must consider the following—
(a) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to nominate a specified number of EEA and Swiss nationals for leave to enter or remain each year;
(b) the requirements that could be attached to the exercise of any such power including that the person lives and, where appropriate, works in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and such other conditions as the Secretary of State believes necessary;
(c) the means by which the Secretary of State could retain the power to refuse to grant leave to enter or remain on the grounds that such a grant would—
(i) not be in the public interest, or
(ii) not be in the interests of national security;
(d) how the number of eligible individuals allowed to enter or remain each year under such a scheme could be agreed annually by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State; and
(e) whether Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to issue Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Immigration Rules, as appropriate, setting out the criteria by which they will select eligible individuals for nomination, including salary thresholds and financial eligibility.
(3) As part of the review in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Government;
(b) the Welsh Government;
(c) the Northern Ireland Executive; and
(d) individuals, businesses, and other organisations in the devolved nations’.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay a report before Parliament on differentiated immigration rules for people whose right of free movement are ended by this Act, and sets out a non-exhaustive list of issues that must be reviewed including the possible role of devolved government.
New clause 34—Late applications—
‘(1) Prior to the deadline for applications to the EU Settlement Scheme, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out proposals for dealing with late applications and a motion to approve the report must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Until the report under subsection (1) is debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament, the EU Settlement Scheme must remain open for applications and the Secretary of State must extend the deadline for applications accordingly.’
The new clause will ensure that the EU Settled Status Scheme will remain open until such time as the Minister has published his proposals as to how to deal with late applications and that report has been approved by Parliament.
New clause 35—Visa extensions for health and care workers during Covid-19 pandemic—
‘(1) Where—
(a) A person (“P”) meets either the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3); and
(b) P’s leave in the United Kingdom would otherwise expire prior to 1 January 2021,
then P’s leave is extended until twelve months after the date on which P’s leave would otherwise expire without any further fee or charge being incurred.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the individual is a health and care professional, or a social worker, or employed in another frontline health and care role.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the individual is a family member of a person meeting the condition in subsection (2).
(4) In this section—
“health and care professional” is a person within the class of persons who are nurses or other health and care professionals, or medical professionals within the meaning of the regulations referred to in sections 2 to 5 of the Coronavirus Act 2020;
“social worker” is a person within the class of persons who are social workers within the meaning of the regulations referred to in sections 6 to 7 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.”
“employed in another frontline health and care role” means a person employed in a role conferring eligibility for the NHS and Social Care Coronavirus Life Assurance Scheme 2020.’
This new clause would put the Government’s policy of visa extensions on a statutory footing, and ensure that it includes all health and social care workers and other frontline employees including cleaners and porters.
New clause 36—Applications for citizenship from people with settled status—
‘Where a person with settled status applies for British Citizenship, then the period of person’s residence that qualified them for settled status shall be treated as not being in breach of the immigration laws.’
This new clause would ensure that persons who qualified for settled status cannot then be refused citizenship on ground that their residence during the qualifying period for settled status was in breach of immigration laws (for example, because of a period without Comprehensive Sickness Insurance).
New clause 37—Annual report on skills and the labour market—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay a report before Parliament setting out how changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected skill shortages in the labour market.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than a month after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’
This new clause would ensure that the Government has to publish an annual report on skill shortages and the labour market, and that it would be debated in Parliament.
New clause 38—European citizens’ rights—
‘(1) This section applies to EEA and Swiss nationals—
(a) who are within the personal scope of the withdrawal agreement (defined in Article 10) having the right to reside in the United Kingdom; or
(b) to whom the provisions in (a) do not apply but who are eligible for indefinite leave to enter or remain or limited leave to enter or remain by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules.
(2) A person has settled status in the United Kingdom if that person meets the criteria set out in ‘Eligibility for indefinite leave to enter or remain’ or ‘Eligibility for limited leave to enter or remain’ in Immigration Rules Appendix EU.
(3) A person with settled status holds indefinite leave to enter or remain and has the rights provided by the withdrawal agreement for those holding permanent residence as defined in Article 15 of the agreement, even if that person is not in employment, has not been in employment or has no sufficient resources or comprehensive sickness insurance.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision—
(a) implementing Article 18(4) of the withdrawal agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document), including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence;
(b) implementing Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document) including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence; and
(c) implementing Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document), including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence.
(5) A person with settled status does not lose the right to reside for not having registered their settled status.
(6) A person who has settled status who has not registered their settled status by 30 June 2021 or any later date decided by the Secretary of State may register at any time after that date under the same conditions as those registering prior to that date.
(7) After 30 June 2021 or any later date decided by the Secretary of State, a person or their agent may require proof of registration of settled status under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument, subject to subsections (8) to (10).
(8) Any person or their agent who is allowed under subsection (7) to require proof of registration has discretion to establish by way of other means than proof of registration that the eligibility requirements for settled status under the provisions of this section have been met.
(9) When a person within the scope of this section is requested to provide proof of registration of settled status as a condition to retain social security benefits, housing assistance, access to public services or entitlements under a private contract, that person shall be given a reasonable period of at least three months to initiate the registration procedure set out in this section if that person has not already registered.
(10) During the reasonable period under subsection (9), and subsequently on the provision of proof of commencement of the registration procedure and until a final decision on registration on which no further administrative or judicial recourse is possible, a person cannot be deprived of existing social security benefits, housing assistance, access to public services or private contract entitlements on the grounds of not having proof of registration.
(11) The regulations adopted under subsection (7) must apply to all persons defined in subsection (1).
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(13) In this section—
“EEA EFTA separation agreement” means (as modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it) the Agreement on arrangements between Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the EEA Agreement and other agreements applicable between the United Kingdom and the EEA EFTA States by virtue of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union;
“residence scheme immigration rules” has the meaning defined in section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020;
“Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” means (as modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it) the Agreement signed at Bern on 25 February 2019 between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Swiss Confederation on citizens’ rights following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from— (a) the European Union, and (b) the free movement of persons agreement;
“withdrawal agreement” means the agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU (as that agreement is modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it).’
This new clause will ensure that all EU citizens have settled status (whether they’ve applied or not) and to require the Government to make available physical proof of settled status.
Amendment 34, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “, or in connection with,”
This amendment would narrow the scope of the powers provided to the Secretary of State in Clause 4, as recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in connection with the equivalent Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament.
Amendment 36, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that EEA and Swiss nationals, and adult dependants of EEA and Swiss nationals, who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
Amendment 32, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
‘(11) Subject to subsection (13), regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for ensuring that all qualifying persons have within the United Kingdom the rights set out in Title II of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and implementing the following provisions—
(a) Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (Issuance of residence documents);
(b) Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (Issuance of residence documents); and
(c) Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (Issuance of residence documents).
(12) In this section, “qualifying persons” means—
(a) those persons falling within the scope of the agreements referred to; and
(b) those eligible under the residence scheme immigration rules, as defined by section 17(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
(13) Notwithstanding subsection (11), regulations must confer a right of permanent, rather than temporary, residence on all qualifying persons residing in the UK prior to such date as the Secretary of State deems appropriate, being no earlier than 23rd June 2016.’
This amendment would mean that EEA and Swiss citizens residing in the UK would automatically have rights under Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (and equivalent provisions in the EEA EFTA and Swiss citizens rights agreements) rather than having to apply for them, and ensure that for the overwhelming majority, that status is permanent.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
‘(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for admission of EEA nationals as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons.
(12) Regulations made under subsection (1) may require that the EEA nationals entering as spouses, partners and children of UK citizens and settled persons can be “maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds” but in deciding whether that test is met, account must be taken of the prospective earnings of the EEA nationals seeking entry, as well as an third party support that may be available.
(13) Regulations made under subsection (1) must not include any test of financial circumstances beyond that set out in subsection (12).’
This amendment would ensure that UK nationals and settled persons can be joined in future by EU spouses and partners and children without application of the financial thresholds and criteria that apply to non-EEA spouses, partners and children.
Amendment 38, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
‘(11) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision enabling UK citizens falling within the personal scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement or the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement to return to the UK accompanied by, or to be joined in the UK by, close family members.
(12) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as at the date of this Act coming into force.
(13) References in subsection (11) to the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
(14) For the purposes of subsection (11), “close family members” means
(a) children (including adopted children); and
(b) other close family members where that relationship subsisted on or before 31st January 2020 and has continued to subsist.’
This amendment ensures that UK citizens who have been living abroad in the EEA and formed families before the UK left the EU, can return to the UK with those families under the rules that were in force before the UK left the EU.
Government amendments 1 to 4.
Amendment 35, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1A) Section 1 and Schedule 1 of this Act do not extend to Scotland.’
Amendment 39, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
‘(4A) Section 4 and section 7(5) expire on the day after the day specified as the deadline under section 7(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’
Government amendments 5 to 31.
There is a great deal of interest in this debate. I propose to start with a limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I know that those on the Front Benches are aware of the pressure on time.
Brendan O’Hara
New clause 1 stands in my name and in the names of the hon. Members listed on the Order Paper. It seeks an independent evaluation of the impact of the effect of this Bill specifically on the health and social care sector. The reason behind it is that the faith that this Government clearly have in their new points-based immigration scheme simply is not shared by tens of thousands of those working in the health and social care sector and millions of their service users.
As of this afternoon, no fewer than 50 organisations have given their backing to this new clause. Those organisations come from every part of the United Kingdom. They include: the Bevan Foundation; the Church of Scotland; Unison; the MS Society; the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations; the Centre for Independent Living in Northern Ireland; Disability Wales; the National Carers Organisation; Macmillan Cancer Support; the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; social workers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Voluntary Organisations’ Network North-East; and the Alliance for Camphill to name just a few.
By supporting new clause 1, all we are asking is that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, having consulted the relevant Ministers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as service providers and those requiring health and social care services, appoints an independent evaluator to assess the impact that this Bill will have on the sector and for Parliament then to debate and vote on that assessment. By accepting new clause 1, the Government would be saying to the sector, “We hear what you are saying. We recognise your fears and concerns, but we are confident that this new proposal will not adversely affect those caring for the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.” The Government would then be saying that they are happy to have that independent evaluation of these changes once it has been implemented.
The reason that this new clause has received such widespread support in the sector is that they, as the people who work on the frontline, simply cannot see how this Bill will help to deliver a better service to the millions of people throughout the UK who rely on it every day of their lives. One can understand their concerns, given that the sector is already struggling to recruit and retain the workforce that it needs right now to look after an ageing population, and a population with increasingly complex care needs.
At the end of September 2019, NHS England reported 120,000 unfilled posts. That is an increase of 22,000 on the previous year and it is a pattern that is being repeated across the United Kingdom. It is a bad situation, and it is one that is getting worse. There is genuine concern in the sector that the Government do not know what to do about it, and it is a concern that is only heightened by what is contained in the Bill.
In and of itself, filling those existing vacancies will be a major long-term challenge, but it becomes even more so if the Government are genuine about fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge to give every older person the dignity and the security that they deserve. To do that, they would not only need to fill the 120,000 vacancies that exist now, but would have to vastly increase the number of people recruited into the sector over a long and sustained period of time. The Nuffield Trust has said that providing just one hour of care to an elderly person with high needs who currently does not receive help would require 50,000 additional home care workers, rising to 90,000 if two hours’ care were to be provided. We must add to that the fact that one in four of the current health and social care workforce is aged 55 or over and therefore due to retire at some point in the next decade, resulting in a further 320,000 vacancies. I can understand why people are very worried. I cannot see how this Bill facilitates finding that army of workers, but, more importantly, no one I have spoken to in the health and social care sector sees how it can. In fact, there is a commonly held belief that the Bill will make recruitment of staff far more difficult and the delivery of what the UK Government claim they want well-nigh impossible.
I have said it before and I make no apology for repeating it: I believe that freedom of movement has been extremely good for this country and I bitterly regret seeing it go. It has been economically, socially and culturally beneficial for the UK. But if the Government are determined to abandon it, then the least they can do is to make sure that the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable are not disproportionately affected by it. I do not believe they have done that. I do not believe for a minute that they have considered the impact that this Bill will have on the health and social care sector—but I am prepared to be proven wrong. By accepting new clause 1, the Government will give the health and social care sector the confidence that this Government do know what they are doing, that they have carefully considered what the ending of freedom of movement will mean, and that they have a plan in place to protect the sector—and, more importantly, to protect those who rely on it.
Surely if the Government are really as confident about the efficacy of this new immigration Bill and the points-based system as they claim, they have nothing to fear from a comprehensive, independent evaluation that is there purely to assess the impact on the sector across the four nations of the UK. Indeed, it would be the prudent and responsible thing for the Government to do in order to ensure that any changes to the immigration system do not, however inadvertently, adversely affect the care needs of our most vulnerable.
This independent evaluation would not only ensure that no harm has been done to service users, but give any future Government a head start when planning and making decisions in the sector, particularly around recruitment of staff and investment. Surely the Minister can accept that such a far-reaching change as this should not happen on a wing and a prayer without a proper bespoke impact assessment on the sector—which there has not been—or at least an appropriate mechanism by which this House and Parliaments across the UK are able to accurately measure the effectiveness or otherwise of such a radical change.
By accepting new clause 1, the Government would ensure that these issues were being tackled from a foundation of accurate and independent research, allowing national Governments, local authorities, health and social care sectors, third-sector organisations and other key agencies to make strategic planning decisions while being fully informed by robust and independent evidence, thus securing the long-term future of the sector.
As probably never before, the people across the nations of the United Kingdom have come to appreciate the outstanding contribution made by those who work in our health and social care services. I doubt there is a family anywhere in the UK who has not benefited from their help in the past few months. But along with our sincere thanks and gratitude, we owe them an assurance that we will do everything we can to support them and the sector, and that must include providing them with the assurance that no decision taken in this place will undermine or adversely affect them. I hope the Minister will see that the Government have nothing to lose, but rather lots to gain, from agreeing to such an independent evaluation of the impact of this Bill on the health and social care sector, and I implore him to accept new clause 1.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
First, I declare my interests in the register. Secondly, it is getting rather difficult to talk to so many amendments in the space of six minutes. Perhaps I should have applied for a ten-minute rule Bill beforehand and got all my points in through that. I want to talk primarily to my new clauses 2 and 29. I certainly put on record my support for new clauses 7 to 10 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
A ten-minute rule Bill would have been good. In respect of new clause 29, which my hon. Friend is also speaking to, the Government will say that the matter is subject to negotiation, and that acting now would pre-empt and tread on that. I always listen with great respect to what he says, and I take a lead from him in many regards. Why is that not the pertinent point?
Tim Loughton
I have not actually come on to new clause 29 yet, and other people will speak to that point, but the problem is that the Government position has been weakened. They produced a negotiation document, which now has a discretionary scheme, rather than the mandatory scheme. The EU will be even less likely to want to agree to that, and it is absolutely essential that we have a scheme in place, otherwise on 1 January next year there will be no safe and legal route for the several hundreds of children who have been coming to this country safely to avail themselves of. That is the problem.
New clause 2 would ensure that all looked-after children and care leavers were identified and given status so that they do not become undocumented. Issuing settled status now would prevent another cliff edge in the future. These young people would have to re-apply for settled status in five years’ time, perhaps without the help of the local authority. The evidential burden would be lowered for local authorities applying and for Home Office caseworkers, saving time with the complex application process. The amendment to the process for identification and granting status is time-limited. As set out in the new clause, it would be effective for five years after the settlement scheme deadline, until 30 June 2026.
These are really vulnerable children. We do a great job of looking after them in this country, from which we can take great pride. For goodness’ sake, let us continue being able to do that job and keep them here legally without allowing them to become at risk. This is not about bringing lots of new children into the country—they are already here. We just want to make sure they have representation, recognition and the documentation to ensure that when they grow into adults and apply for a job, it is not all of a sudden found that actually they have no right to be here and they face deportation.
New clause 29—what a sense of déjà vu—was raised many times during the Brexit Bills. We were convinced by Ministers that that was not the appropriate place for it. I accepted that. We were told that it would be in the immigration Bill instead. It is not in the immigration Bill. We have been told that it is going to be down to the negotiations instead. Time is running out; the Dublin III scheme ends in exactly six months’ time, and there is no replacement for it yet.
As I said, the Government published their negotiation document. The most fundamental problem with the scheme that is now being negotiated—it is not guaranteed —is that the text removes all mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate family reunions and would make a child’s right to join their relatives entirely discretionary. The text intentionally avoids providing rights to children, contains no appeal process and attempts to be beyond the reach of the United Kingdom courts. Other categories of vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children, would lose access to family reunion entirely, and a series of other key safeguards have been removed, including strict deadlines for responses and responsibility for gathering information being on the state rather than the child.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Farron
I am at the far end of the Chamber, but I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman; I am very close to him when it comes to the point he is making. Obviously, this is a very regrettable state of affairs. Does he agree that it would be right for the Minister, at the Dispatch Box today, to commit the United Kingdom to signing up to the equivalent of Dublin so that children who are here unaccompanied can have their family come and join them, and children from outside this country who are unaccompanied can come and join family members here? That is the right and decent thing to do, and it would be continuing our obligations to those people.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman is right. Actually, the Government have said all along that that is their intention. I have had meetings with many Immigration Ministers over the last few years. I remember going to see the then Immigration Minister, who is now the Northern Ireland Secretary, after Baroness Morgan and I visited Athens with UNICEF. We visited some of the camps out there and saw some of the children who would qualify for this scheme. We were given clear undertakings that it was absolutely the Government’s intention to make sure that after we came out of the EU, when Dublin III no longer covered the United Kingdom, we would have a scheme at least as good as what there is now.
Again, we are talking about just a few hundred children. We are not talking about attracting thousands of children to this country; it is a few hundred specifically identified children—usually through some of our agencies operating in refugee camps and around the world—who have family links in this country. In some cases, those will be their only family links. They may have lost their parents in the civil war in Syria; they may be at the hands of people traffickers, fleeing abuse, fleeing war zones or whatever, and it may be that a brother, an uncle or an aunt is the only family member they have left and that that person is legally in the United Kingdom. Those are some of the most vulnerable children whom we have done a fantastic job of giving a safe home to in recent years, and it is essential that we carry that scheme on. It is a mandatory scheme, and it is a scheme of which we should be hugely proud.
That is why now is the time for new clause 29. We have had fob-offs, frankly, over recent years about why it would not be appropriate to put this in legislation. We need a very clear statement and intent from the Government today that there will be a scheme in operation on 1 January. I know that it depends on negotiations, but if all else fails, we can put in place our own scheme that is at least as good as Dublin. That is what the new clause tries to achieve.
We have a great record in this area. We have taken almost 20,000 refugees under the Syrian scheme. We targeted 20,000; we have actually taken 19,768. We have invested more than £2.3 billion in Syrian refugees—more than any other country in the EU. We have filled the 480 Dubs places. We have a great record, so why on earth would we not want to make sure that we continue that great record for some of the most vulnerable children fleeing from danger, whom we have been able to afford safe and legal passage to join relatives in the United Kingdom?
That is what the new clause asks for. We have to do better. I and my constituents will not be able to understand it if we fail to give a strong commitment that this country continues to want to do the best by those really vulnerable children. For that reason, I support new clause 29 as well.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to return to the Chamber for the Report stage of this important Bill and to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I will return later to the merits of new clauses 2 and 29, but I will focus my comments on the merits of new clauses 13 to 15, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I will also outline our support for several other new clauses that have appeal across the Labour Benches, not least new clause 1, the lead amendment in this group.
I am sorry that we could not persuade the Government to engage further with us on any of the amendments or new clauses that we tabled in Committee, but we have the opportunity on Report to make the case again for different approaches in certain areas. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke to new clause 13, which called on the Government to review “no recourse to public funds” with a focus on vulnerable groups, including those with children and victims of domestic violence. We had hoped that such a review would establish an evidence base allowing for a more informed parliamentary discussion on the broader issue.
In the immediate term, we have already called for “no recourse to public funds” to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. On 21 April, we asked the Government to lift NRPF as a condition on a person’s migration status, in order to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken to fight against coronavirus.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right. “No recourse to public funds” is one reason for what is happening in Leicester. Is she aware that both the Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, on a cross-party basis, unanimously called for the suspension of the “no recourse to public funds” restrictions for the duration of the pandemic?
Holly Lynch
My right hon. Friend, alongside the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, has done an awful lot of work in this area, not least with the support of the Prime Minister. In response to his question about NRPF on 27 May, the Prime Minister said:
“Clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support…we will see what we can do to help”.
My right hon. Friend was right to raise this important point. The Children’s Society estimates that about 1 million people and at least 100,000 children have no recourse to public funds. Although new clause 13 has been drafted to sit within the scope of the Bill, it would start to deliver on the spirit of the Prime Minister’s commitment.
Local authorities have already had instructions from central Government to this effect. On 26 March, Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to all councils asking them to utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with no recourse to public funds. People are, however, still facing destitution and a postcode lottery at the discretion of their local authority without a clear steer from the Home Office. With this in mind, we hope that new clause 13 will have the support of the House. It would prevent any extension of this condition to those who would lose their free movement rights for the course of the pandemic, and would ensure that NRPF could not be re-imposed without a proper parliamentary debate and a vote in both Houses.
Tim Farron
In addition to the imposition and the hardship that comes from “no recourse to public funds”, there is the burden that many asylum seekers face when it comes to being able to work. Does the hon. Member agree that it is right that we give asylum seekers the right to work while they wait for their application to be heard, not least because it would save the public money and give those people the dignity of work and the ability to provide for their own families and to begin to integrate much earlier?
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We spoke in favour of the “Lift the Ban” campaign, which would have given asylum seekers the right to work after six months of not receiving a decision on their asylum claims. He is absolutely right that that would restore a degree of dignity to those in the system who have skills and are willing to work and want to contribute to the communities that they call their new homes. He is right to raise that important point.
On new clause 14, we very much welcome the Government’s commitment to scrap the NHS surcharge for migrant health and care workers. However, given that the commitment was made more than a month ago and that, to date, no progress as to how it will be delivered has been forthcoming, we have tabled new clause 14, which has, once again, been crafted to sit within the scope of this legislation and would make a start on enshrining the commitment in law.
The fee was described as “appalling, immoral and monstrous” by Lord Patten, the former Conservative party chairman. The general secretary for the Royal College of Nursing, Dame Donna Kinnair, said,
“it is a shame it took this pandemic for the government to see sense.”
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and Unison have all written to the Prime Minister to ask for practical clarification on his commitment. I also asked the Minister at Committee stage for an update on rolling out the policy change, but we are no nearer to having any insight into what progress, if any, has been made.
We worked with EveryDoctor, the doctor-led campaigning organisation to reach out to the 25,000-plus doctors on their Facebook group. It started a poll on Friday asking doctors to let it know if they had had to pay the immigration health surcharge since 21 May. So far, we have heard back from 55 doctors—all 55 have had to pay the charge.
I spoke to three of those doctors this morning. I thank them for their service to the NHS in our hour of need. Upon hearing their stories of what we make them go through in order to stay in this country and work in our NHS, I was genuinely embarrassed. They have each changed their roles within the NHS over the last three months. The automatic visa extension only covers those who are in the same job. If someone is moving to or from a 12-month specialist training post, for example, which is common in the NHS, they need to apply for a new visa, as they will be transferring sponsor, even though the move is within the NHS. They will not get a new visa without first paying the health surcharge.
I heard from Dr Olivia Misquitta, who is switching to a training placement role from paediatrics and who has been asked to pay the health surcharge twice in seven months—the last time being just last week, on 24 June. She hopes that eventually she will be refunded. I also heard from Dr Ahmed Bani Sadara, from Pakistan, who is working in orthopaedics but starts his GP training in August. His change in visa means that, on 1 June, he had to pay the health surcharge for himself, his wife and his six-month-old daughter, having already been asked to pay the charge for his daughter when she was born in this country just six months ago.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that social care workers and NHS porters and cleaners—those who do some of the most important jobs on the covid frontline—have not been included in the free visa extension and, as a result, are also being pressured to pay the immigration surcharge? Does she agree that the free visa extension ought to be extended to cover the lowest paid staff in the NHS and social care?
Holly Lynch
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In her capacity as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she has pushed for this issue a great deal, and I commend her for that work. I agree with her wholeheartedly.
In the long term, we need to look at the sponsorship issue. If medical professionals had simply the NHS as a sponsor, rather than individual trusts, that simple step would transform the visa system and the fees for those working on the frontline of healthcare provision.
On the health surcharge, we seek to press new clause 14 to a vote, unless we are given a clear steer and assurances about how and when the changes will come into effect, and how those who have had to pay the fee since the announcement was made will be reimbursed.
New clause 15 would quite simply exempt NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge. As things stand, NHS trusts pay the skills charge for those coming to work in the NHS from countries outside the EU, and they will be expected to pay those costs for those coming from the EU after free movement ends. However, in the context of the NHS, where certain clinical skills are simply not available in the domestic labour pool, levelling a tax on NHS trusts for having no choice other than to plug their staff shortages from the international talent pool is nothing short of an outrage. An NHS trust cannot unilaterally decide to train more nurses from the domestic labour force, for example; it needs Government intervention to deliver that uplift.
We have clinical workforce shortages almost right across the board in the NHS, and that is while we have had free movement. We submitted freedom of information requests to 224 NHS hospital trusts in England, asking them how much they were losing from their budgets to pay these charges back to the Government. To give an indication of what some hospitals are paying out, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust told us that in just one year—the 2019-2020 financial year—it paid the Government £972,000. It has paid over £2 million in immigration skills charges since 2017. Over the past three financial years, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust had to pay the Government £961,000 in immigration skills charges. Only 21% of trusts have responded to the FOI request so far, but this tells us that nearly £13 million has been taken back out of NHS budgets and handed over to the Government since 2017. That is nearly £13 million from just 21% of the hospital trusts in England. The fact that some hospitals could be paying out nearly £1 million in immigration skills charges in a single year must surely be a sign that the system is not working as intended, and this is all while people have been able to come and work in the NHS under free movement, where fees would not have been applicable. That is about to come to an end. I urge the Minister to adopt new clause 15, to mitigate any further detrimental impact on the NHS workforce and to ensure that NHS funding stays in the NHS.
I will briefly touch on the two other changes we have proposed. Amendment 39 would time-limit the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. These powers have been widely criticised by experts, and efforts from both Labour and the Scottish National party in Committee to curb the powers or to ask the Government to state explicitly on the face of the Bill what they would be used for have been to no avail. Amendment 39 would tie them to the end date of the EU settlement scheme.
I want to take this opportunity to say that we also support new clause 29, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), with cross-party support. This new clause would seek to continue the existing arrangements for unaccompanied child refugees and maintain our commitment to family reunion. I was reassured by the Minister’s positive response to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on this issue during the urgent question yesterday, and I hope that discussions can continue in that positive spirit. We also support new clauses 7 to 10, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which reflect the sustained cross-party appetite to ensure that immigration detention is limited to 28 days, bringing about an end to unfair and unjust indefinite detention.
We are also keen to support new clause 2, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has already given his very articulate explanation as to why it matters so much. We tabled new clause 58 in Committee to the same effect as his new clause, seeking to grant settled status to all those eligible children who are currently in the care of local authorities or who are care leavers. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has been able to share with the House some of the latest research from the Children’s Society, which foresees a bleak outlook if we do not take action on this important issue now, taking the responsibility from local authorities who are stretched as they have never been stretched before in order to make an application on behalf of a child. This is a cohort of children and young people who are our responsibility. We, the state, are acting as their legal guardians. They have already had the worst possible start in life, so let us do the best we can for them by at least giving them confidence in their immigration status.
As we have already heard through freedom of information requests, the Children’s Society identified a sample of 404 children who have had their status confirmed through the scheme, out of an estimated 9,000. Of those, 282 were granted settled status and 122 were granted pre-settled status. Given everything that those kids have been through, let us not sign them up for more years of paperwork and burdens of proof by giving them pre-settled status. Let us take all that uncertainty off the table for them by adopting new clause 2 and giving them indefinite leave to remain, as was so articulately outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
I very much hope that the Minister is open to the concerns that have been raised during the passage of the Bill and will no doubt be raised again this afternoon, but we are minded to take new clauses 13, 14 and 15 further if we are not satisfied that the Government are taking steps to mitigate the impact of the Bill and deliver on the promises that they have already made, not least to our brilliant NHS care workers.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will speak to new clauses 7 to 10, but before I do, may I add my support to new clauses 2 and 29 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)? As an ex-Brexit Secretary, I see no reason whatever to wait on the negotiation in order to take his clauses forward.
Today there is no limit on the amount of time for which people can be held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom. We are the only country in Europe that takes this stance. At the end of 2019, the individual detained in a holding centre for the longest period had been held for 1,002 days. In earlier years those numbers were even worse. These people are detained without trial or due process, oversight or basic freedoms, and they are carrying the debilitating psychological burden of having no idea when they will be released.
This flies in the face of centuries of British justice. Its operation has been severely criticised by the chief inspector of prisons, the chief inspector of borders, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Law Society and the Bar Council—quite a bunch of radicals, I would say. As a result of this early criticism, the Home Office had to reduce the numbers in the system, for which it claimed credit in a briefing note issued this morning. This is an improvement towards bringing down the numbers, but is still nowhere near right. We need a 28-day limit on immigration detention, and that is the purpose of my new clauses.
The Government also claimed in that briefing note that 97% of the occupants of immigration holding centres are foreign national offenders. Well, that is technically true, since at the moment, under covid-19 emergency arrangements, we have temporarily put out into the community a significant majority of the people who were detained in holding centres, keeping in only the most serious cases. In fact, in normal times—to which we will presumably return when the covid-19 crisis is over—the average proportion of foreign national offenders who have been detained over five years is 22%. The figure is never more than 23% and is normally at 19% to 20%. That tells us that four out of five detainees in these centres have no criminal action against them whatever; they are innocent people.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend is saying. Not only is his point correct, but I have found out, as a result of tabling a question to the Home Secretary, that over the past five years the taxpayer has had to pay out in excess of £20 million to people who were unlawfully detained. Is he aware of that?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I will return in a moment because it impinges on another claim made by the Home Office that is plainly not true.
We have established what these people are not—they are not all foreign national offenders—but we should understand what they are. I do not have time in the six minutes available to me to go through all of them, but I have in front of me case after case of people who have suffered human trafficking, torture, rape, forced prostitution and modern slavery—mostly before they got to these shores, but in some cases after they arrived here too. Many are damaged people to whom the world has dealt a very, very rough hand. And what do we do when they come here for our help? We lock them up for an indefinite period.
Tim Farron
The right hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I fully agree with everything that he has said so far. Is he aware of the detailed research by the Jesuit Refugee Service that looks into the psychological condition of the very people he is talking about? The research finds that that psychological condition is influenced by even the shortest of stays in indefinite detention and discusses what that means for those people and their families for the rest of their lives. I am sure that he understands that the Government need to consider the mental health and psychological impact of this kind of inhumane treatment.
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman is right: any stay is damaging. If someone was psychologically damaged before they arrived, it is even more damaging. If they do not know how long they will be detained, it is even more damaging again. He may remember that we had huge battles in this House over 90 days’ detention without charge, with the great defeat of Blair. We are now talking about detention of three months, four months, five months and three years.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely compelling case, and I am proud to have signed his new clauses. Will he take this opportunity to put on record a view that I think he shares with me—that people who are serious offenders should be promptly deported, not living in the UK at taxpayer expense?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend pre-empts the point that I am about to come to. A few are villains, and I would be the first to concede that, along with him. Predictably, as the Home Office always does when it has a weak case, it trotted out the gory details this morning—it listed 29 rapists, 52 violent offenders, 27 child sex offenders and 43 other sex offenders—designed, no doubt, to make our blood curdle.
That brings me to the other point of these new clauses. My question to the Minister, which I hope he will answer when he winds up the debate, is: when precisely did the Government start deportation proceedings on all those serious cases? Did they start the day that those people went into prison or sufficiently far in advance that those serious villains could go straight from prison to plane, with no stop at the detention centre? No, they did not, I am sure, but I would like to hear whether the Minister thinks they did the right thing on that.
The fact is that, to borrow a phrase from a former Home Secretary, the Home Office is not fit for purpose in managing deportations. Part of the point of these new clauses is to force the Home Office to get its act together, deal with the villains and stop punishing the innocent. That is why there is a six-month delay built into the new clauses—to give it time to get a grip.
I have one simple thing to say to the House. I have long been proud of our British justice system, but I am ashamed of what our incompetent deportation system does to people who arrived on our shores already badly damaged by human trafficking and modern slavery. It is time we put it right with new clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am in the unusual position of agreeing with pretty much everything that has been said by all four speakers so far, which I do not get to say very often, particularly in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara).
We in the SNP believe that this is a bad Bill—bad for families and bad for businesses—that sells EU nationals short and extends the scope of the hostile environment. Meanwhile, we have seen the Home Office move from disinterest in specific solutions for devolved nations to disdain bordering sometimes on contempt. It has been made clear during the passage of the Bill that there is to be no remote areas pilot scheme, despite that being a recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee and an earlier Home Office commitment. Our amendments give Parliament a last chance to remedy these defects, and we will support other amendments that seek to find a silver lining to this Bill, such as amendments on putting a time limit on immigration detention, protecting care leavers, and protecting family reunion rights.
Turning first to the issue of family, sadly, this Bill will destroy more families by extending the scope of some of the most anti-family migration rules on earth. The degree of complacency that there is in Parliament about the damage these rules do to families and children surprises me. Five years ago, just three years after the rules were introduced, England’s Children’s Commissioner estimated there were nearly 15,000 Skype families in the UK—kids separated from a parent overseas because of these ludicrous financial thresholds. These rules do not even take into account the prospective income of the persons applying to come into the country. The commissioner said at the time:
“Many of the children interviewed for this research suffer from stress and anxiety, affecting their well-being and development. It is also likely to have an impact on their educational attainment and outcomes because they have been separated from a parent, due to these inflexible rules which take little account of regional income levels or family support available.”
Amendment 33 puts a brake on extension of these rules and, as the commissioner recommended, starts putting the heart back into the policy.
A second group of families that are being put in an impossible position by this Bill are those formed by UK citizens living across the EEA who may in future want to come back here with their family. These are UK nationals who would have had no reason to doubt that if they had a family while abroad, they would have derived rights to return here with their family members to the UK without having to jump the impossible hurdles of the UK’s domestic family migration rules; they could not have predicted Brexit, and applying the UK family rules to them, denying many a right to return here with their family, would seem incredibly unfair.
To be fair to the Minister, he has acknowledged that there is an issue here and has provided a grace period until 2022, during which such families can return, but this is essentially just kicking the can a little bit further down the road. It still leaves many with horrible decisions to make: do they uproot their families now, just in case they do not qualify to return later on? None of these families could have predicted that they would be in this position, so why not remove the cut-off point altogether, as amendment 38 seeks to ensure?
Finally on the issue of family, we are 100% behind the cross-party amendment on family reunion. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will say much more about that shortly, and we fully support what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has already said, but it is plain to see that, despite talking a good game, the Government’s proposals mean they are backsliding on earlier commitments made to the House; they mean fewer safe legal routes for children to get to family here, and that means more children risking dangerous, unsafe routes. The Government’s stance is a boon for traffickers and people smugglers and a disaster for children and families, and that is why we must support new clause 29.
This Bill is not just anti-family; it is anti-business. I have spoken enough at previous stages about the huge problems that salary and skills thresholds will cause when the new system is brought into force, but today I want to focus briefly on the problems that the Bill will cause even if a job qualifies for a visa under the tier 2 system. Our system will make it unbelievably difficult and expensive to bring workers in, and will make this country an eye-wateringly unattractive place for people to come to. Figures from the international immigration law firm Fragomen show that under the future immigration system a tier 2 worker who enters the UK to work for five years with a partner and three kids could potentially involve a total payment to the Home Office of £27,000 upfront from October, once costs such as sponsorship licence fees and the immigration health surcharge are included. That is over 12 times as much as the equivalent for Canada and over 17 times as much as Germany, and it is similarly uncompetitive for other family arrangements.
Of course, skilled workers from the EEA are able to work in any other EEA country without paying a penny and with no need for the stress and uncertainty of a visa application. So if there is a skilled and sought-after French worker, that person can go to Dublin without paying a penny, no questions asked, but to get to Belfast they will need to pay many thousands of pounds and endure a Home Office visa process. It is a perfect incentive for skilled workers to go elsewhere, and it is a perfect incentive for key employers to move their businesses elsewhere. That is why we have tabled new clause 17, so that the Government have to be upfront and open with Parliament about the costs they are imposing on businesses and unskilled workers.
It is also why we have introduced new clause 16, a first step to removing the ridiculous immigration health surcharge, which makes up most of these humungous fees—a nonsensical double poll tax on workers, which is set to increase to £624 per person per year, all of which needs to be paid upfront.
So this Bill risks making it very hard to attract European workers to come to the UK in future, but what of the EU workers who are already here and other EU nationals? Amendment 32 would ensure that all EU citizens who are already here have automatic rights to remain and physical proof of their status. We support new clause 2, which would put in place that same right for looked-after children. Assuming, with regret, that the Government are not about to do that, they need to tell us much more about how they will respond when we wake up on 1 July next year to find an extra few hundred thousand undocumented EU migrants, without rights and potentially subject to removal. What will the Home Office do when a 70-year-old French woman writes to say: “I had permanent residence under the old scheme. I didn’t think I needed to apply, but now the DVLA have refused my driving licence and they say I’m here illegally.” What is the Home Office going to do in such circumstances?
The Government say that they will be “reasonable”, but what exactly does that mean? In Committee, the Minister helpfully explained that he will publish guidance for caseworkers with a non-exhaustive list of examples in which late applications will be allowed. That would be welcome and useful, but the key point is that I want to see it—and I want to see it before we close the EU settlement scheme to applications. Parliament should know precisely how late applications are to be treated before it allows the scheme to close. That is what new clause 34 would ensure.
Two other new clauses seek to push the Government towards fairer treatment of EEA nationals. New clause 36 flags up a new problem relating to EEA nationals who seek to become UK citizens. In fairness to previous Home Office Ministers, when the settlement scheme was established, the Home Office did not insist, as it could have done, on proof of comprehensive sickness insurance in deciding who had been legitimately exercising free movement rights. For some reason known only to itself, the Home Office has now decided to insist on that when it comes to applications for citizenship. That seems an awful miserly approach to take, and I urge the Minister to revisit it.
New clause 21 flags up the issue of those EEA nationals who have a right in law to register as British citizens, and I am grateful for the cross-party support for the clause. We are talking not about adults who have made a proactive choice to come here but about children and young people who were born here or who have been here since they were young, whose parents have subsequently settled or who have lived the first 10 years of their life here. In short, they are children and young people who had no choice over the fact that this is their home country. In law they have just as much right to British citizenship as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or me; the only difference is that they have to register. When Parliament passed the relevant careful laws, the fee for the process was set simply at the cost of processing, but it has now rocketed to over £1,000—just to access British citizenship. That is profiteering on the backs of children and it has to stop.
Finally, I turn to the issue of the devolved nations. The end of free movement will have drastic implications for Scotland, and if anything the challenges for Northern Ireland will be even more extreme. Home Office disinterest in any notion of a differentiated system has transformed into hostility. New clause 33, which has cross-party support, simply makes the modest proposal that, instead of its usual dismissive attitude, the Home Office looks seriously at the options for addressing issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the Government refusing to look at any regional variation, some in Scotland had at least taken comfort from the MAC recommendation of a remote areas pilot scheme to encourage migration to areas that have a very small labour market. Originally, the Home Office accepted that recommendation, yet in Committee the Government said it had been abandoned. New clause 24 would restore that provision, and I certainly hope that MPs from all parties who represent constituencies with remote areas will insist that the Home Office thinks again.
It is clearer than ever that the only way we will have an immigration system that remotely reflects our needs and circumstances and fixes the injustices that it contains is if we design one ourselves but, given the Home Office intransigence, I have no problem making the case that control over migration will be a key advantage of independence.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
There is no doubt that the Bill represents an important milestone in both the restructuring of the UK outside the European Union and the fulfilment of the promise that we made to, and that was endorsed by, the British people at the 2019 general election to end free movement. As an overarching policy, it is one that I endorse but, as with any wholesale reform to a national system—in this case immigration—there will be people caught up in the shifting sands created around them who, because of their own personal circumstances, will need specific understanding, attention and support to prevent them from being pushed to the very edges of society. Those people include, as we have heard, children in care and care leavers entitled to ongoing support. To that end, as a former Children’s Minister, I instinctively have sympathy for new clause 2, which proposes the provision of automatic settled status for all children in care and care leavers. In the short time available to me, I shall confine my remarks to new clause 2.
As we transition to a new legal framework for our immigration system, it is only right that, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said previously, we help to ensure that no one is left behind. As I understand it, new clause 2 is an attempt to put that principle into practice for children in care and care leavers, rather than leave it to chance.
Tim Loughton
As my hon. Friend and I have both done the same job, I think we appreciate the real problems that social workers and local authorities are having in identifying these children. Does he agree with me that part of the problem is that the Department for Education does not routinely collect data on the nationality of the children it looks after in the first place? Is it not essential that that is the very minimum that needs to happen if we are to identify all of those children who would be covered by this scheme?
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is right. When one is trying to understand the consequences of the actions one takes as a Minister—as we heard in the statement earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—the enrichment of data can help us appreciate whether we are making good progress. In the independent school exclusions review that I carried out for the Government last year, a lot of my recommendations were about getting better data about the children in our systems, why they are there and how we can better track them, so that we know we are making good decisions on their behalf. I agree that that information would be relevant to the considerations under new clause 2.
It is important that we get this right. The corporate parenting principles that we legislated for in 2017 are designed for circumstances just like these. Please can we make sure that we live up to them?
Yvette Cooper
I support the points made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and new clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), because we have a responsibility to ensure that children in care do not miss out on the European settlement scheme through no fault of their own, and that we do not end up with another Windrush generation because nobody was looking out for those young people and they missed out on their rights—just never got the right papers.
I will speak to new clauses 29, 30 and 32, as well as other new clauses that I support. New clause 29 seeks only to continue the UK’s current commitments to help child refugees. I welcome the work the Government have done to support Syrian families, to speed up the Dublin scheme and to support the Dubs scheme, as well as the recent flight from Greece. All of that work resulted from cross-party debates in this House that the Government rightly responded to. We should not turn the clock back now or rip up that progress.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have talked about their
“proud record on supporting the most vulnerable children”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 318.]
Does she accept that there can be no children more vulnerable than those she is talking about, and that the Government simply must maintain this commitment?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We are talking about children and teenagers who are alone, with no one to care for them, but who have family here who could look after them.
The Government have said that we should instead rely on the draft text they have put forward in the transition negotiations. However, the Minister knows that the draft text represents a major downgrade in support and rights for lone child and teen refugees. All it does is allow EU member states to request the transfer of an asylum claim. There is no obligation on the UK even to consider it, never mind accept it. There are no objective criteria on which an application could be based, no appeal rights and no safeguarding timetables to make sure that a case does not drift endlessly, leaving a child in danger and in limbo, and the child with no family will no longer have legal rights.
Let us consider the case of a 14-year-old stuck in the awful Moria camp on Lesbos, whose older sister or aunt is living here and could care for them. If the Home Office loses, ignores or refuses the Greek request for a transfer to the UK to join family, there will be nothing the child, the family or anyone else can do. That is wrong.
The Government do not need to wait for the negotiations to be completed. We should just decide what we think is right. We have the ability to do that. Whatever other countries decide, we in Britain should continue our support for child and teen refugees who are alone and need support. Any Member of this House who has visited the camps in Greece or northern France will know how desperate, unsanitary and dangerous the conditions can be. No child should be abandoned alone in a dilapidated refugee camp or shelter when they have close relatives here who would welcome them with open arms, care for them, get them back into education and reclaim a future for them.
Some child and teen refugees have fled war or escaped being child soldiers. Many have been abused, sexually exploited or assaulted, and many have lost family members along the way. Without safe legal routes to sanctuary, they will be easy prey to trafficking and smuggler gangs, and we know quite how perilous that can be. Desperate young people have already lost their lives; we should not turn our backs on them now. We need to sustain those safe and legal routes. That is why I urge the Minister to support new clause 29.
New clause 30 is intended to ensure that the new immigration system helps rather than harms our economy and public services by calling for a proper assessment of its impact on social care, similar to that in new clause 1, which I support. The Migration Advisory Committee said in its report that these changes will “increase pressure on social care”, yet so far there has been no plan from the Government on how they are going to address that. Social care and those workers are far too important to be ignored. That is why, as well as supporting new clauses 13 to 15—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the Front Bench—about supporting the contribution made by many of those workers during the covid crisis, I also urge the Minister to accept the spirit behind one of the other clauses that we tabled which is not in scope today, but which urges the Government to extend the free visa extension to social care workers, as well as to the NHS, doctors and medics. Supporting doctors and nurses is right, but excluding the care workers who hold dying residents’ hands, the cleaners who scrub the door handles and the floors of the covid wards, or the porters who take patients to intensive care is just wrong. We should be supporting them as well.
I will also speak to new clause 32, which is about trying to make sure the system operates fairly, because by default, the Bill extends the hostile environment, even though the Windrush scandal has shown the damage that some of those measures can do. The housing provisions do not benefit the immigration system, but they do lead to discrimination for legal residents and British citizens, including discrimination based on the colour of their skin. That is why the Home Affairs Committee recommended a full review of the hostile environment and why Wendy Williams’ report has called for the same. Extending those hostile environment measures now, rather than accepting the recommendation of Wendy Williams’ report, is the wrong thing to do.
I also support new clauses 7 and 8 in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Again, those reflect recommendations of the cross-party Home Affairs Committee, because we have found that by not having a limit on detention and not having proper reviews and safeguards, too often, the system just drifts. Too often, people are just left in limbo because there are not proper safeguards to make sure things happen in time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Yvette Cooper
I will not—I am conscious of time. The Government have a responsibility through this Bill to ensure that they build a system that can build consensus and cross-party support; that supports our economy and public services and does not undermine that; that recognises and rewards the huge contribution that people have made to this country, including and especially during the covid-19 crisis; that is fair and respects people; and that continues to support those who are most vulnerable, and particularly children and child refugees. The amendments that I and others have put forward are in that spirit of building a system that can provide consensus across the country. I urge the Minister to accept them.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Having served on the Public Bill Committee and knowing how much my constituents across Bishop Auckland care about this important Bill, it is my pleasure to speak in support of it in this debate.
We must never lose sight of why we are having this debate and why it is so important: this Bill symbolises the trust that voters put in our nation to decide our own immigration rules and, in turn, the trust that they put in this place to get those rules right. The Bill marks the start of a journey that will provide the framework to allow doctors, scientists and engineers to come to this country, contribute and make it their home, whether they are from Austria or Australia, Italy or India. There are some who mourn the end of free movement and indeed some—mainly on the Opposition side of the House—who would keep it indefinitely, but rather than seeing the changes to free movement as the end of a chapter of our migration story, we should view this as the start of the story in which Britain opens its arms to the rest of the world.
Turning to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—he is no longer in his place, but I have great respect for him and he has long been a proud champion of liberty—it is important that we look in detail at immigration detention and remember the reason why it is used. In moving into this new immigration system, we must remain robust and firm. We must have a level and fair immigration system, but one where those who fall foul and offend are dealt with and face sufficiently serious consequences.
Let us be clear: immigration detention is only ever used as a last resort. It is only used as an immediate precursor to removal from the country or where there is a serious risk of someone absconding or causing harm to the public. As with any system, there will be those who slip between the nets, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that these people are being fully considered in this legislation. However, looking at the current immigration detention figures, we see that 97% of people currently in detention are foreign national offenders, who have committed some of the most serious, heinous, disgraceful crimes—crimes such as murder, rape and child abuse.
By implementing an arbitrary time limit on immigration detention, we could make it much more difficult for those offenders to be removed from our country. That is not good enough and it is not something my constituents in Bishop Auckland would accept.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am enjoying listening to a number of the arguments I have heard being put forward. On this issue of foreign offenders, is not the right answer to deal with their immigration status while they are in prison serving their term, rather than throwing them into a detention system because we have not worked out how to do that in the first place?
Dehenna Davison
One could certainly argue that; I would argue the opposite, but I thank my hon. Friend for his point. Let me give a tangible example. Had a 28-day limit been in place in December, it would have resulted in the immediate release of some foreign nationals who were awaiting deportation, including 29 rapists, 27 child sex offenders and 52 violent offenders, including a number of murderers, and more.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Lady is doing a good job of regurgitating what the Government put out this morning—
Stuart C. McDonald
Well, it is, almost literally. All of these points can be rebutted. This series of amendments provides for a six-month process in which the Government could transition, so it is not an overnight thing. There would be six months for the Government to deal with foreign national offenders and to have them removed.
Dehenna Davison
The point I make is that these are some of the most serious offenders, and, as I said, my constituents would not accept something along those lines. Furthermore, when we look at statistics on current detention times, we see that for the majority those are very short, with 74% detained for less than 29 days. For those held for substantial time periods, there must be a compelling reason, such as public safety. For example, we have the example of a man who gang-raped a 16-year-old, has a history of absconding and has delayed his own removal with five unsuccessful judicial reviews. Lawful immigration detention is needed to keep the public safe, so I cannot support these amendments. My constituents want a fair immigration system but they also rightly expect that system to keep them safe.
Turning to new clause 2—
Dehenna Davison
I will not give way any further.
I praise my hon. Friends for their commitment to protecting children in care, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has long been a champion for children. Vulnerable children should always be in our minds when we make policy, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) on ensuring that nobody is left behind. However, I know that the Minister shares my concern that this proposal may inadvertently create a two-tier system. So rather than legislating in this manner, we should be strongly doing all we can to encourage local authorities to identify those vulnerable children and make sure that their EU settlement scheme applications are processed so that they have full and proper proof of their status and access to the documents for the rest of their lives, because we must never allow another situation such as Windrush to happen again.
On new clause 29, we have a proud history in this country of providing safe refuge, whether to the Kindertransport children or to Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin. These are human stories and they should always be in our minds when we look at our policies today. The UK’s resettlement schemes have offered a safe route to the most vulnerable and given them a safe home on our shores. Unaccompanied children who are seeking international protection in an EU member state and have specified that family members are here in the UK should continue to be reunited with them, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has stressed the importance of that. The Government have approached the EU to offer a future reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, and we know that a legal text was published in May to contribute to those negotiations. Getting a reciprocal arrangement is in the best interests of those vulnerable children and those families. We must not act unilaterally, as this amendment would have us do, as that would have a negative impact on the number of children who receive our help. Instead, we must work with the EU to form a joint agreement, and we in Parliament must allow time for these negotiations to play out, without binding the hands of our negotiators. We have seen what happens when Parliament tries to do that in past negotiations and we do not want to see a repeat of that.
This is an important Bill. It delivers on the referendum result and helps those of us on the Government Benches in particular, to repay the trust that the British people put in us in December. I vowed in December that I would do my utmost to represent the views of my constituents, whether in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Barnard Castle or Spennymore, and that means backing this Bill and supporting a fair, robust immigration system that opens our arms to people across the world who have the talents and skills that our country needs to prosper.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
This Bill defines the type of country that Britain will be for decades to come and, more importantly, it reflects the type of country we want to be. My constituents and I care deeply about fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with a regime that puts the United Kingdom first.
I wish to make it clear that the Bill has the support of my constituents. Rother Valley demanded an end to free movement: the Bill ends free movement. Rother Valley urged the Government to introduce a fairer points-based system for immigrants: the Bill does that. Rother Valley called for a transition to a high-wage, high-skill and high-productive economy: the Bill delivers that change while protecting our businesses and essential public services. We voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in Rother Valley. For too long, our voices were ignored on issues such as immigration. We watched our area decline from chronic underinvestment, which caused business closures, soaring unemployment and a lack of skills, training and education.
Meanwhile, Britain experienced an unlimited and uncontrolled influx of cheap labour from Europe. Thanks to the tyranny of the European Union, there was nothing we could do to manage our borders. A fundamental aspect of sovereignty was stripped from us and left us without a voice, but we have now found our voice. We took back control in 2016 and we are taking back control today with this very Bill, unamended.
In the wake of the coronavirus, we shall have a new immigration system in place that attracts the best and brightest from around the world, no matter where they come from—from Europe and beyond.
Christine Jardine
How would the hon. Gentleman react to the news that I had from my constituency that a professional couple who have lived here for 40 years—they were both born in France—and whose children were born here, who have contributed and brought skills to this country, are now thinking about leaving because of this sort of hostile environment that has been created by the Bill? Surely that goes against everything he has just said.
Alexander Stafford
I question whether the hon. Lady’s constituents are leaving because of this Bill, but I welcome everyone wherever they came from. In fact, my grandparents came to this country, and so I do not think the Bill is scaring anyone away. To say so once again underlines why the Bill is so important and the fact that those on the Opposition Benches do not get this country.
Crucially, this Government are ensuring that there will no longer be an automatic route for low-skilled foreign workers into the UK. We shall take immigrants as and when our economy needs them, but on our terms and not forced on us by bureaucrats in Brussels or by the real power brokers in Berlin.
Alexander Stafford
I have given way already, so I am not going to do so again. I will make some progress first.
We in Rother Valley are strong supporters of law and order. For that reason, I wish to address lawful immigration detention and highlight why it is necessary to keep the public safe. It has been suggested by some that we should impose a 28-day limit on immigration detention. I strongly reject that assertion, but I understand why hon. Members may suggest it. I also wish to remind the House that anyone wishing to leave immigration detention can do so at any time simply by leaving the country as they are legally obliged to. Nobody is forced to be in detention.
A 28-day limit would result in an immediate release of many foreign nationals who are criminals, as some of my hon. Friends have said. We want to emphasise that rapists, murderers and paedophiles could still be in this country under that system, and I for one—and the people of Rother Valley—do not want that.
Richard Fuller
I tried once, and I will try again with another Conservative colleague on this very question. We hear people trot out the stories that the Home Office has put forward about the people who are in detention and their heinous crimes. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a job for the criminal justice system, not a job for the immigration detention system?
Alexander Stafford
I am glad for that intervention. I am not here to say whose job it is, but one thing I can say is that I do not want rapists or paedophiles over here. If they can be deported, let them be deported. Let them be detained. That is what I stand for: strong law and order.
Rather than imposing 28-day limits, we should ensure that the whole asylum and removal system works much faster and more efficiently. Currently, the legal process can take years with protracted appeals. I am pleased that the Government are considering reforms to ensure that genuine asylum claimants can claim asylum faster, that decisions are made more quickly, and that delays will be eliminated. That is the efficiency of a Conservative Government. This will benefit not only communities such as Rother Valley, but those who find themselves in the system. The changes mean that the numbers in immigration detention will drop. I am proud that this Government are taking real action on immigration after decades of mismanagement by Labour. We in Rother Valley and across South Yorkshire know more than most about the Labour party ignoring our wants and needs. We have taken note of the fact that Labour voted against ending free movement and taking back control of our borders, yet again dismissing the will of the British people. Labour voted against our immigration Bill on Second Reading and the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has declared that he would bring back freedom of movement if he were ever to become Prime Minister.
Labour cannot be trusted with control of our borders and it has proved that time and again. This Bill marks a new beginning for Rother Valley and for the United Kingdom as we exit the EU transition period and bounce back from coronavirus. We must build back better, build back greener, and build back faster. A sensible robust immigration system that works for Britain plays a central role in this strategy and guarantees a bright new future for my constituency and for our country. This Bill, unamended, does that. We promised this in 2019 and we are delivering. We are a Government who deliver. We are taking back control of our borders while those on the Opposition Benches want open borders.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is now five minutes and it is likely to be reduced further later on.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). If he is concerned about Labour’s policies and about “leaving our borders open” then heaven knows what he will make of his own Government’s policy and how they are dealing with what could potentially happen at the end of the year and with what is happening with Brexit. He should have a word with Ministers about the things that they will need to do because of the arrangements that have not been made for our borders.
Let me return now to the substantive points of this debate. It was important to hear the points of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) who have pursued the issue of the rights of child and teenage refugees in this House with diligence, and I support them in their work. I also thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the Front Bench made an excellent contribution, and I support all the points she made.
I rise to speak to new clause 37, which is, shall we say, broadly drawn and asks for a report from the Secretary of State on the impact of the new immigration system on skills and the labour market and how changes made to the immigration rules for European economic area and Swiss nationals have affected skills shortages in the labour market. If this clause were to be put in the Bill, I expect that that report would be quite a long one, because the impact of Brexit and the new immigration system on our country will be extensive. However, I just want to make a few short comments about a particular industry that is likely to be badly affected, especially as that comes on top of the very serious impacts that it has suffered from covid-19—that is the creative industries. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how important those industries are to our country. In making these points, I am proud to draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I could not be more honoured to have received the support of a great trade union, the Musicians’ Union.
The creative industries are currently in turmoil. They employ 3 million people. It is an underestimate to say that not all of those people are wealthy. I know that there are some very wealthy people in the creative industries, but the vast majority of them are not at all wealthy. They earn around the average income in this country.
Brexit is already a challenge for this industry. The creative industries face myriad issues—a panoply—from copyright to intellectual property protection and so on. As I said, covid-19, with the restrictions on their ability to do their jobs, is also having a radical impact. We must add to this Brexit and the end of the transition period coming down the line, because the ability to travel has a huge impact on creatives, whether it is touring or working in Europe more generally for those who work in the visual arts, in dance or in other areas.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd.
I rise to speak to new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), and to support the amendments in the names of the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).
Immigrants have always played an integral part in the vitality of our communities, but we have been told, of course, that covid-19 changes everything. That prompts the question: does it change how we handle immigration as much as it does our approach to health and the economy? There has been some interesting mention of the value of the high-skilled jobs that we will expect from this immigration policy, but it is worth taking a step back and considering how things have changed under covid. I understand that 70% of people believe that the crisis has shown the key role of immigrants in running our essential services—the essential services that we have been clapping on the streets for many Thursdays; I think there is another clap here on Sunday—while 64% of people say that they now value so-called low-skilled overseas workers. We are now looking at who provides our services, and how, in a different way.
Surely what we have here is a hostile, inhumane immigration environment, and that is exactly what we should be questioning. Does such an immigration policy reflect the sort of society that we hope to be after covid-19? Plaid Cymru’s proposal in new clause 11 challenges how this Bill presents a radical change in UK immigration policy without allowing a thorough debate about the details of its replacement or the implications—although, as can be seen from the nature of the amendments, there is much concern about those implications. Before we legislate, we should have a proper comprehension of the following: the impact of discriminatory “no recourse to public funds” conditions; the impact of NHS charging; the merits of removing all fees for visas and citizenship applications; and the merits of devolving powers over immigration to our nations, recognising the different needs of the different nations.
Finally—crucially, in the current context—our new clause calls on the Government to investigate the possibility of granting citizenship to all health and social care workers who have given so much during this crisis. A former Government did the right thing and granted citizenship to the Gurkhas. Health and social care immigrant workers have been fighting heroically on two fronts. They have fought on our behalf against the virus; they are now facing having to fight a hostile environment in the Government’s immigration policy. The new clause would be a means to right that wrong; it would reflect the public mood, and I beg the Government to consider adopting it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I support the Bill, which I believe will make our immigration system better, and fairer. Some hon. Members—today, and before today—have bemoaned the fact that the new points-based system will end freedom of movement. I heard the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) say so earlier this afternoon. In fact, there was no such thing as freedom of movement; the concept was an illusion, a chimera, apart from for those who were fortunate enough to live on the continent of Europe.
I benefited from the system—my wife is from Sweden, and for a while I lived and worked in Belgium—but it is a bad system, an outdated model, a discriminatory model, a system that works for Europeans but against the rest of the world. It is unfair. It discriminates against people who want to come here—people whom we want to welcome, people who help us build, run and support our country, who add value to our communities, contribute to our national debate and bring talent, expertise and drive, but who struggle to get entry purely because they are not from Europe. I am glad that we seek to replace that system today.
To those who are already here from Europe in this country, that have made it your home, that have raised families, invested, worked, lived and contributed to our society , we must repeat and repeat that they will always be welcome here.
Andrew Bowie
I remind the hon. Member that the hostile environment was created by the previous Labour Government and had no effect on anybody who was coming into this country from the continent of Europe under freedom of movement in the first place. It is incredibly good news that more than 3.5 million applications to the EU settlement scheme have already gone through, and we can be very proud of that.
Christine Jardine
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Prime Minister should honour the pledge he made during the general election that all EU citizens here had no need to worry about settled status and would have guaranteed citizenship?
Andrew Bowie
What the Prime Minister sought to do during the election was to reassure anybody who was here and had come here under freedom of movement from the continent of Europe that they would always be welcome here. All hon. Members in this place should urge anyone they know who has not applied thus far for the settled status scheme to do so immediately, because they are welcome here and contribute hugely to our national debates and national life.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On his point about encouraging people to apply for settled status, does he agree that it is absolutely wrong for senior elected SNP politicians in Scotland to be urging people not to apply for settled status?
Andrew Bowie
If that is indeed the case, it is shameful. They should be doing everything in their power, from the position of responsibility they hold, to help and support those in this country who may be unsure about their future status here. They should urge them to apply for settled status, so that they can remain, and contribute to our country as we move forward.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Scottish Government are investing a lot of time and resources in encouraging people to take part in the EU settlement scheme. We have our differences on immigration, but will he join me in encouraging the Home Office to think again about having abandoned the remote areas pilot scheme, which would be of huge benefit to lots of constituencies around Scotland—such as his, I suspect?
Andrew Bowie
I share the hon. Gentleman’s views on that issue. In fact, I will come to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme briefly in my speech—if I get that far this afternoon.
In Scotland we have a problem—as I said in my speech on 11 February in this place, we are, as a country, simply not attracting enough people to live, work or invest. The Office for National Statistics estimates that Scotland attracted only 8% of immigrants to the United Kingdom between 2016 and 2018. That is fewer than the north-west of England, Yorkshire and Humber, the west midlands, the east of England, the south-east, London or the south-west. We now have a growing population in Scotland and we need it to continue to grow, but even with freedom of movement we are not attracting enough people to make up for what will soon become a declining population, with deaths already outnumbering births. In 2019, there were 7,000 more deaths than births in Scotland and the problem is even starker in rural communities, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) was just saying.
In speaking to new clause 1 the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was right to draw attention to the effects that the changes to our immigration system will have on the health and social care sector. Although I do not support new clause 1, I urge the Government here and the Government in Edinburgh to work together to find imaginative and creative solutions to the issue, and to work with all stakeholders to see what can be done through the UK-wide immigration system to support and continue to grow the Scottish population, particularly with regard to the health and social care sector on which we rely so much.
Before I move on, it would be remiss of me not to use the opportunity of a debate on immigration to talk about seasonal agricultural workers. I know that I am at risk of sounding like a broken record, as the Minister has heard representations from Scottish Members of Parliament on this issue a few times before, but the fact remains that Scottish agriculture relies on, and therefore simply needs, seasonal labour. A farm in my constituency saw a 15% shortage of seasonal labour last year, which led to an estimated loss of over 100 tonnes of produce. Although I welcome the quadrupling of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme from 2,500 to 10,000 workers—a very welcome first step in this direction of travel—the needs of Scottish agriculture for seasonal labour are, in fact, considerably higher.
Numerous amendments and new clauses have been tabled to the Bill, and no doubt they all have a good intention behind them: Members want to create an immigration system that is fair, humane and understandable. I say in particular to my hon. and right hon. Friends who tabled new clause 29 that although the intent is good, we must allow the negotiations with the European Union time to play out. We have presented an offer to the EU on the future reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, where it is in the child’s best interests. For the UK to act unilaterally now—as the amendments seek us to do—would undermine the negotiations and make it less likely that we would secure a reciprocal arrangement, which might mean that the number of children we could help would be reduced.
We in this country are rightly proud of the steps that we have taken over the years to provide shelter to refugees fleeing war and persecution from around the world. We have been a beacon of light to the poor and oppressed of the world for generations, and we continue to be that country. We are rightly proud that so many people across the world seek to call the United Kingdom—this country—their home, and I am proud that in moving the Bill forward today we will be taking one more step towards making our immigration system fairer, non-discriminatory and fit for the 21st century.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I rise to speak against this Bill in general and for any new clause that seeks to end the hostile environment.
Ministers seem to create confusion about the contents of the Bill. If they speak in public, they claim that it will introduce a points-based immigration system, which is not true. In any event, it is doubtful whether primary legislation is needed for such a system. When Ministers speak it is clear that they have no intention of introducing a points-based system, but rather an income-based one. There will be some exemptions because Ministers have been forced to accept the fact that many nursing professionals will not meet their planned income threshold, yet at the same time Ministers seem blissfully unaware that social care workers earn nothing like the proposed salary thresholds—and nor do the cooks, cleaners, security guards, porters and many others who have seen us through this pandemic.
Many of these people were on subsistence wages even before years of real-term cuts by the Conservative-led Government from 2010 onwards. There have been huge shortages of all these workers. Ministerial plans—if not this Bill—will only make those staff shortages much worse in care homes, in the NHS and in many other sectors of the economy, both public and private. It is as if this entire public health crisis has passed Ministers by. A plan that will exacerbate the crisis in the NHS and social care is one of the last things that this country needs.
The Bill in its current form is a disaster, so I am pleased to support the new clauses that would impose a strict 28-day limit on immigration detention; end the immigration surcharge, which should be ended for all; reform deportation law and citizenship fees for those who are brought to the UK as young children; and ensure that our moral obligation to child refugees for family reunion remains a legal one. Such provisions would address the glaring issues of our immigration system.
There is a further issue that I want to raise. Last week, the Home Secretary astonished most of us when she said that she would implement the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review “in full”. The entire spirit and some parts of the letter of that review run completely counter to the whole thrust of this Government’s immigration policies. In essence, to right the injustices perpetrated on the Windrush victims and to prevent their reoccurrence, the Government’s hostile environment policies have to go in their entirety, full stop.
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady keeps referring to this hostile environment. Let me just quote for her. In May 2007, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), then the Labour Immigration Minister, stated in a consultation document put out by the Home Office:
“We are trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”
Will she accept that and apologise to those of us on the Government Benches, please?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I will not apologise, but I will point out that the Conservative party has been in power for 10 years. To continuously blame various different Labour leaderships makes no sense. I have said it before and I will say it again: this is the second time in a decade that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have entered this country. We saw the misery that the Immigration Act 2014 caused the Windrush generation. What does it say about us that we are bringing EU nationals under the same rules?
I turn to what is in the Bill and its real effects on workers here, whether they are from overseas or not. There is a real risk that the effect of the Bill will be to lower the rights of all migrant workers in this country and, in that way, lower rights and terms and conditions for all workers. Crucially, the right to residency will be dependent on employment status. There is no right to a family life enshrined in the Bill, and “no recourse to public funds” remains an explicit policy. The combination of those and other factors effectively creates another, lower tier of the workforce, with fewer rights and very limited means of enforcing even those.
That is dangerous enough to migrant workers, but it can also rebound on the entire workforce as unscrupulous employers play divide and rule. Our legislation on health and safety, on equal pay and on opposing discrimination is not enforced vigorously enough as it is. If a large section of the workforce can be treated as second class, the situation will get worse for everyone. Quite simply, the Bill is not fit for purpose as it stands.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I am pleased to speak on the Bill, not least because immigration is a topic that can invoke the strongest of emotions, yet it is imperative that we have an immigration system that works for us as a free and independent sovereign nation.
Immigration policy is not just a buzzword for me, nor is it an excuse to play identity politics; it is the reason I am here. I am the son of a man who came to this country from halfway across the world. He came here for a better life for his family. Indeed, to my father, having anything but a system over which we have control is, frankly, odd, and that is the reason many from south Asian communities voted to leave the European Union back in 2016.
My father’s desire to be in this country was nothing short of a desire to pursue what I often term the great British dream. I know at first hand that it is a love like no other, the love held for this country by the hopeful migrant who arrives here in pursuit of opportunities and freedom—the patriotism of the one who singles out this country as the place they want to call home; the one who comes to this country and chooses to be British.
The result in the European Union referendum in 2016 was a vote for control—for control over our laws, control over our spending and control over our borders. This was not about pulling up the drawbridge, as it is so often described by those who want to belittle the referendum result; it was a cry for a greater stake in the way our communities and our country move forward. It was a vote for migration, albeit migration on our terms: looking out to the world beyond our immediate neighbours and forging relationships with new countries and old friends. The Bill captures the true essence of that desire for an immigration system that works for us—an immigration system that allows us to be agile, and one that allows us to adapt to the economic needs of our country.
It is important to point out that the Bill enshrines the will of the British people—a will that has been expressed on a number of occasions over the past four years. Clearly, I am firmly of the view that immigration has been a success for this great nation, and the Bill acknowledges and celebrates that success by working to make sure that the system is even stronger.
We must have a system that works for Britain so that we can ensure that the best opportunities are available to everyone in this country. It is only with a thriving economy and a strong society that Britain will continue to be such a nation and such an appealing destination for those around the world who want to come here and start a new life.
Britain was built on generations of immigrants, from the post-war migrants who came here to help us rebuild after the devastation of war to the seasonal workers who come to the UK every year to contribute to our agricultural sector and support British farmers. What we can learn from this is that immigration is not a static concept; it is a dynamic one, and it must adapt to suit our domestic and economic needs. Just as other countries adopt systems that best support their needs, the UK can be no different.
The Bill paves the way for a new system that prioritises the most talented and highly skilled. Crucially, control over our own system will allow for an unwavering commitment to protect those who come into our country from the evil prey of traffickers and unethical working practices as we move away from cheap labour and unchecked movement. I know that the Bill does not provide for the details of our new points-based immigration system, but, given my background in business, I know that, to operate to its full potential, our new system will require a continuous dialogue between Government and industry. I ask the Minister to ensure that we have a reactive approach, with the needs of the national health service, business, academia, hospitality and many other sectors being listened to. Particularly in the case of business, the channels of communication must remain open, because it is only by listening to the business community that we will avoid a time lag between what business needs and what Government implement.
Contrary to the naysayers, I believe that our country is progressive and forward thinking. We need an immigration system that matches that—one that allows us to advance in research and development and further our technological innovation as we compete on the global stage, and one that emboldens us to lead the world in medicine, technology, film making, science and sport. Simply put, we must have an immigration system that attracts the best and brightest from across the world. As we venture into the world as a free, independent nation, we have to model ourselves on what we believe we can achieve.
While we are repealing freedom of movement, it is vital that we have the EU settlement scheme, to protect the rights and legal status of EU citizens who have made Britain their home. The contributions of EU migrants are extensive and undeniable, whether that is imported cuisines from the continent or the groundbreaking research we see in our universities. I welcome this legislation because I am excited by what lies ahead for our great nation. With greater control over migration, we will continue to attract the brightest and best while remaining a tolerant and welcoming society.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
We must not forget that this Bill arrives before us today in the context of the Conservatives’ hostile environment—a hostile environment conjured as a pernicious smokescreen to blame migrants for the economic damage inflicted upon working-class communities by Tory austerity, predatory capitalism and years of neglect and lack of investment.
Nadia Whittome
I will not be taking any interventions; I need to make progress.
The hostile environment, from right-to-rent checks to the immigration health surcharge, is built upon the premise that migrants should be discouraged from coming to the UK. Not satisfied with the disaster of the Windrush scandal, this Government seem determined to press ahead with this unjust, discriminatory and poorly designed piece of legislation. The Home Secretary has yet to set out the details of what will come in place of freedom of movement. This Bill does not do that. Instead, it introduces multiple Henry VIII powers, which remove much needed scrutiny from our future immigration system.
I am afraid that the benefits of a points-based immigration system are a myth. Under such a system of employer sponsorship, workers are heavily restricted in their access to public funds, which puts many at risk of destitution. They are also less likely to join their colleagues in employment struggles for better terms and conditions. Migrants have been blamed for low wages, but it is not them who drive down employment standards—it is exploitative bosses who do, and it is this Government who allow them to do that. We have to make it clear that nobody’s rights should be linked to an employer. A person’s worth is not determined by their economic value.
Instead of removing EU citizens’ rights, the Government should have focused on making up the injustices that they have inflicted on the Windrush generation and other migrant communities. The Windrush compensation scheme is clearly not working. Does the Minister have anything to say to these families waiting in limbo?
This punitive, discriminatory piece of legislation is a slap in the face to the carers, cleaners, drivers and shop assistants who have risked their lives on the frontline to keep this country running throughout the pandemic, and who Members here have applauded every week. The scale of the Government’s hypocrisy is breathtaking—clapping for carers one day and downgrading their status in law the next. This Bill would class many vital jobs as low-skilled and prevent people from getting a new work visa or extension. That would include care workers—people like my colleagues who I worked with before becoming an MP and during the pandemic. The work may be low-paid and badly undervalued by those in power, but it is not low-skilled. Will the Minister, for the avoidance of doubt, clarify whether the Home Secretary still considers care workers to be low-skilled?
A recent report, “Detained and Dehumanised”, is based on interviews with people who experienced detention in UK centres. It was done before the pandemic. The report highlights a disturbing level of despair. One person said:
“I saw people cutting themselves, someone who tried to hang himself, someone who died in detention”.
Another said:
“The most awful thing was an uncertainty: Not knowing whether I will be released and what they’re going to do to me”.
As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has said, this is a terrible, inhumane position to be in. Ultimately, nobody should be imprisoned because of where they were born, yet the UK is the only country in Europe that does not have a time limit on how long a person can be held in immigration detention. Twenty-eight days is absolutely the longest time allowed in any other context.
I urge the Government to do the right thing, even at this late hour. They should not block the many sensible amendments and new clauses. Carers, shop assistants and cleaners are risking their lives on the frontline looking after us. The least we can do for them is to use our votes today to look after them.
Richard Fuller
I am very glad that I sat in on this debate today to learn the origins of the hostile environment. We learned today that the author of the hostile environment was none other than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the Labour candidate to be Mayor of the West Midlands. That is right. He is the author of the hostile environment for immigration. We have learned that today.
The second reason I wanted to contribute today was to be able to say thank you to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for bringing forward the points-based system for immigration. Like her, I felt that the opportunity to bring forward an immigration system that did not discriminate based on the origins of where someone came from was one of the strong reasons to support Brexit in the referendum. I am pleased that she has confounded her critics by coming forward so quickly in this Parliament with a new Bill that does precisely that. She knows, and many Members here know, that many areas of the Home Office do not work well, and I am pleased she has started there. Now let us turn to some other areas.
I will turn to what I can only describe as a shameful briefing note on immigration detention put out by the Home Office earlier today. In that note, the Home Office claims that 97% of the people in immigration detention were foreign national offenders. Do they think we are stupid? Do they not think we understand that most of the people in immigration detention have been put out of the detention estate during covid-19?
The note goes on to describe in the most lurid details what may be the case about the backgrounds of individuals, forgetting all those other people who have been put through immigration detention who have perfectly legitimate cases to remain in this country and who may have been victims of communal rape or child trafficking. It is a shameful document that was put out by the Home Office today, and that is why I am very pleased to support the new clauses in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that deal with 28 days as a limit on detention.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend gets it absolutely right about the misinformation that has been dispatched this morning. Is it not the case that a six-month grace period would be the result of the new clause? Those people would not be put out on the streets from the detention centre. The problem is that 63% of those in detention centres are released back into the community because the process has failed, and that includes serious sex offenders, rapists and other serious criminals, so it is happening now and not as a result of what the new clause would achieve.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in stressing that the issue is not the people but the process: it is the process that does not work. An immigration detention estate is a manifestation of a completely failed process that fails the person coming to this country right from the start. We should not have an immigration detention estate; we should not have it at all. We only have it because of the accumulated errors of the Home Office going back well over a decade, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am afraid that this Bill fails on every conceivable measure of a humane and just immigration policy, and I am concerned that my constituents are particularly vulnerable to the predatory aspects of this legislation. Some 43% of Leicester East residents were born outside the UK, as opposed to 10% nationally, and our citizens hail from over 50 countries around the globe. This diversity is what makes our city special, yet with a two-week lockdown extension announced in my home city, this Bill fails to protect its most vulnerable citizens. To ensure that every Leicester resident can seek the medical help they need during this increase in coronavirus, it is vital for full citizenship rights to be extended to undocumented workers, those with no recourse to public funds and people with no indefinite leave to remain, yet the Bill fails to provide the necessary protections.
Under most visa categories, migrants who are legally in the UK working and paying tax cannot access publicly funded support. The Migration Observatory estimates that nearly 1.5 million people currently have no recourse to public funds, including those with children who were born in the UK. For people who already face uncommonly difficult challenges in their daily lives, this pandemic has only deepened fears over how to maintain an income, remain healthy or even stay alive. Citizens Advice has recorded a 110% increase in people seeking advice about having no recourse to public funds during the pandemic, and a recent report from the Children’s Society found that almost half of children whose parents were born abroad live in poverty. The Government must introduce an amnesty for all migrants, including residency rights, for the duration of this pandemic and end the callous policy of no recourse to public funds.
An estimated 1 million undocumented workers lack any entitlement to support from the state. Many of these people are destitute and living in the shadows, unable to access healthcare and fearful of what will happen to them if they identify themselves. In nearly all cases, undocumented people are not criminals but simply those who have fallen through the cracks of the Government’s callous hostile environment policies. For people forced to endure this level of insecurity, it is impossible to comply with Government guidance on self-isolation and social distancing. With the overwhelming rise in coronavirus cases in my constituency and with a rate of infection that is beyond acceptable, it is imperative and in the best interests of everyone in our country that the basic needs of all our residents are met, especially given the disproportionate impact of covid-19.
The tragic irony is that many undocumented people, or those with no recourse to public funds who are living in constant fear of the state, work in the frontline services that the Government have been at pains the praise during this crisis. We must ensure that all frontline workers, regardless of their immigration status, are valued and protected as we rebuild our economy and society. It is vital that we repay the extraordinary contribution of frontline workers during the pandemic with a permanent extension of migrant rights. That means an end to the hostile environment, shutting detention centres and granting indefinite leave to remain for anyone living in the UK. In Leicester, the coronavirus pandemic has caused widespread suffering for too many individuals and communities, with widespread job losses—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry but we have to move on.
Paul Blomfield
There is clearly much to comment on in this Bill, but I rise specifically to speak in support of new clause 7 and to commend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for the powerful case that he made in speaking to it. Back in 2014, I was pleased to serve as vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry into immigration detention. We included parliamentarians from both Houses and all the main parties, many with huge experience, including a former Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. There were more Government Members than Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who also spoke powerfully on this issue a few moments ago. I pay tribute to Sarah Teather, who chaired the inquiry and who now leads the Jesuit Refugee Service UK, as others have mentioned. After an eight-month inquiry, our recommendations included the limit on detention that is proposed in new clause 7. That was endorsed by the House of Commons in September 2014, so it is disappointing that we are still discussing the issue—but it is important that we are, because, contrary to some suggestions, it is not a particularly controversial proposal.
The truth is that we have become too dependent on detention, which takes place in immigration removal centres. The clue to the purpose of those centres is in the title. They are intended for short-term stays, but the Home Office has become increasingly reliant on them, under successive Governments. Home Office policy states that detention must be used sparingly, but the reality is different.
In our evidence we heard from many organisations, NGOs and so on, but, most powerfully, we heard from those in detention over a phone link. One young man from a disputed territory on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon told us that he was trafficked to Hungary as a 16-year-old, where he was beaten, raped and tortured. He managed to escape and eventually made his way to Heathrow, using a false passport, which was discovered on arrival, and he was detained. He told us that he had been in detention for three years. His detention conflicts with the stated aims of the Home Office in three respects—that those who have been trafficked should not be detained, that those who have been tortured should not be detained and that detention should be for the shortest possible period. His case is not the only one. There are more people like him than there are so-called foreign national offenders, which the Home Office briefers urged Members to refer to. Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison, because in prison you know when you are going to get out. One former detainee said:
“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”
A medical expert told us that the sense of being in limbo, of hopelessness and despair is what leads to deteriorating mental health, and that
“those who were detained for over 30 days had significantly higher mental health problems”.
It is not simply the impact on detainees that demands change. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of a time limit encourages poor case working, saying that,
“a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that they looked at were a result of inefficient case-working.”
It has become too easy for the Home Office to use administrative detention, and that is what needs to be challenged. The Home Secretary talked about the culture change in the Home Office only a few days ago, in response to the Windrush review. Removing indefinite immigration detention would make a significant contribution to achieving that culture change, because with no time limits, it has simply become too easy for people to be detained, for too long, with no meaningful way of challenging that detention.
Our report gave a number of examples of alternatives to detention, which are being used by countries often held up as hard on immigration, such as Australia. We know that the Home Office is developing pilots on community-based alternatives, including one at Yarl’s Wood, which is a year in and is running well.
Richard Fuller
As the hon. Gentleman has raised the point about Yarl’s Wood, does that not show that with experimentation on alternatives, the Government can find ways to do what they want to do, but to do it better?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right. It is not simply the case that alternatives to detention are more humane—they are more efficient, more effective and more cost-effective for the Government.
I understand that the Government are shortly to announce a second pilot, and that is to be welcomed— I would be glad to hear anything that the Minister would like to say on that—but the pilot we have already seen and the experience of other countries have already demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based alternatives. We need to move faster. The proposal to end indefinite administrative detention in new clause 7 would be more humane, less expensive and more effective in securing compliance. The time really has come for Members from both sides of the House to get behind the proposals in new clause 7.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was pleased to contribute on Second Reading of this Bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak now, notwithstanding a sore throat.
In recent weeks, people have told me that the Bill is contentious, but it should be regarded as what it is, not as what others fear it to be. For a start, it allows our country to evolve in the post-Brexit era as we wish it to evolve, and allows us to decide who comes in. For too long, we have seen uncontrolled immigration and a failure to remove those who have accepted our hospitality but sought to do us harm. We have indeed seen lower rates of deportation. Inasmuch as we should be more in control of who arrives on our shores, we should equally be more robust about who leaves. If the process takes more than 28 days, then so be it. I am not therefore convinced by new clauses 3 to 11.
For those who come to the UK and are proud to live here, the opportunities are plentiful. Contrary to what many of our political opponents might think, this is the land of milk and honey for those who are prepared to work hard. Let us look at what is on offer. We will give everyone the same opportunities wherever they come from. Our points-based system will allow us to identify the skills we require. We will protect the rights of EU citizens, and we will protect the long-held rights of Irish citizens to live and work in the UK, so I am mindful of new clause 12.
People have told me that this Bill flies in the face of what has been achieved by so many during the pandemic, particularly in the NHS. Nobody here should need any reminder of the admiration and the awe with which the British people regard these heroes. The Government have rightly agreed to extend the visas of frontline NHS workers, so I am mindful of new clause 35. They have rightly introduced a new NHS visa, offering fast-track entry to the UK for qualified overseas doctors and nurses under more generous terms. The contribution of all public sector employees, public servants and low-paid staff is the stuff of legend, and we will always be grateful.
For the avoidance of doubt, immigration is a good thing, and we have built a proud nation on the back of our history, shared values and unrivalled diaspora. I have been honoured to serve alongside so many brilliant foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, but there is a problem here, too. Although this is not directly relevant to this Bill, I urge the Minister to take note. We have recruited many to join our armed services, but the House will know that a small number have slipped through the net by not applying for indefinite leave to remain when they would otherwise have been entitled to do so. Given that some now face particular difficulties in not being British citizens, including crippling NHS bills, I believe it is now time to offer an amnesty to the entitled few who have proudly worn the uniform and borne arms but not become naturalised. Once we have done this, we should then review the crippling visa fees, which remain beyond the reach of most servicemen and women and their young families.
Let us disincentivise those who come here via illegal means, remove those who commit serious crime and place the ruthless people traffickers behind bars, but the quid pro quo is to provide those whom we willingly invite to serve in our armed forces with the security they deserve. It is time that we did the right thing for all of our Commonwealth veterans and fully recognise the sacrifices that they too have made for our great nation.
As for the future of this Bill, I expect it to become law, but inasmuch as it promises a points-based immigration system that mirrors those of other countries in the free world, we need to be careful that it does not become a blunt instrument. The legislation must therefore be flexible and agile enough to respond to the employment market at any given time, particularly in terms of the skills being offered. There will be a need for seasonal labour, and we must be able to attract all those that we need when we need them.
To conclude, as contentious as the Bill might be to some, it is what many have requested for the past four decades, and it is what the Conservative Government have promised. We must also do more to reunite children under the vulnerable children’s scheme, and we therefore need an enduring scheme to be in place by 1 January next year. I am therefore sympathetic towards new clause 29. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, the UK must take back control of its borders.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) about armed servicemen and women from the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when the next immigration Bill is introduced, because there are some egregious cases that desperately need to be looked at fairly.
We will not vote for the Bill tonight, mainly because it seems to have been written before the covid crisis. It seems to ignore the fact that we need a new approach to immigration based on solidarity, decent jobs, employment protections and quality public services for all, with all EU citizens guaranteed the right to remain in the UK. Anybody who has been watching “Sitting in Limbo” and following the fantastic work done by the journalist Amelia Gentleman on Windrush will know that it is these sorts of debates that sometimes end up creating systems that cause huge problems for hard-working families.
I wish to speak briefly to some of the amendments and new clauses. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has tabled a proposal that emphasises the need for a plan for and provision in the crucial area of social care. We are nowhere near through this pandemic and we desperately need to encourage those working day in, day out in the care sector. Those watching this, perhaps in the course of their duties today, may well feel a bit down and depressed that we are not backing them a little more with this Bill.
Secondly, I wish to talk briefly to the question of care leavers, as addressed by new clause 2. Care leavers face numerous levels of disadvantage. Anyone who has worked in a local authority context will be aware of just how many placements the average child in care goes through. Many children go from home to home, from foster carer to foster carer, into residential care and out again, and into their own flat. Throughout that journey they often lose documents and the phone numbers of their legal advisers. Changes to legal aid mean that they can no longer access legal aid. We then have a very disadvantaged and needy 17-year-old who desperately needs immigration advice when they are about to turn 18. Such are the realities of children’s lives in care. We are talking about a tiny number of individuals. It is the sort of clause that we should all be voting for so that a very small number of people are not left out of the system.
Thirdly, I call new clause 29 the Dubs clause. So many Members from all parties have spoken in favour of it, particularly the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who has Yarl’s Wood detention centre in his constituency. Many children are desperate to join family members here in the UK. Many other immigration systems in developed countries have positive family reunion programmes that are quick, that include a system in which people do not have to go in and out of the rules and write to MPs and everything, and that are clear and provide for children who have been torn from their families, mainly by conflict, so that they can get that reunification.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the big challenges for local authorities in making offers has been that in so many cases young people brought to the UK for family reunion find that the family member simply cannot take care of them? Does she welcome the fact that the Government have, at long last, announced a very substantial increase in the funding rate for local authorities that are caring for those young people as they go in adulthood? That will go some way to assisting the issue, about which many Members have talked today, of ensuring adequate provision for care leavers who have arrived in this country as unaccompanied minors or through family reunion, which can rapidly make them unaccompanied because their family member cannot care for them.
Catherine West
Indeed. The hon. Member and I may, I think, previously have been on joint, cross-party delegations to Ministers in respect of several subjects in the course of our local government work. It is important that the Government recognise the important specialist work that local authorities do, and the costs involved in having extra social workers, foster carers and so on, so that young people are properly supported in that process. I welcome any additional funding for local authorities to discharge that important duty.
Finally, I want to talk briefly about my experience a couple of years ago of visiting Brook House detention centre—in the constituency, I believe, of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)—on the back of the report in 2014 that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned. He and other Members visited and did an extensive piece of work on indefinite detention and concluded on a cross-party basis that future legislation, such as this Bill, which is a wonderful opportunity, should introduce a 28-day limit, like every other European country has, on detention in immigration facilities.
We are not talking about the 300,000-plus people who arrive in the UK every year. We are talking about a tiny proportion of total immigration—very small numbers each year. I visited with the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, a volunteer group that visits facilities to provide friendship, second-hand clothing, mobile phones, and so on, to very vulnerable prisoners. These detainees are the only detainees in the whole country who go into detention and count up. Most prisoners count down from, say, one year—364, 363, 362, and so on. These individuals in immigration detention go in and potentially get lost in the system.
If any Member has ever had a case with the Home Office, they will know that the Home Office can make mistakes—[Interruption.] I see smiles. We could do something practical tonight and vote for this amendment, which has lots of cross-party support, and ensure a just outcome for this tiny number of people in immigration detention.
Mr Steve Baker
I rise to speak to new clauses 7 through 10, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am proud, as I said earlier, to have put my name on those amendments with him, and I pay tribute to the superb speech he made earlier. I have heard him make many compelling speeches, but I would say to the Front Bench that his speech earlier was probably his most compelling yet and I agreed with all of it.
I signed the amendments because I want a humane and just immigration system, and of course one of the principles of justice is that we treat people equally. I am very happy to say that as we leave the EU my right hon. and hon. Friends are working towards an immigration system that treats people much more equally, and I am delighted because of course it is the sort of pledge I have been making to my very diverse community in Wycombe. I am delighted and wish Ministers well as they deliver it.
I want to turn to a particular point though. In talking about foreign national offenders, my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said that constituents would not want these people loose in the UK. I am quite certain that the constituents of Wycombe do not want these people in the UK, but I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends and the whole House that we do not in the United Kingdom imprison people indefinitely on suspicion that they might reoffend.
Indeed, in 2003, Labour introduced a system of imprisonment for public protection, very much along those lines, and a Conservative Government repealed that system of IPP. I hope that my hon. Friends will not mind my saying that I feel a bit long in the tooth for remembering that we repealed that system. We did that because it was right to do so. I want to treat persons from outside the United Kingdom as morally, legally and politically equally as we properly treat people in the United Kingdom, and that means it is not right to detain people indefinitely on suspicion.
Of course, I do not think it is right either that we should be keeping serious offenders in the UK and paying for their upkeep. We should certainly be reforming the system so that such people are promptly deported, which the Home Office insists requires indefinite detention. I agree again with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that were the new clauses to pass it would put pressure on the Department to ensure that people are promptly removed.
I want to put on the record exactly what the Home Affairs Select Committee said about indefinite detention:
“lengthy detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm”.
It also recommended bringing
“an end to indefinite immigration detention and implementing a maximum 28-day time limit.”
I am absolutely in favour of doing that in combination with seeing to it that we can remove foreign national offenders.
I possibly have not got time, but I want to cover a couple of other points.
Mr David Davis
My hon. Friend and I have fought together on other battles, not least Brexit, with one thing being that we viewed Britain as rather distinctive. Does he, as I do, see it as shameful that the one thing we are distinctive on in this case is that we are the only country in Europe that allows the indefinite detention of people in our country?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and I certainly share his sentiment, but, for reasons that I am going to come on to in a moment, I am going to try to avoid any words of condemnation. I wish to thank Detention Action for providing a helpful briefing, which points out that the claim that trafficking victims, with whom it works, are rarely detained beyond 28 days is “not true”. It has given us a number of accounts, but I am sorry to say I do not have time to read all of them into the record. However, it states:
“J had to leave her country of origin because her partner, who held a senior position in the army, was abducted and she was raped by the people who abducted him. When she tried…to leave her country, she ended up being trafficked”.
The story goes on and on. Such a person ought to be helped. We have a real problem with people who have been trafficked all too often ending up with criminal offences; we end up prosecuting, whereas they are people for whom we should have compassion. I do not doubt that these cases raise extremely delicate and tricky issues of evidence and justice, because, of course, some people will plead falsely that they have an excuse under a trafficking law, but we really do have to rise to the challenge of looking after people such as J, and indeed A and P, whose stories are in this briefing.
On this point about the availability of bail meaning that people are not detained for longer than they should be, let me say that that is not correct. I understand that £8 million was paid out in unlawful detention cases in 2019, and that judges have wide discretion—indeed, my right hon. Friend’s new clauses try to reduce that discretion. Bail decisions can be made on the basis of very limited evidence, and first tier tribunal judges in bail hearings do not have jurisdiction to decide the lawfulness of detention, only the High Court can do that. On and on the evidence goes, but I do not have time to put it all on the record.
What do I really want to say to the Minister? I want to praise him and officials, because I recognise, after 10 years of representing Wycombe, diverse as it is, that dealing with immigration is an extremely delicate, difficult and tricky job, characterised by very high volumes of often heartbreaking case work. I want to pay tribute to officials and I do not want us to be in an environment of condemnation, where people who are working hard and doing their best, with high levels of skill, end up with so much incoming fire. I do, however, want to say to the Minister that I could have stood here for another 20 minutes going through cases of injustice and setting out areas where there is opportunity for reform.
As a former Brexit Minister responsible for legislation, I recognise that this is an EU withdrawal Bill and its scope is:
“To make provision to end rights to free movement of persons under retained EU law”
and so on. Listening to the debate, it seems that we have perhaps forgotten that this is the Report stage of such a Bill. I understand the scope of the Bill and that this is not the end of the journey on immigration, but I say as gently as possible to the Minister that when he comes to the Dispatch Box I am hoping that he will set out something of where the Government intend, in the round, to get to on these issues of justice in the migration system and, in particular, on the principle of indefinite detention. It is right, morally, that we should treat people equally, wherever they come from, whether they are UK citizens or not. With that in mind, we really should be working towards ending indefinite detention, and we should certainly make progress on all those other areas on which I can and will provide details to the Minister. I hope we can do that without an endless series of urgent questions and Adjournment debates.
Christine Jardine
I wish to speak to new clauses 26 and 28, and to support new clauses 1, 7 to 10, 13 and 29. I believe this Bill is hugely flawed and potentially damaging because of the atmosphere it will create and the way in which it will undermine people who make a valuable contribution to our economy. If we accepted the jigsaw of amendments, we could turn the Bill on its head and it could become a positive and welcoming piece of legislation, which would value people who come to this country and make a contribution. It would welcome children, reunite them with their families and send a positive message to the rest of the world.
New clause 26 would remove the right-to-rent charges, which the High Court ruled in March 2019 caused landlords to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity when demanding proof from proposed tenants, and therefore breached their fundamental human rights. I would think that a right-thinking Government would want it in the Bill, to protect those human rights.
New clause 28 is about the sharing of data between public bodies such as police, the national health service and schools with the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes. That is a fundamental pillar of the hostile environment that has appalling implications for those it affects, and often prevents victims and witnesses of crimes from coming forward for fear of being detained or deported.
As I say, those two new clauses could fit with the jigsaw of amendments placed before Parliament today, and fundamentally change not just the Bill but the atmosphere it creates and how it treats those who come to this country in search of a new life, including those whom we have for the past three months gone out many Thursdays and applauded for the contribution they make to our national health service and social care—the contribution they have made by putting their lives on the line for us. Instead of demanding a surcharge from them to work in that service, we should offer them indefinite right to remain in this country.
By making these changes, we would move away from the hostile environment, which I learned the origins of today, and I have to say that I am not as concerned about those as Conservative Members are. I am concerned about the impact it has had and continues to have on this country. I therefore ask the Minister and the Government to seriously consider these amendments, which would send out a message that we value people for who they are and the skills they bring to this country, and not just the monetary value of what they earn. We could do away with the NHS surcharge and allow those who have contributed to remain in this country and feel valued. We could create a system that reunites lonely, vulnerable, displaced children with their loved ones and gives them an opportunity to have a fine life, a good life in this country. We could say that we recognise that it is inhuman to keep people in detention for more than 28 days, and we could give asylum seekers the right to work, to contribute, to bring their skills to the table and help build and enhance our society and our economy, rather than denigrate them, rob them of their dignity and see, as a result, the sort of tragedy we witnessed in Glasgow last week.
We could send a message that we want to welcome people, that we will value them, and treat them humanely and with compassion. That is the country I have always understood us to be. An hon. Member said earlier that some of us on the Opposition Benches just do not get this country. I would contend that it is those of us on these Benches who do get this country, who get the people in this country and who get what they want to offer the people who come here to make a contribution and who have helped to make this country what it is.
Mr Mitchell
I have listened carefully to what has been said by Opposition Members, and I am not persuaded that the Bill is anything other than a good piece of legislation on the whole. The question for the House this afternoon is whether it could be improved, and that is why I put my name to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but he should remember that the Bill has a long journey still ahead of it down to the other end of the Palace, where undoubtedly some of these issues will be prominent in the minds of their lordships.
Like the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) I had the opportunity, courtesy of the Home Office, to visit Brook House. I went there following the “Panorama” programme, which led us to believe that the conditions were inhumane. Actually, I thought the conditions were both humane and decent.
I will come directly to the point I wish to make about the proposal for a 28-day limit. The problem is that the best regime in the world cannot ameliorate the fundamental injustice of a system that arbitrarily imprisons people without time limit, solely for administrative reasons. This is a matter not of criminal justice, but of the administration of our immigration rules—the distinction is important.
Many people in immigration removal centres have never been charged with any crime, while some have previously been in prison following conviction for a criminal offence, but have served their time. All are detained purely and simply because they are liable for removal. Some go on to be removed, but more than half are released at an arbitrary later date and are able to remain in the United Kingdom either temporarily or permanently. As other Members have said, we remain the only country in Europe to detain people indefinitely for the purposes of immigration enforcement.
If individuals have no right to remain here, our priority should be to strongly encourage other countries to accept the return of their citizens. That is something the coalition Government spent a lot of time trying to do from 2010 to 2015. Indeed, we should negotiate such deals and procedures as an urgent necessity. In this way, individuals are no longer left in limbo in immigration detention.
The proposal for a 28-day limit applies only to the use of arbitrary indefinite administrative detention. Convicted criminals will serve their sentences and then face removal if they have no right to remain. If the crime is particularly serious and the prisoner presents a risk to public safety, it will be for a criminal parole board to carry out a risk assessment and decide when and if they can be released. In those extreme cases, we should surely expect the immigration service to have removal arrangements in place to coincide with the release date.
The proposal is not a seismic change, but it would save the country the more than £500 a week per person that is currently spent on detention. That is a significant saving, since 27,331 people entered detention in 2017 alone. In addition, I was surprised to discover, as I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, that over the past five years, £21 million has been paid out in damages for unlawful detention. That figure came from a recent Home Office question. That figure could be vastly reduced, if not eradicated, if a 28-day time limit were in place.
Mr Steve Baker
Of necessity, the amendments that have been selected apply only to EEA and Swiss nationals. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying to Ministers that we would like the Government to adopt this proposal, but for everyone?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes an extremely reasonable point. I am sure that the Minister, who will have listened to the reasonable points that have been made on both sides of the House, but particularly on his own side, will take it on board.
The absence of a time limit does nothing to promote speed and efficiency in the administration of justice by the immigration service. I believe that the introduction of one would improve working practices, as well as creating a more humane system of immigration control.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are eight people on the call list and we have just over half an hour. If everybody sticks to four minutes, even if they take an intervention, we will get everybody in. Help your colleagues, please.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I want primarily to address new clause 12, which appears in my name and the names of other hon. Members, but I will first make a couple of other points. I agree with the many Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in opposition to the hostile environment. To those who are, in a sense, celebrating the end of freedom of movement, I stress that it has worked both ways. It has also provided opportunities for UK citizens inside the European Union, which we are now walking away from.
I want to make a few detailed comments on new clause 33, of which I am a co-sponsor. The ending of freedom of movement in relation to Northern Ireland brings some potential distortions, above and beyond the challenges facing the UK economy and society overall. Northern Ireland exists in both a UK-wide and all-Ireland context. Under the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, we stay in the single market with respect to goods, but the four fundamental freedoms are interconnected. That includes the freedom of movement and the ability to engage services. The protocol makes reference to the wider context of north-south co-operation. That will create some degree of difficulty, particularly for EEA nationals who are engaged in enterprises that operate on both sides of the border in Ireland. We run the risk of seeing industries that depend heavily upon labour from elsewhere in Europe not being competitive any longer and moving out of Northern Ireland, southwards into the Republic of Ireland.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I was pleased to serve on the Bill Committee, which was my first in this place. It was a whole five days of my life that I will never get back, but it was very enjoyable and informative. I particularly enjoyed the submissions from the Migration Advisory Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses and No5 Chambers, a Birmingham law firm. It was good to see a Birmingham firm down here contributing to our national debate. I cannot say that I agreed with most of what it said, but it was good that it was contributing.
A number of Government Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), have mentioned the real genesis of the hostile environment. They named him, but he is actually a Member of this place—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who was also the architect of austerity, because we all remember the little note he left behind as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He still sits on the Labour Benches. Labour MP after Labour MP stand up and complain about the hostile environment and austerity, but sat among them is the architect of austerity and the hostile environment. That is the sort of double standards that I do not want to see representing the west midlands in the mayoral election next year.
The ending of free movement of labour is a key cornerstone of the manifesto that I stood on in December and something that I am keen to get into legislation as quickly as possible. People have been calling for this for many years and many a politician have ignored their wishes. Included in this points-based system are things such as having a job offer or a sponsor before coming here, or being able to speak English sufficiently well, or meeting tougher criminality checks. Those are the sorts of things that people have been calling for and I am pleased that I am supporting those measures in this Bill tonight.
On the issue of immigration detention, I say to my colleagues that I hear their concerns, but I am convinced that immigration detention is used as a last resort. It is an absolutely necessary tool to ensure that we keep people safe on the streets of our country.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) mentioned, the list of people who would possibly have been released early had we put in place a 28-day limit would have made it hard for me to look any of my electors in the eye. I would not have been able to say that I had allowed those people on the streets early when I was out door-knocking. It is not as if those people are just banged up and forgotten about; they have rights. If they think their immigration detention is unfair, they can apply to a judge, and their case is often heard within a matter of days. Anyone wishing to leave immigration detention can do so at any time by simply leaving the country. I agree that, in general, the whole asylum and removal system needs to work much faster, but we also need to have a tough and robust system in place.
Many Opposition Members would have us believe that, if we did not have EU migration, the social care sector and the NHS would fall apart overnight, but as we heard in the evidence sessions from Brian Bell from the MAC, only 5% of the social care sector comes from EU migration. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said that she thought the Bill had been written before the covid crisis. I can tell her that, a couple of weeks ago, during the crisis, the latest claimant count from my constituency was 10.2%. Is she and many other Labour Members—
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I speak in support of new clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and new clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), both of which I have signed.
The largest employer in my constituency is the University of St Andrews. I visited there back in February as part of the Royal Society’s parliamentary pairing scheme. I enjoyed seeing the amazing work that is being undertaken by researchers from across the EU and beyond and supported by EU funding. Their status and the funding that supports their ground-breaking work are both at risk. As of May 2020, more than 9,000 EU nationals in Fife have applied for settled status, yet nearly 4,000 are either still waiting for a final decision or have only been granted pre-settled status. I am not convinced that the Home Office will be properly able to manage the settled status applications of my constituents and the 3 million other EU citizens living in this country. Providing no certainty is no way to treat them. A British Futures report estimates that the difficulties in navigating the application system and the lack of awareness of the process will result in 175,000 EU citizens living in the UK with an insecure immigration status or no status at all. We risk the denial of legal rights of jobs, homes and medical care to EU nationals who are entitled to them but cannot prove it, and that is not right. That is why I speak in favour of new clause 38, which would ensure that all EU citizens have settled status and require the Government to make available physical proof of that status.
A particular concern has been raised with me by constituents relating to comprehensive sickness insurance and I thank Fife4europe for its representations to me in this regard. CSI was not a requirement for settled status until Government policy appeared to change on 15 May this year. EU citizens who are students or classed as self-sufficient do now need it. That is unjust. There was no CSI requirement for a number of years, and many of my constituents who are EU citizens are understandably concerned. There are some urgent questions for the Government to answer. Why has the requirement been introduced at this time? What are the reasons for it? What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to ensure that EU nationals are aware of this new requirement? Will it be applied retrospectively? What does it mean for applications currently being considered? I ask the Minister to provide clarity on this issue.
There has been little communication, zero justification and the cloud of uncertainty over EU citizens is growing. My constituents are concerned that the retrospective application of the CSI requirement could be used to prevent people from attaining settled status and prevent those who do have settled status from gaining citizenship. The fact that EU citizens in my constituency are worried about this indicates the total lack of trust and communication between the Government and these individuals, who have been left frustrated and concerned by intolerable delays. Therefore, I urge Members to support new clause 36 in the name of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which would ensure that not having CSI could not be used to disqualify an EU citizen with settled status from citizenship
Finally, I would like briefly to address the role for workers in our agricultural sector. I welcome new clause 37, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which would require the Government to publish data on where skill shortages are in our economy. If we do not have the data, we will not be able properly to assess our agricultural needs. Farms in my constituency have access to the seasonal workers pilot scheme, but it is clear that we need a lot more people to be able to come here to work under the scheme. The figure of 10,000 was almost plucked from thin air. It was clearly never going to be sufficient.
Obviously there are challenges this year in relation to covid, but farmers are being told that they need almost to go back in time in how they harvest their crops, and that is simply not sustainable. I commend the local workers who are working on our farms—some during furlough—but we should note that fruit picking is no longer some part-time hobby occupation. These are operations with multiple complex supply chains that cannot operate on a hand-to-mouth basis while waiting to hear what crumbs the Government are going to provide to augment the workforce. I must also mention that many of the workers who come from abroad also train other people. The Government simply have to do more in this regard.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I was delighted to sit on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who have spoken in this debate. It is always interesting to get that extra Birmingham-west midlands angle, particularly in relation to the previous comments by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) about the hostile environment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti)—another west midlands Member—said, this Bill paves the way for a new system that values people on what they can contribute to the UK, rather than where they are from. That is the fundamental underpinning of what we are doing today. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who said that those who have served our country deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for the contribution that they have made. I hope that the Government will continue to look at ways in which those who have served this country, either in the military or in other forms of public service, can be sped through the immigration system to make it easier for them. Overall, there is no doubt that immigration has made a massive contribution to the United Kingdom, whether that is through many of my constituents who came over decades ago from the Republic of Ireland, or the people who came to the other parts of the UK from the Commonwealth and across the world more widely.
Let me turn to the amendments. I share some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who made some really strong arguments. However, I worked with the Minister in Committee and know that he is working hard to ensure that as many concerns as possible are addressed. I hope to hear more about that in his winding-up speech.
On new clause 7, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mention that new options for detention are being looked at, including perhaps in a community setting. If such measures save money and deal with situations more efficiently, they are exactly the sort of things we need to be looking at.
I also share the concerns raised through new clause 12, as this is an issue that is particularly dangerous; we need to ensure protections for those from the Republic of Ireland who have been here for very many years, and with whom we have a different and historical relationship. We should not be splitting up that relationship through this legislation or treating those people as we would other people from across the world. The EU settlement scheme has been a great success. I urge the Government, as I do my constituents, to do everything possible to ensure that people who can settle here are settled here. It might be time for a big Government communications programme to the public on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that the system will be better and fairer. I really do hope that that is the case. It is particularly important for my constituents—whether from Weardale, Consett, Crook or Willington—that they see the system that we promised at the election coming forwards: a system that values everybody equally. This Bill really honours that commitment. It honours not only the referendum but the result of the last general election, which delivered a majority for the Conservative party not seen for 30 years, and in which seats like mine finally woke up to the fact that the Labour party was not listening to them any more on issues like this.
The Bill will therefore have my support today, but I hope that the Minister will be able to address some of the issues raised by hon. Members from across the House.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Before I start, I would like to thank Members from across the House for their support for me, the victims of the tragedy in Forbury Gardens and indeed our whole local community. It has been a very difficult time for our town.
This debate addresses a series of important issues, which, as Members have said, affect the rights of European citizens living in Britain and many other vulnerable people. I support the concerns that have been expressed on a number of points and very much recognise the powerful speeches that have been made. I am aware of the limits on time, so I want to focus on new clause 2, on vulnerable children, and new clause 14, on scrapping the surcharge. I want to talk about the loss of rights that is, I am afraid, a defining characteristic of Brexit.
This is a very serious issue for people in my constituency living in Reading and the neighbouring town of Woodley. We have over 7,000 EU residents living in our constituency and I pay tribute to them. These are hard-working people who make a significant contribution to our community and indeed the whole country. They have made Reading and Woodley their home, and they should be supported and respected. That, for me, is the context of these two new clauses.
New clause 2 relates to the issues affecting vulnerable children. I am very aware of the problems with the settled status scheme. I have dealt with a number of issues facing EU residents in my area. For example, it is difficult for someone to go through the scheme if they have limited documentation. They might perhaps have an incomplete set of payslips because their employer does not provide them, they may have lost them, or there may be some other issue. They might have had to come in and out of the UK to visit or support relatives in the EU. They may be a long-standing resident, perhaps retired, who moved to this country after world war two and has made a contribution for many decades. All these categories of people are struggling to go through the settled status scheme.
Imagine the difficulties, then, faced by vulnerable children and their social workers, as described so effectively and eloquently by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). This is a really challenging issue for hard-pressed social workers. In my area, and indeed possibly in his constituency, social services are under severe pressure. We struggle with a lack of funding for them. We have high living costs locally. The last thing a hard-pressed social worker is going to able to do is to provide a great deal of extra documentation and support, however much they wish to do that. It is worth considering supporting this new clause, and I urge Members from across the House to do so.
The point about the surcharge has been well made, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). At this time, when so many of the workers in our health and social care services are from the European Union, surely we should be supporting them and doing absolutely everything to make them feel welcome in this country. Enshrining the Government’s words in law is very important at this point. Hundreds of people in my constituency work in the local hospital and have been on the frontline during the covid crisis. Some of them have actually stayed across the road from the hospital in temporary accommodation—effectively, in Portakabins—to maintain social distancing from their families. These are the sorts of people we should be showing support and respect for tonight. I therefore urge Members to support the new clause.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I support the contents of this Bill. It is straightforward and to the point: we are delivering on our promises in ending the free movement of people from the EU. The calls to end free movement of people were never about some skewed idea that the British people are inherently xenophobic. They were never, as some have attempted to brand them, part of a wider project to shut our island off from the rest of the world.
I have always been a strong believer in the need to open up our immigration system to the best talent from across the world, and not limit ourselves. This Bill is not designed to shut people out. The coronavirus pandemic has shown that we need to co-operate with our friends and partners across the world even more closely as we look towards our collective recovery. We are of course committed to controlling and reducing migration overall, but this must be done by extending the opportunities open to those from other countries outside the EU.
On new clauses 7 and 8, I hear the concerns of my colleagues across the House.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right about the balance between migration from outside the EU and from within it, but we need to cut immigration per se. It is not just a question of displacement. This is a question of cutting immigration, as we committed to do and as the British people want us to.
Nicola Richards
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Obviously, we want to reduce the numbers on immigration. We were not able to do that while we were members of the European Union, but overall, it limited the number of countries and the areas that people were able to come from and that is what we are putting right now.
On new clauses 7 and 8, I hear the concerns of colleagues across the House, but I am pleased to hear that the Home Office already looks to avoid detention altogether where this is possible through community engagement programmes, and that detention is only really made where there is a reasonable timescale for the removal of an individual. I agree that detaining an individual indefinitely is wrong and should not happen.
Our current dual immigration system is simply not fit for purpose and does not serve our interests as a country. That is exactly what the people of West Bromwich East tell me. From Friar Park to Great Barr, people have been saying the same thing—that the EU does not and did not work for us. It became a one-size-fits-all club, especially with regard to immigration, and we have had enough.
I have said in the House before that we Black Country folk are proud of our diverse communities and we value those foreign nationals, both from the EU and elsewhere in the world, who help to deliver a world-class health system. I am really pleased that the new points-based immigration system will not just allow, but actively welcome a range of health professionals to this country. Our NHS simply would not function without the dedicated army of foreign nationals who work in it. We can see this on display in every hospital across the country, including Sandwell General Hospital, which serves so many of my constituents so well. The Bill allows us to further protect our treasured health service, as we can go beyond the strict arrangement that we have been bound to while in the EU by adding more flexibility to the way that we recruit our doctors and nurses. So we should embrace this opportunity.
This short Bill is the natural precursor to the immigration framework that we want to operate under once the transition period ends. It is surely right that, in an open, tolerant meritocracy, such as the one we have in Britain, we should have an immigration system based on skills rather than nationality. I also welcome the Immigration Minister’s commitment to a “digital by default” system. I know from my own casework that this has been a difficulty for some people and I am pleased that we are looking to make these necessary changes.
A simpler, fairer immigration system is what the Bill will pave the way for. I think that it is a landmark moment, given the strength of feeling about immigration in our communities, and it proves that the Government are getting on and delivering on their promises. This is democracy working at its very best. We are stripping away the old and allowing ourselves to be bold and ambitious moving forward. I want the people of West Bromwich East to know that this is what we voted for and it is what we are delivering on. I commend the team at the Home Office for their work, and I commend the Bill in its current form.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like many others, I have been inundated with briefings and questions regarding the Bill, and I understand the importance of us all getting things right today, if possible. We certainly must, at all costs, protect our social care sector.
I was very happy to add my name, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to new clauses 3 to 10, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I hope that he presses these amendments to a Division and that the Government perhaps will accept them, even at this late stage. I feel strongly about the time limit on immigration detention. New clause 3 would hopefully change that to protect people by having a period of 28 days. The other proposals relating to bail hearings, the criteria and duration are also important, and it is so important that we get this right.
I have seen the existing pressure on the social care workforce in my constituency, and one thing is certain from their side: there is not the staff or structure to carry all that is required. The social care workforce will need to expand to deliver the Government’s laudable commitments. It is important to note that the number of staff needs not only to rise to reduce the over 120,000 vacancies that currently exist, but to increase considerably over a sustained period to meet the Prime Minister’s pledge to give every older person the dignity and security that they deserve. The current system leaves a large number of vulnerable people going without any help.
Research by the Nuffield Trust indicates that providing just one hour per day to older people with higher needs who currently get no help would require approximately 50,000 additional home care workers in England alone, never mind Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and providing two hours per day would require 90,000 extra workers.
Although it can be argued that the economic impact of covid-19 will pull in more domestic workers, it is far from clear that that will create the permanent step change needed to deal with the loss of migration, fill the vacancies and grow the workforce all at once. In her new clause 29, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has put forward a solution, and I hope that there is a cross-section of people in the House who will pursue that.
Analysis of the data by the Nuffield Trust shows that, from 2009-10 to 2018-19, almost half—46%—of the expansion in the social care workforce across the UK was accounted for by people born outside the United Kingdom. That is a case for why we need an immigration system that enables those people to come in and help our social care system. In regions with the greatest projected future need for social care, such as London, not only has the proportion of EU staff increased over time, but migrant staff now make up a large proportion of staff, with more than two in five care workers from abroad.
I remind the Minister very gently and respectfully that countries such as Australia and Canada have long employed points-based immigration systems and have introduced a range of special migration programmes out of necessity, including to help the long-term development of the domestic workforce. New Zealand has an agreement with the residential care sector under which it may offer more generous visa terms, such as longer stays, for a range of key jobs, including personal care assistants and care workers. In exchange, employers develop plans to boost the domestic workforce.
Having seen vulnerable people struggling to care for themselves, and yet knowing the difficulties of securing an adequate care package, I welcome this opportunity to speak on this matter. I hope that the Government listen to Members’ pleas in relation to the new clauses that have been tabled. They were tabled for the right reason—to do what is right today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is a pleasure I have had on many occasions since joining the House. Overall, this has been a good debate on a wide range of issues relating to immigration. Members will appreciate that, in view of the time remaining, I will be unable to respond in detail to every new clause and amendment. However, I would like to address some of the more prominent issues that were raised during the debate.
I know that Members were restricted by the narrow scope of the Bill, but I would like to put on the record that most of the new clauses and amendments, if implemented, would lead to a discriminatory immigration system with differential treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens, which cannot be justified and is not in line with the Government’s approach of having a single global migration system in the future. However, I accept that the reason for the wording of the amendments was to get them in scope.
I turn to the 31 Government amendments in relation to social security co-ordination, which is dealt with by clause 5. As social security co-ordination is transferred in respect of Northern Ireland and partially devolved to Scotland, clause 5, as currently drafted, confers powers on a Scottish Minister or a Northern Ireland Department to legislate in areas of devolved competence. As is required, we sought legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Social security is reserved in Wales.
The relevant Northern Ireland Minister has indicated that a recommendation will be put to the Executive to bring forward a legislative consent motion in the Assembly; however, the Scottish Government confirmed on 19 June that they would not recommend legislative consent. The Government amendments therefore amend clause 5 and schedules 2 and 3 to restrict the powers in the Bill in relation to Scotland so that the clause does not now engage the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament. I therefore hope that Members will be prepared to agree to the amendments.
Turning to one of the more substantive issues raised, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) started the debate around new clause 1. I recognise that Members across the House care deeply about the health and social care sector. I am pleased to again place on the record the Government’s thanks and recognition of the fantastic job that those working in health and social care do for the whole of our United Kingdom.
Mr Steve Baker
I have been listening to the Minister very carefully, and I repeat my earlier praise: he has a tough job to do. I do recognise that this Bill relates to the withdrawal agreement, and I can tell him that I will abstain on the amendments I have signed, and I shall vote with the Government on the rest of them.
Kevin Foster
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. Certainly, the Government look forward to working with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, because this is an area where we want to see better outcomes for everyone—a better outcome for those who end up in the immigration system, and a better outcome for the taxpayer and the public as well.
Moving on to new clause 2, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important issue of how we best protect the rights of vulnerable children in care and care leavers. Since the full launch of the EU settlement scheme in March last year, we have had agreements and plans in place with local authorities to ensure that relevant children and care leavers receive the support they need in securing their UK immigration status under the scheme. Local authorities and, in Northern Ireland, health and social care trusts are responsible for making an application under the EU settlement scheme on behalf of an eligible looked-after child for whom they have parental responsibility by way of a court order. Their responsibility in other cases to signpost the scheme and support applications has also been agreed.
The Home Office has implemented a range of support services to ensure local authorities and health and social care trusts can access help and advice when they need it. This has involved engaging extensively with relevant stakeholders such as the Department for Education, the Local Government Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and equivalents in the devolved Administrations. Guidance has been issued to local authorities regarding their role and their responsibilities for making or supporting applications under the scheme.
The Home Office will be conducting a further survey of local authorities across the UK shortly, as part of the support we are offering to them with this important work. This survey will ask local authorities to provide the assurance that they have so far identified all relevant cases. We will share relevant data from the survey with the EU settlement scheme vulnerability user group, comprising experts from the local authority and voluntary sectors, to help it to discuss progress in this important area and to focus our efforts in supporting local authorities with this work.
To be clear, new clause 2 does not facilitate applications to the EU settlement scheme but proposes a declaratory system under which those covered automatically acquire UK immigration status. This would cause confusion and potential difficulties for these vulnerable young people in future years, with their having no evidence of their lawful status here. They will need evidence of their status when they come to seek employment or access the benefits and services that they are actually entitled to access. This is not something we can allow to happen. However, to reassure hon. Members, the withdrawal agreements oblige us to accept late applications indefinitely where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. This and other rights under the agreements now have direct effect in UK law via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, so this commitment is already effectively enshrined in primary legislation.
We have therefore repeatedly made it clear that where a person eligible for status under this scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply—to give a specific example, where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. This will ensure that individuals who missed the deadline through no fault of their own can still obtain lawful status in the United Kingdom. I am happy to underline this commitment at the Dispatch Box where children in care and care leavers are concerned, and this is not just for a five-year period, as suggested in this new clause.
Some Members have spoken about the Government’s “no recourse to public funds” policy during the covid-19 pandemic, and there are some new clauses relating to this. Let us make it clear that a range of safeguards are in place to ensure that vulnerable migrants who are destitute or at imminent risk of destitution and have community care needs, including issues relating to human rights or the wellbeing of children, can receive support.
We recognise and are immensely grateful for the contributions made by so many migrants, especially during the recent pandemic. We have provided more than £3.2 billion of additional funding in England and further funding in the devolved Administrations to support local authorities to deliver their services, including helping the most vulnerable. We have also made it more straightforward for those here on the basis of family life or human rights to apply to have the “no recourse to public funds” condition lifted, with change of condition decisions being prioritised and dealt with compassionately.
It is worth noting that those with no recourse to public funds have also been able to benefit from the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and other measures introduced by the Government, such as protections for renters and mortgage holidays.
Kevin Foster
I will not be able to; I just do not have the time.
Moving to new clause 29, I have listened carefully, and I assure all Members that the Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children, as set out in a letter I sent to all Members of Parliament this morning. We recognise that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict and persecution and the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country. However, new clause 29 does not recognise the current routes available for reuniting families or the negotiations we are pursuing with the EU on new reciprocal arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in either the UK or the EU, as set out in the draft legal text.
Kevin Foster
I am afraid I do not have the time. A negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity. The new clause seeks guarantees that cannot be provided for in UK domestic provisions alone.
The current immigration rules also include routes for family members wishing to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a family member who is a British citizen or settled in the UK, as well as those who are post-flight family of a person granted protection in the UK. Those routes will remain in place at the end of the transition period.
The new clauses on the devolution of migration policy are another unsurprising attempt by the Scottish nationalists to fulfil their ambition of setting up a passport control point at Gretna to fulfil an agenda of separation. We are delivering an immigration system that takes into account the needs of the whole of the United Kingdom and that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, and we will not put an economic migration border through our country. As Members who have spoken pointed out, serious discussion needs to be had about how Scotland can attract more people to live there, work there and be a vital part of the community, and many of those issues are absolutely in the hands of the Scottish Government to address.
Finally and very briefly, we had reference to comprehensive sickness insurance. To be clear, the rules have not changed in terms of the EEA regulations. The insurance would not block someone getting through the EU settlement scheme and we would be happy to hear any such examples. With that, I have explained why the Government does not accept the new clauses.
Brendan O'Hara
Very briefly, I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank Robert McGeachy of Camphill Scotland on a personal level for all the help he has given me, and I thank the Minister for replying to the debate, although I am very disappointed he has refused to accept new clause 1. It is beyond me why a Government would refuse an opportunity to say to the health and social care sector and its users that they understand the concerns, they have a plan, they know what they are doing and they would welcome transparency.
New clause 1 gives the Government the opportunity to make up for not having done a proper impact assessment and not having put in place any mechanism whatever for this House and other Parliaments across these islands to be able to assess and measure the effectiveness or otherwise of the Bill. For that reason, I will test the will of the House this evening and press new clause 1 to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I put the Question, I have to remind Members who are proxy voting that they need to email the Public Bill Office after each Division and that they need to specify which Division they are voting in each time. I also remind Members that I will lock the doors after 15 minutes for this Division and, if possible—if Members move fairly quickly—after 12 minutes for any subsequent successive Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Under Standing Order No. 9(3) and the Order of the House of 18 May, I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the new clauses selected for separate decision. Before I put the Question on new clause 7, I must inform the House that there is an error in the text published on the amendment paper. Lines 4 and 5 of new clause 7—the 11 words beginning with “(a)”—are duplicate text and should not have appeared. I do not think that that will make much difference to Members’ judgment as to whether they intend to support the new clause.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 7
Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals
‘(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(a) any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—
(i) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;
(ii) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or
(iii) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) as defined in subsection(1) under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(3) If “P” remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) the Secretary of State shall release P forthwith; and
(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since “P’s” release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration (No. 2)] are met.
(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which “P” is first detained under a relevant detention power.
(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’—(Mr Davis.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. In the exceptional circumstances that have just been reported to me about an error made in the way in which Members were guided through St Stephen’s Hall and into Members Lobby, it has come to my attention that some Members were, correctly and in an orderly fashion, in the queue to vote and have been unable to do so. Fortunately, this matter has been reported to me before the Tellers have reported the numbers. I am therefore going to unlock the doors in order that the Members who have not already voted in the Division on new clause 29 and who are now present in the Division Lobby ready to vote may very swiftly and immediately do so.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 1st July 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 22nd July 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to bring this much anticipated—I will not say “most welcome” to some of your Lordships—and most important of Bills before your Lordships’ House. It will pave the way for the ending of freedom of movement for EU citizens and the introduction of a single, fairer points-based immigration system which treats people in the same way, regardless of their nationality.
It is now over four years since the British people voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. I know that not all noble Lords were happy with that result, but it was the clearly and democratically expressed will of the people of the United Kingdom, and I do not think that anyone can doubt that concerns about immigration played a part in the referendum. This Government believe that we must deliver what the people voted for, and that position was given added weight by the emphatic result in the general election last December.
The heart of the Bill is that it ends free movement. It does that by repealing EU immigration legislation that is retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. By ending free movement, EEA citizens, including both EU citizens and those from EFTA countries, and their family members will become subject to UK immigration law and will require the same permission to enter and remain in this country as people from the rest of the world. This will pave the way for the introduction of our new points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021, as we pledged to do in the general election manifesto that my party put before the people last December. The design of the new system was set out in the Government’s policy statement issued in February and further details were published on 13 July. I will say more about this new system shortly but, before I do that, I want to highlight some of the other key features of the Bill.
The first is about Irish rights. We are enormously proud of our deep and historic ties with Ireland and of the contribution that Irish citizens have made to the UK over many years, which is why this Bill will protect the rights of Irish citizens. The long-standing arrangements between our countries ensure that Irish citizens benefit from specific rights in the UK—the same rights that British citizens enjoy in Ireland. They include the right to work and study, to access healthcare and social security benefits, and to vote.
This Bill makes it clear that, once free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, regardless of where they have travelled from. There will remain limited exceptions to this, as is the case now; namely, where an Irish citizen is subject to deportation orders, exclusion decisions or an international travel ban.
The wider rights enjoyed by Irish citizens in the UK that flow from the common travel area arrangements remain, as reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed by the UK and Ireland last year. Both Governments are committed to preserving the unique status and specific rights in each other’s countries enjoyed for over 100 years.
The Bill also includes an important power to ensure that UK legislation remains coherent once free movement ends. This power permits amendments to primary and secondary legislation which become necessary after the end of free movement. It means that we can align our treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens, and deliver a system that treats people fairly based on the skills they have and the contribution they make, regardless of where they come from.
The Bill will also enable us to make any necessary changes to our social security system as we align access to benefits for EEA and non-EEA citizens. These policies are led by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and her officials in the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Bill contains powers for the UK Government and/or a Northern Ireland department to amend the retained EU social security co-ordination rules from the end of the transition period for those not in scope of the withdrawal agreement. Scotland will need to make its own primary legislation as appropriate to amend the retained rules in its area of devolved legislative competence.
We are currently in negotiations with the EU about possible new reciprocal arrangements on social security co-ordination. We have been clear that any future agreement on social security must respect Britain’s autonomy to set its own rules. We have already announced that we will end the export of child benefit, and the Bill will enable us to deliver on that commitment.
The UK is working to establish practical, reciprocal provisions on social security co-ordination in order to remove barriers and support the mobility of workers. Any agreement with the EU should be similar in kind to the agreements that the UK has with countries outside the EU. It could include arrangements that provide healthcare cover for tourists, short-term business visitors and service providers; arrangements that allow workers to rely on contributions made in two or more countries to access their state pension, including uprating; and arrangements that prevent dual social security contribution liabilities.
As I have indicated, once free movement ends, we will introduce a single immigration system that encompasses citizens of the whole world. It will be a system based around skills, with the greatest priority given to those with the highest skills who can make the greatest contribution to the UK economy, rather than giving privilege to particular nationalities.
It will be an evidence-based system. Noble Lords will be aware that we commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise us on the design of a future system. We have followed its recommendations very carefully and I am pleased to have this opportunity to put on the record once more the Government’s appreciation of the thoughtful and considered work that the MAC does.
It will be a system that works for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. We do not believe that any part of this nation would be well served by operating different immigration systems in different regions. Such an approach is a recipe for chaos and confusion.
Of course, it will be a points-based system, in keeping with the promise that we made to the electorate. Prospective migrants will be able to score additional points if they have particular skills or based on the nature of the job they are coming to do. This will ensure that it really is an immigration system that enables us to attract the very best migrants from around the world.
We are seizing the opportunity to change the entire system for the better, with simpler, clear and transparent routes. That is why we welcomed the Law Commission’s report into simplifying the Immigration Rules, and why we have accepted many of its recommendations. Cutting through the complexity and streamlining processes will be at the heart of our new system.
As well as working closely with the MAC, we have listened to businesses and stakeholders across the UK in designing the new points-based system, and we will continue to engage and work with employers to make it a success and prepare them for the changes. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, and since the policy statement was published in February, the Home Office has facilitated over 50 events with a wide variety of stakeholders. They include the food and drink manufacturing, retail, automotive and transport, professional business services, agriculture, creative industries, broadcasting, education, public administration, defence, and air and water transport sectors. This is in addition to extensive stakeholder events held in 2019.
Our engagement has focused on those sectors most impacted and those who have previously had little interaction with the immigration system due to reliance on EU labour. We are engaging with advisory groups, a specific group focused on small and medium-sized enterprises, the devolved nations and parliamentarians, as well as holding external events. We have adapted our programme of engagement via increased use of remote technology and are keeping it under continuous review during the current Covid-19 situation to ensure that it remains effective.
We have designed a number of policies which will support the NHS and wider health and care sector to continue to access the best and brightest talent from across the world. We recently announced the introduction of the health and care visa from this summer, which will offer fast-tracked entry to the UK for eligible health and care professionals, reduced application fees and dedicated support through the application process. Those eligible will also be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.
In addition to this new visa, we have introduced a number of unprecedented measures to support health workers from overseas. These include: supporting NHS workers with a free, automatic one-year visa extension for those with six months or less left to stay on their visas; exempting all NHS workers, wider health professionals and social care workers from the requirement to pay the health surcharge; and, as we have clarified, refunding payments made since 31 March. Our EU settlement scheme also continues to enable EU citizens whose home is the UK to build their lives here, including those working in our NHS. We have now seen over 3.7 million applications, with over 3.4 million of them concluded. The scheme is simple and easy to use, and there is just under one year to go until the deadline for applications.
The events of recent weeks have also illustrated just what a crucial role the care sector plays in our society. Talented and dedicated social care workers have risked their lives on the front line in providing vital care to the most vulnerable. We truly value the work they are doing, which is why the Government set out steps in our Action Plan for Adult Social Care to support the workforce and ensure that we have the staff we need and that they feel both supported and valued. The Government’s long-term plan for social care is focused on investment in the sector and those employed in it who deliver compassionate and high-quality care.
The Department for Health and Social Care recently launched a new national recruitment campaign, Every Day is Different, highlighting the vital role that the social care workforce is playing during this pandemic and the longer-term opportunity for working in care. We have also commissioned Skills for Care to rapidly scale up capacity for digital induction training, provided free of charge under DHSC’s workforce development fund. This is free of charge for employers when accessed directly from Skills for Care’s endorsed providers. DHSC is also providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adults’ and children’s social care in 2020-21.
As the MAC identified in its own report, published earlier this year, the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector. It would be a very poor reward for all of those who have worked heroically in the care sector if we were to set up an immigration route which had the effect of keeping wages in the sector at or near minimum wage—a point that the chairman of the MAC has made. As we implement the new immigration system, we want employers to focus on investing in our domestic workforce. The Government are working closely with the sector to go further to recognise the contributions of social care workers. This includes a widespread focus on training, increasing the prestige of our domestic workforce, and introducing a proper career structure to provide opportunities for those in the sector while making it an attractive profession for prospective carers.
In conclusion, there are many across this House who care passionately about immigration issues. It would be remiss of me not to mention my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement yesterday on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review and how we are progressing towards implementing the recommendations. We will undoubtedly have a very valuable and detailed debate on the breadth of these subjects this afternoon. However, the Bill is a simple one, focused on ending free movement. It enables the Government to deliver an immigration system that is firm, fair and fit for the future, supporting economic recovery and prioritising jobs for people here in the UK, while continuing to attract the brightest and the best global talent. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The purpose of this Bill is narrow in scope. It is to end EU freedom of movement rules in the United Kingdom and it has just nine clauses. EEA nationals will become subject to United Kingdom immigration laws after the Brexit transition period, and thus be covered by the Government’s points-based immigration system, to be introduced next year. This Bill is nearly identical to its predecessor, which fell due to the general election last year. It took just six weeks to complete all its stages in the Commons before being passed unamended at Third Reading on 30 June. Progress in the Lords will not be so rapid as in the Commons, although it remains to be seen whether that will be due solely to the August Recess.
The Bill does not itself create a new immigration system. The change to the points-based system will be covered in unamendable Immigration Rules. However, the Bill gives Henry VIII powers to the Government which are so wide-ranging in the way they are worded that they would enable the Government to modify, by unamendable statutory instrument, both primary immigration legislation and retained direct EU legislation. The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4 are only to address necessary technical legislative changes to primary legislation, arising from the ending of free movement.
The same powers in Clause 5, say the Government, are there to enable, first, consequential modifications to be made to primary legislation and other retained EU law if areas of the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations, co-ordinating access to social security for individuals moving between EEA states, have to be repealed because they are not covered in a reciprocal agreement with the EU following the end of the transition period; and, secondly, if consequential technical amendments are needed to legislation arising from any new reciprocal agreement with the EU.
The Lords Delegated Powers Committee said of the previous Bill, however, that Clause 4 presents
“a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive”,
and on Clause 5 it said that
“Parliament is being asked to scrutinise a clause so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton.”
Parliament is going to be denied any proper say and involvement in determining even the basic principles of our future immigration policy post Brexit, and the ending of free movement. Yet the Government admit in their fact sheet 3 on the Bill that:
“By ending free movement, the Bill makes a substantial change to the UK’s immigration laws.”
This is not about the merits or otherwise of Brexit; that decision has been made. It is about the Government’s attitude towards Parliament and its major law-making process in scrutinising and then deciding which Government legislative proposals should, or should not, be passed, rejected or amended.
While the Bill seeks to deny an opportunity to address issues of concern about our immigration system, that does not mean they were not raised in the Commons and will not be raised in the Lords. Issues that have had cross-party support include a time limit on immigration detention for the purpose of deportation, the granting of automatic indefinite leave to remain to eligible EEA and Swiss national children who are in care, or are care leavers, and the need for the continuation of the existing EU arrangements on unaccompanied child refugees and family reunification.
Further issues include, but are not confined to: the application of the “no recourse to public funds” rules, in the light of an apparent promise of a review made by the Prime Minister on 27 May; the progress being made on the Government’s commitment to abolish the immigration health charge for all migrants working in the NHS and social care; exemption from the immigration skills charge for NHS employers in the light of the reality that some hospitals are now paying nearly £1 million a year; clarity on the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK following the end of the transition period, including proof of settled status; and limitations on the duration of the Henry VIII powers.
The end of free movement and the move to the points-based immigration system, with its general salary threshold of £25,600 per annum for coming to work in the UK, seeks to equate low pay with low skills and low value. Consequently, this sends a very clear negative message to low-paid, but not low-skilled, EU nationals currently working in the UK. Many of these people have been among those who have kept, and are keeping, our public services going during the pandemic, not least in the care sector. This sends a clear negative message that, in today’s sometimes distorted view of the value of different jobs to society, we do not appreciate the contribution they make and the skills they bring.
In the Commons last week, a Home Office Minister said that the reason that care workers had been excluded from the qualifying list for the health and care visa was because the Government had a “vision” for the social care sector that it should no longer carry on looking abroad to recruit at or near the minimum wage, and that the Government’s priority was that, in future, care sector jobs will be
“valued, rewarded and trained for, and that immigration should not be an alternative.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1250]
If that means significantly better rates of pay in the underpaid social care sector, I am sure it will have widespread support. However, yesterday the Government said that with the vast majority of social care workers employed in the private sector their
“ability to influence pay rates there is limited”.
Since there are already 100,000 vacancies in England’s care sector alone, and the current flow of people from abroad to fill low-paid care sector jobs is about to dry up, how have the Government been able to satisfy themselves not only that UK-based workers will immediately step in to fill that gap but that they can lower vacancy levels in the social care sector?
If higher pay rates materialise in the social care sector, as a result of the points-based immigration system, there will presumably be an increase in the cost of providing social care. Who will finance those higher costs? Will it be the elderly care home residents and residents receiving care at home? Will it be already cash-strapped local authorities, or will the providers of care provision have to absorb the costs? Or does the Government’s vision extend to them financing the additional costs of a welcome improvement in pay in the social care sector? Perhaps the Government could provide an answer to that question in their response at the end of this debate.
The Government have said that ending free movement from the EU plus the future points-based immigration system should reduce net migration. On what basis have the Government come to that conclusion, bearing in mind that net migration from outside the EU, where there is no free movement, exceeds net migration from the EU, where there is free movement?
Perhaps the Government’s conclusion is an indication that, in the absence of publicly declared targets for net migration, they expect their approach to deter sufficient numbers of people from seeking to come and work here, in which case the hostile environment approach may still exist in spirit, if not officially in name. What happens and what is said during the passage of the Bill may throw some light on that. We will have to see whether some amendments to the Bill are accepted, or whether the absence of any movement on the Bill in the Commons really means a Government which think they are 100% right and that an alternative approach on anything related to the Bill is 100% wrong.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords will have had briefings from many organisations. I wish, in the time, I could do them justice, but I thank them. They say this is an important opportunity to raise issues; noble Lords will make it an opportunity, well beyond the narrow scope of the Bill.
I shall be blunt on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. We understand where we are with Brexit, but we deplore so much of UK immigration policy, we do not support the Bill and we deeply regret the loss of free movement and our membership of what we regarded as a union which was more than political.
Ironically, in the context, the Bill denies parliamentary sovereignty. It is always a concern when excessive powers are granted to the Executive. In its report on the same Bill in a previous Parliament, our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, made that quite clear.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which lives its name, lists the issues of the Bill: legal uncertainty; lack of detail; the power of the Secretary of State to remove unspecified rights; the power to thwart the will of Parliament; the power to amend Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation, which there is an awful lot of; the power to set immigration fees, the size of which can restrict the exercise of rights; diminishing scrutiny; and no clarity on how changes in relation to Irish citizens will affect the rights of Northern Irish citizens under the Good Friday agreement.
Preliminary research by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has identified three important legal protections which are not in any way addressed in the Bill. These are: protections for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive; protections for asylum seekers in the receptions conditions directive; and protections for victims of crime in the victims’ rights directive.
Our immigration law is, in the words of the Law Commission, “overly complex and unworkable”. A new Bill should simplify it. This is not dry or geeky—it is constitutionally important, and the personal impacts are enormous. An overarching policy that is hostile, harsh, robust, compliant—however it is badged—impacts individuals and personal relationships, often in ways never expected. Ask anyone faced with the need for a spouse visa, who becomes part of a Skype family.
The Windrush review recommendations include assessing whether policies, individually and cumulatively, are effective and proportionate. The recommendations deal too with the engagement of groups and communities affected by proposed policies. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to this and that the Home Office is clearly taking this seriously. We look forward to progress reports on the work now going forward, announced yesterday, and to its outcome.
I did not expect to feel so viscerally shaken by Brexit, not by the direct effect but by a sense of shame in what is heard as “Nice to have known you”—“you”, the millions of people who, through free movement, have become integral to our society. For British citizens living in the EU, their loss of free movement between member states is a real and immediate worry.
Huge numbers of applications have been processed through the settled status scheme, and it has been very successful for those for whom it has been successful. Inevitably, some troublesome aspects are coming to the fore as we draw closer to the close of the scheme, and they will become clearer as time goes on. That is why my noble friend Lord Oates will be tabling an amendment regarding physical documentation in the scheme. If I were renting property, facing an employment check or opening a bank account, I would want that too.
There is a shortage of specialist advice for people whose applications are not straightforward or who may not be able to look out for themselves—many children are within both groups. The detail and nuances of the scheme are not well understood. I read of a civil servant—so no slouch, one assumes—who did not appreciate that his pre-settled status was not the end of it.
We should listen to the people affected: they have a real-world view. We should thank those who painstakingly and responsibly analyse impacts such as entitlement to benefits, no recourse to public funds and allied issues like naturalisation, where comprehensive sickness insurance has reared its head as grounds for refusal. My noble friend Lady Ludford will pursue this in Committee; I miss her today as she is unwell, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis who is covering some of what she planned to say.
Social security co-ordination needs a whole laundry basket of hot towels. It was a relief to read that the DPRR Committee recommends leaving out Clause 5, but I do not suppose that that will be all we discuss. I hope that I have not contributed to my noble friend Lady Ludford’s ill health by suggesting that she deals with Clause 5.
It is not beyond the bounds of the possible that, as values diverge, asylum may be sought in the UK from countries where discrimination becomes persecution—I am thinking of Hungary and Poland—so it is entirely right that, in an EU Bill, we address whether, how and for how long we use detention in immigration removal centres. Did moving detainees when Covid-19 took hold show that there are real flight risks? Asylum seekers never have an easy time; it feels heartless to reduce them and their situation to an item in a list. Unable to work when they are keen to contribute, they are caught with so little income that even existing is a challenge.
We will have more time to debate that in Committee, as we will have more time to discuss family reunion for refugees and ensuring safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children—something that member states have mandated the EU to deal with, so there are no bilateral agreements there; all that is on the table is a very inadequate draft text from the UK.
The immigration system is much more than the points-based system, but the PBS is currently in the spotlight. It is to be preceded by the health and social care visa and a belated nod to the health charge levied on health workers who pay tax, but hands-on
“care workers won’t be able to apply for a visa dedicated to care.”
That neat summary comes courtesy of the BBC’s Dominic Casciani. Are we heading for an even bigger shortage of carers? They ensure that people can stay in their own homes, which means big savings all round and support for the biggest band of carers: the family. Low paid does not mean low skilled. With care workers, it is often a skill that is innate and a matter of culture. I hate the term “brightest and best”. Best at what?
A lot of sectors will be mentioned. A number of my noble friends have stood back today but plan to take part in Committee, when these issues will be explored. I do so want to talk about the creative industries; I will join that debate then.
Time is against me. I can combine two areas of concern—agri-food workers and seasonal workers—to mention seasonal agri-food work. I can also make the link between two Bills: this one and the Domestic Abuse Bill. The link is the lack of provision for migrant women suffering abuse.
Let one sector in the PBS stand proxy for many. Apparently, 80% of the UK’s 10,000 international architects are from the EU; the RIBA says that £7,000 a year will be added to the cost of bringing one in. That seems counterintuitive when we are told to plan for a great burst of building infrastructure.
The requirement for a level of English makes me acutely conscious of my own lack of facility in another language. It is sadly typical of our still too prevalent, overwhelmingly proud and complacent insularity.
No doubt adjustments can be made to business models. Paying a fair wage and not exploiting people must be part of that model, but can this be achieved overnight and while gearing up for a full Brexit, whatever that may comprise?
I know that many of our concerns are shared widely across the House, so we will be glad to support Members on other Benches on a number of amendments, taking forward those proposed in the Commons, as well as having plenty of our own. There are far more issues than we can even touch on today.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, given the large number of noble Lords down to speak in the debate, I gently remind them of the three-minute Back-Bench advisory speaking limit.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, the two Opposition Front-Bench speeches that we have just heard raise the question, why do we restrict immigration? After all, most immigrants are good, industrious and enterprising people, welcome here as our friends, neighbours and colleagues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
Some immigration is indeed good for the economy, but you can have too much of a good thing. That is why we limit immigration. Immigration is a lubricant for the economy—not, as Tony Blair appeared to believe, its fuel. If you do not lubricate your car, it grinds to a halt; if you stopped all immigration, it would harm the economy. But beyond a certain point, adding more lubricating oil does not make your car go faster, and allowing mass immigration has not made our incomes grow faster—on the contrary.
The British economy suffers from three major weaknesses, all of which have been exacerbated by mass immigration since Tony Blair lifted the lid. First, we have a major housing shortage, yet over the last five years, net immigration has averaged 300,000 people a year. We need to build a city the size of Hull every year just to accommodate those incomers, and more when they have children.
Secondly, our chronic reluctance to train people means that fewer British workers have vocational and technical skills than any of our competitors; yet encouraging employers to recruit from abroad undermines their incentive to train and employees’ incentive to upskill. After Blair opened our borders, training time per worker halved and funding for training fell by 16%. We are told that the NHS needs migrants because Brits do not want to be doctors and nurses. Untrue—there are 10 applicants for every place in a medical school, and we turned away 35,000 applicants for nursing courses last year. The NHS finds it cheaper to import doctors and nurses from poor countries, which need them more than us, rather than train British applicants.
Thirdly, we invest less per head than most of our competitors. A ready supply of cheap labour reduces employers’ incentives to invest in improved productivity, and most skilled immigrants work in low-skilled jobs.
So, we need this Bill to reduce pressure on housing, encourage training in skills and boost investment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I and many others will focus on some of the potential unintended consequences of this Bill as we endeavour to speak on behalf of those with limited voice and means and without the level of expertise required to navigate our highly complex immigration and social security systems. At this stage, I will not set out a shopping list of the many areas where we would like clarification; we will be able to do that in painful detail in Committee, which I hope will be conducted in your Lordships’ House with rather more time, care and attention than was possible in another place.
This afternoon, I want to focus on an area that the Minister confessed on Monday is of particular interest and relevance to her. During an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who will speak later in this debate, she indicated how pleased she was to find a colleague in your Lordships’ House who shares her interest in her particular area of policy responsibility: digital ID and data. One might ask what relevance accurate and reliable digital ID and data have to this Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that accurate and reliable data are not a defining characteristic of the modern Home Office. Whether it is confusion over the accuracy and segmentation of our estimated immigration statistics, the exact numbers of care leavers or children awaiting adoption, or the lamentable lack of knowledge and clarity about the legal and citizenship status of the Windrush generation, there is much room for improvement.
There are three areas where accurate and reliable data are of particular importance to this Bill: immigration statistics; exact data on the different categories of EUSS applicants; and the dilemma of how to evaluate policy toward those with no recourse to public funds when there is an absence of proper data on exactly who, and how many, the condition affects. I ask the Minister to do her utmost to commit to clear actions, initiatives and policies and measurable targets to bring about a dramatic improvement in the quality, timeliness and accuracy of data, which are completely fundamental to successful policy direction and implementation. Given her professional and personal interest in this subject—a passion that she appears to share with a certain Mr Cummings—I look forward to her working with your Lordships’ House toward achieving a step change in the quality of Home Office data.
This Bill is regarded by those who believe that we made the right decision in leaving the European Union as the dawn of a new era. Whatever one’s views about that decision, this is an opportunity to ensure that we create new legislation and policies using a level of data and insight that has been sorely lacking in the past—and, alas, is also lacking today.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the introduction of this Bill in another place is a signal opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government comprehensively to reset the legislative basis for immigration control in this country, to set out a vision for doing so, and to rationalise and streamline the more than 1,000 pages of immigration legislation under which we labour. It is surprising, therefore, that, as other speakers have pointed out, this Bill is so narrow in scope.
The Government have separately published intentions for their policy on the Immigration Rules which extend neither refuge, welcome nor the means of integration, but instead offer a system that meets the labour demands of business and is therefore entirely different from the Australian points-based system. The Bill is silent on the issue of EU citizens in the UK—another immigration crisis in the making. We now know that the estimate of the numbers of EU citizens here was too low and that the campaign to get them to apply for settled and pre-settled status has been solely in English. The Home Office has cut its funding to NGOs which would help reach those who have not applied, and what about those who think they need not apply, whose English is still poor, or who are children in care in this country?
Following the Government’s recent announcement on their points-based system, I asked the noble Baroness to respond to the concerns around visa routes for ministers of religion and other religious workers, which are particularly exercising for the Roman Catholic Church and black majority churches, where cost is a major factor. Additionally, definitions of “ministers”, “religion” and “religious workers” are leading to confusion. The Church of England would be willing to offer help around definitions, and if the Government would consider the issue of cost, that would be well received by those affected.
There is a strong moral case for the tariff on visas and other fees to be confined to administrative costs. The current system is an unwarranted and burdensome levy on migrants, which is iniquitous. Those who come here to work already pay tax and national insurance to fund our public services. Why must they pay a health surcharge as well? I trust that the waiving of this surcharge during the pandemic is a sign that the Government are having second thoughts on this regrettable manifesto commitment. A migrant applying for indefinite leave to remain in the UK must pay £2,389, whereas the average cost to the Home Office to process such an application is a mere £243.
We should welcome applications to become British citizens and not saddle applicants with debt. Scandalously, the fee for a child is over £1,000, although the High Court found last year that the Home Office had failed to assess the best interests of children in setting this fee. Will the Minister update the House on the implementation of this ruling?
There are two amendments that I would likely be ready and willing to support. Time and again in my diocese, I am told of asylum seekers who are massively disadvantaged by the current ban on paid working. Furthermore, I will support an amendment that sets clear limits on periods of detention. We ignore the relational aspect in the delivery of any public service at our peril. I hope the Government will commit to immigration reform on just principles.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the only market the Conservative Party is not in favour of is the labour market. In opening this debate, the Minister talked about the referendum and the December election. A number of seats surrounding my city of Sheffield have gone Conservative. I think those voters would be astonished to find that while the numbers from Europe have literally fallen like a stone, the numbers from the rest of the world, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, have rocketed. The changing culture that that will bring in due course might bring pause for thought to the Conservative Party.
I want to concentrate briefly on the contradictions between skilling our own people and this Bill. As has been said, we should of course skill people and do everything possible to ensure that we transform their life chances and the ladder of learning through life. The more people learn and the higher the skill they obtain, the less likely they are to work in those industries and services which are absolutely crucial to our survival.
There are 120,000 vacancies in adult residential care and a turnover rate of 30%. It is estimated that about a quarter of a million people of overseas origin work in adult care services. The Government will probably be saved temporarily by the aftermath of the Covid virus, because people will be desperate to take a job—any job. However, as they skill, they will find that those from overseas will not take the jobs that they are leaving but the jobs that they are seeking—that is, as managers or owners of residential care services. This can be replicated right across the sector.
We deprecate young people going to higher education, as the Secretary of State and his higher education Minister did recently, and suggest that it would be better if they took other jobs. We also imply that those with little skills should take up the jobs previously occupied by migrants who then educated themselves and contributed to the economy.
There is not time to go into the disparaging of the Labour Government by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I am very happy to take him on in future, inside and outside the House, on the statistics he quoted, the attitude he displayed and the real importance of understanding the contradictions and difficulties of managing migration policy at the same time as transforming the life chances of those already here.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is heralded as the UK taking back control, not least by ending the free movement of people under retained EU law. Noble Lords will also remember the promise that EU citizens will no longer have any advantage over citizens of non-EU countries. And then Brexit dogma hits reality.
Noble Lords will remember when e-passport gates at UK airports were restricted to UK, EU and EEA citizens only: you simply scan your passport and you are free to enter the UK. Compare this with the often vast queues for other passport holders, whose reason for entry is questioned and whose passports and visas are checked manually by Border Force officers. Of course, the Government cannot continue to give preferential treatment to EU citizens, so the enormous number of EU and EEA visitors to the UK would surely have to queue with those from the rest of the world. After all, we are taking back control of our borders, are we not? Well, no, because the system would grind to a halt if that happened.
So what are we doing now? The Government’s solution is to let citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States also use e-passport gates, as well as EU citizens—then, of course, the Government cannot be accused of giving EU citizens preferential treatment. These visitors can come to the UK for six months, do a day trip outside the UK and then come back to the UK for another six months—no visa, no fee, and no way of tracking where they are, how long they stay or whether they have left again. The Government say that
“they may not live in the UK by means of repeat visits”,
but there is no way of checking, unless the Minister can enlighten us; I will listen to her response with interest. Rather than taking back control of our borders, we have thrown them open to even more people.
If you go to the United States of America as a UK citizen, Homeland Security officers at the border will assume that you intend to stay and work illegally until you convince them otherwise. Your photograph and fingerprints are taken and you have to record where you are going to stay and when you intend to leave. When a US citizen comes to the UK, they swipe their passport at the e-passport gates and waltz through the border. It may be a trivial example but, across a wide range of issues, the dogma of ending free movement will result in a detrimental impact on the UK, ranging from staffing our NHS and social care systems to ensuring that our crops are harvested.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Three-minute speeches require one to cut corners, which is always a dangerous thing to do and no more dangerous than when on is talking about immigration, an area where every phrase is liable to misinterpretation.
In the mid-1990s, before the Blair Government opened the gates to and encouraged large-scale immigration, the population of the country was 58.1 million. It is now 66.4 million, some 8 million higher. The ONS projection for the numbers for 2040 is another 6 million on top of that. It means that, in half a century, we will have added a quarter to our population. Today, as I speak, the population is going up by just under 1,100 a day, or just under 400,000 a year, with a third, roughly, from the natural increase—the excess of births over deaths—and roughly two-thirds from immigration.
Members of your Lordships’ House may regard all this with equanimity, but let me tell them that, outside, our fellow citizens do not regard it with equanimity; they are very concerned about it indeed. Recent polling says that no fewer than 74% of those polled believe the Government should introduce policies to deal with the challenges of rapid population growth. Of course, it is important, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, not to demonise new arrivals; they bring a degree of economic and cultural dynamic without which we would be a much poorer country. But it is about scale, and it is important to recognise that, under the system of the past few years, there have been losers.
Who are the losers? They are the poorest in our society, as the wages for the bottom decile are now 12% lower in real terms than they were in 2008; they are older people, as it is increasingly difficult for people over 50 to get a job, and at a time when we are raising the retirement age from 65 to 68. Another loser is the British economy, whose Achilles heel is a poor productivity record, which is linked to the free availability of labour, meaning that no investment has been made in machinery; it is the developing world, because we, along with the rest of western society seem to see no moral fault in draining the developing world of its scarce trained resources. Lastly, it is our environment and ecology, because of the damage caused by rapid population growth.
In this Bill, we will be resetting the dial on this critical issue. In Committee, I will want to probe my noble friend on the Front Bench to reassure us, first, that those who have lost out in the years so far will not lose out in the next set of years and, secondly, that proper weight will be given to the quality of aspects of population growth, since they will have such an important and vital consequence for the country we leave our children and grandchildren.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She is not responding. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will concentrate on those parts of the Bill that make provision for social security co-ordination, particularly Clause 5 and Schedules 2 and 3.
We are currently part of the EU system, which is based on four principles: the single state principle that, at any one time, EU citizens are covered by the social security system of just one country and have to pay contributions in only one country; equal treatment, whereby if they are in another member state, they have the same rights as their nationals; aggregation, meaning that periods of insurance, employment or residence in other member states count when determining eligibility for benefits; and exportability, meaning that they can receive benefits from one member state even when they live in another. There is a well-established system of administrative co-operation behind this and these provisions will still apply after the transition period for those within the scope of the withdrawal agreement. The UK has also done a deal with Ireland that broadly replicates the current provisions.
However, the position of other people moving between the UK and the EU after the transition period will depend on whether a future relationship agreement covering social security co-ordination is secured. The augurs are not positive. Last month, a Commons Library brief noted:
“The EU’s Draft Protocol on Social Security Coordination and the UK’s Draft Social Security Coordination Agreement differ significantly in terms of both the matters covered and the persons covered.”
Oh dear.
There is some common ground on state pensions, where both sides want aggregation and for pensions to be able to be exported and uprated annually, but not on disability benefits or healthcare for pensioners living abroad. And there are no co-ordination provisions for benefits other than pensions.
Can the Minister tell us whether there is an agreement in the offing? If not, am I right that this could mean that, without an agreement, workers moving to or posted to an EU country could have to pay national insurance contributions in both countries; people moving between the UK and the EU could find that their contributions paid overseas are ignored if, say, they later fall sick and need to claim benefits; and that there will be no clear rules about which country is responsible for paying someone’s benefits and no mechanism for resolving disputes?
There is deep uncertainty about the future position, but the right response is not a Bill containing Henry VIII powers so broad that they will allow Ministers pretty much to rewrite the social security co-ordination rules at will. Social security co-ordination is an essential prerequisite for labour mobility. But it is also about fairness. These issues affect a lot of people and Parliament deserves more clarity, control and accountability than this Bill currently affords.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, there is little positive to say about this Bill and much, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has so eloquently summarised, that is not only negative but deeply alarming. In its current state, the Bill has the potential to disrupt the family life of British citizens resident in the EU and risks creating a bureaucratic quagmire for EU citizens after the settled status deadline expires, leaving all of them without physical proof of their right to live in the UK—a point that I will come back to in Committee.
The very first clause abolishes free movement. From January next year, EU citizens will lose their free movement rights in the UK. At the same time, every British citizen will lose their right to live, work and travel freely throughout the European Union. EU citizens will lose their rights and privileges in one country; British citizens will lose their rights and privileges in 27 across the European continent. Ministers who enjoyed those rights for the majority of their lives have ensured that they are stripped from their children and grandchildren for ever. They have shrunk the horizons of our country and of our children’s futures, and it is a shame. I recognise that the Government will not reverse course, but I hope that they will at least reduce the impact by listening to the arguments to improve the Bill as it progresses through the House.
I want to focus on three particular areas for improvement. The first is in respect of British citizens resident in the European Union. Those with non-British spouses and family members need to know that, should they wish to return to live in the UK with their family, they will be able to do so. All British citizens living in the EU want to be reassured that we will uphold the treaty rights of EU citizens in the UK; the better to insist that they are upheld for our citizens in the EU. Secondly, the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary made a categorical commitment to EU citizens during the referendum that they would retain exactly the same rights as they had before exit. That promise has long since been betrayed but, at the very least, the Government could make one small concession and provide EU citizens with settled or pre-settled status with physical proof of their right to be in the UK. It is a small thing to ask, but it would make a huge difference, especially to the elderly, many of whom are particularly anxious about the current digital-only status. Finally, I urge the Government to amend the Bill to guarantee that the rights of EU citizens will not be subject to alteration by ministerial fiat, but guaranteed in primary law.
In conclusion, let me make this appeal. The Government have the opportunity to reconsider the Bill by accepting amendments that will bring it at least a little closer to the promises made in the referendum campaign and will help to alleviate the anxiety felt by millions of people facing an uncertain future. To do so, they will need the strength and humility to swallow their pride and do the right thing. I hope that they will find it.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, my concern is the negative impact of the end to freedom of movement and the subsequent points-based system on two discrete groups of people: teachers of modern foreign languages and public service translators and interpreters, especially in the NHS and the criminal justice system. I declare my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
An estimated 35% of MFL teachers and 85% of classroom language assistants are EU nationals. The new system would result in such drastic shortages in the supply chain of MFL teachers that the viability of languages on the curriculum would become terminal. If languages disappear in schools they will also continue to disappear in universities, cutting further the supply chain of homegrown MFL teachers and the linguists needed for diplomacy, trade, defence and security. Around a third of public service interpreters are EU nationals and many more are from other countries. The new rules would create severe shortages and many people will have justice or healthcare either delayed or denied. The national register of PSIs has shrunk by nearly a third since 2012 and, unless we improve recruitment and retention, the risk is that, to quote the register’s director, “Inadequate pseudo interpreters will be used and there will be life-threatening situations using bilingual children rather than qualified, experienced, registered and regulated interpreters who understand medical terms and are trained health and medical language experts.”
Some amendments to the new rules would prevent this crisis. Qualified teachers would meet the salary threshold, but it is an impossible barrier for interpreters, almost all of whom are freelance with average annual earnings as low as £15,000 a year. A PhD offers a smoother path into the UK, but this would rule out most vocationally trained practitioners. It would also be fairer to classify them as “highly skilled” rather than just “skilled”, as at present. Freelance status itself is an issue. There is no dedicated route for self-employed people and, as low-earning freelancers, PSIs will not be able to get a sponsor and do not fit into the so-called innovator route. There is a vague promise of a future route that could help, and I ask the Minister to make good on this promise now. Public service interpreting should also count as a specialist occupation.
Finally, it would help enormously if PSIs and all MFL teachers were on the shortage occupation list. Teachers of Mandarin are listed, but with a shortfall already of 38% in MFL teacher recruitment, they should all be on it. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at all the weaknesses I have identified in relation to these two groups of highly qualified, highly skilled workers vital to the UK’s economic and cultural well-being and our human rights. If for nothing else other than enlightened self-interest, we should offer them a better deal.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the Bill, but I regret the context in which it is presented, particularly as it was presented in the other place. Immigration from the European Union has never prevented us permitting the entry of highly skilled and talented people from elsewhere in the world. Indeed, the number of skilled and talented people coming from outside the European Union has always been considerably higher, but there is an implication that EU migrants are somehow of lesser ability. Bearing in mind the number of them working in the NHS, this is clearly wrong.
We have enjoyed considerable benefits from the 2004 enlargement. Yes, the numbers turned out to be greater than anticipated, but permitting migration from the newly admitted nations was a bold move and a gesture to those states formerly under communist rule. Moreover, the move met with only limited opposition from the then Conservative Opposition.
I also regret the Bill because it marks a very clear break with our neighbours in Europe. It signals the end of the benefit of free movement throughout the EU by UK citizens and we should in no way be triumphant about that. No, European Union immigration is not going to deliver the greatness we seek; it never stopped us having it.
It is not clear to me where the negotiations are regarding travel for UK citizens. I have been asking over time about the efforts Her Majesty’s Government are making to ensure that 180-day visas for visitors, which we are giving to visitors from the European Union, are matched by the 27. I understand that this is a matter for separate negotiation with each of them. It may be that my noble friend can tell me where we are and whether the Government are even concerned about the situation and the potential difference in treatment. Can she also tell me where the negotiations are taking place?
I turn now to Clause 5, which I have read carefully, together with the Explanatory Notes. It is probably me, but I found them quite difficult to follow. Does this clause permit the existing rights of those with EU settled status to be changed to their detriment post 2020? My noble friends have already referred to changes to child benefit. What other changes do the Government have in mind and what other provisions are capable of being changed under the Bill’s provisions? Surely people who have applied and are about to apply for settled status need to know that their entitlement will not be different from UK citizens’. My noble friend referred to the outcome of negotiations. This creates uncertainty for EU citizens, who in fairness need to know where they will stand.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s introduction of the Bill, particularly her reference to the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. This is particularly welcome today because in recent weeks there has been some concern about Northern Ireland and the message from Dublin that British visitors to the Republic of Ireland are not welcome this year due to the pandemic infection level in Great Britain.
At 7.30 this morning the Dublin Government issued their “green list” of visitors, and while citizens of the EU are allowed to come, people from Great Britain are sadly not on the list. To me, that seems a contradiction of the common travel area. The common travel area has worked successfully and I fully support it. I am glad to say that, for the first time since the south of Ireland left the United Kingdom, last year more people from Britain went to live in the Republic of Ireland than Irish people came to live in the United Kingdom.
I am a governor of the second-largest boarding school in Northern Ireland. Of the total number of pupils who board there, we have some 40 to 50 from foreign countries such as China, India and now even Russia, as well as from the Republic of Ireland. I am concerned about the issue of English language schools in the United Kingdom because they are now in trouble. We have 400 such schools, attended every year by some 150,000 students. The sector is worth £1.4 billion to the United Kingdom economy and it supports 35,000 jobs. Moreover, having students from foreign countries in our schools helps our soft power when they return to their home countries.
However, the statistics are not good for this year. Student numbers were down 28% in the first quarter, down 79% in the second quarter, down a further 83% in the third quarter, and 83% of school staff are now on furlough. Of course, the schools have missed out on the peaks for Easter and summer breaks. There is uncertainty in the key markets—for example, China—and concern about the effect Brexit may have on EU students and staff coming to the schools.
At the same time, competition is increasing from such countries as the United States, Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland. In fact, the Republic of Ireland has this year extended its visas due to the pandemic, to make it easier for students to go to English language schools in the Republic. There is big competition out there in the wider world, and the English language schools in the United Kingdom require support. Therefore, I suggest that the temporary workers scheme be introduced with a dedicated visa category for those attending schools, similar to the one we have for seasonal agricultural workers.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows for any EU-derived rights to cease to be recognised in domestic law if they are either inconsistent with immigration legislation or
“capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.
An important body of EU-derived rights has been the human trafficking directive, one of the aims of which is
“to enable the victim to recover”.
Article 11 requires assistance and support for victims. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 made many positive changes, it did not, regrettably, include a statutory right to assistance and support, as in the parallel Northern Ireland and Scottish legislation. When the directive ceases to have effect, the EU rights for victims in England and Wales will disappear. It would seem, therefore, that the legal rights of these victims will be negatively affected by the power in Schedule 1.
Last week, the Centre for Social Justice published a report on modern slavery. It said that the Government must enshrine survivor rights in law to guarantee and protect access to support. It, like me, urges the Government to give all trafficking victims certainty over support and immigration status by adopting the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Sir Iain Duncan-Smith’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which would give confirmed victims of trafficking immigration leave for a minimum of 12 months to receive assistance and support to recover from their abuse.
In the context of the imminent termination of the immigration rights implicit in the right to free movement and the protections in the directive, which have not been translated into UK law, the need for the McColl/Duncan-Smith Bill is now greatly strengthened. I hope the Government will now prioritise giving this Private Member’s Bill time to become law, led as it is in part by two eminent Conservative parliamentarians, one a former leader of the Conservative Party.
I very much welcome the Minister’s opening remarks. She said that all parts of the United Kingdom will be treated as equals. That is very important, and I could not support it more.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful that a day or two ago, the Minister allowed us to ask questions and discuss the Bill in a more informal way than we can today. I still regret that there is so much in the Bill that it will not be in our power to do much about: in other words, the powers given to the Government under the Henry VIII provisions or immigration rules will be such that we can hardly influence them, and we cannot amend them. Can the immigration rules come to us in two stages: the first, amendable in draft form; and then the final version?
Other noble Lords have talked about the difficulties with social care. The Government are saying that their policy is that social care workers should have higher pay, and we should train more of them so that we do not need to have immigrants to deal with social care, where there are 100,000-plus vacancies at the moment. The trouble is, there will not be time for that: we will be near the end of the year and it takes time to train people; it is wishful thinking. The danger is that we will have a larger gap in social care provision as a result of this legislation. It is a retrograde step and we shall live to regret it.
I shall refer to one or two issues on which, if amendments are tabled, I hope I shall be able to support them. I am concerned about the length of immigration detention. As far as I know, we are the only country in Europe that has no limit on immigration detention. In 2019, 24,000 people were detained in this way. Currently, some 1,500 to 2,000 are detained, although it may have gone down a bit because of early releases due to the pandemic. I hope the Minister will confirm that a large proportion of those detained are, in the end, not removed from the country and are released. The only figure I can find is that 37% of those under immigration detention were removed and the remainder were released, so why detain them at all? What is the purpose of that? It seems to me quite wrong, in a democratic country, that we should be doing that.
The right to work for migrants should be such that they can work after six months and not one year. It is very hard for people who have arrived in this country and want to contribute to our economy and pay their taxes if they are not able to do that. I am also concerned about the discussions about no recourse to public funds, which punishes people twice over. I hope to be able to move an amendment to the Bill on child refugees. I believe that public opinion, if the arguments are put, supports bringing into this country some of the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings—child refugees in Calais and on the Greek islands. I very much hope the House will support such an amendment in the interests of human rights and justice.
Lord Dholakia (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effect of various pieces of immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious. The present immigration and social security co-ordination Bill is a clear example of the failure of the Government’s strategy to make migration work for Britain. All the promises about controlling numbers—fewer than 100,000 a year—have not worked for Britain.
Economic migrants have helped to make Britain one of the richer countries in the world, both economically and culturally. There remains a positive economic benefit from managed immigration, filling the demand for skills and labour that are in short supply. It is for this reason that we should concentrate more on the economic and cultural benefits of this process. Constant harping on the control of numbers has skewed our approach to this subject. The cultural and operational practices adopted by the Home Office are notoriously inefficient. Nowhere is this more explicit than in its failure to provide a service that is efficient, effective, timely and fair for all. There is a very high error rate in the initial decision-making process, which results in a culture of rejection.
We have seen race and immigration issues being exploited during both general and local elections. The attempts by politicians to appease a certain section of the public and the media shamefully made a political football of the immigration issue. The last Greater London mayoral election was a case in point. We were told that millions of Turkish migrants were ready to enter this country after the referendum. One does not need Home Office vans touring the streets of London telling illegal immigrants to go home: this is not the way to run our country.
Immigration policies have played a crucial role in successive Governments over the past few years. Let me cite an example. The Labour Government in the 1950s, at the time of Windrush, set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the possibility of legislation and administrative methods to deal with the matter of immigrants. Its key recommendation was that any solution depending on an apparent or concealed colour test would be so invidious as to be impossible to adopt. However, it concluded that, nevertheless, it has to be recognised that the use of power to restrict the free entry of British subjects would, as a rule, be confined to coloured persons. This was nearly 70 years ago. It is no wonder the price we are paying for Windrush, which has now affected so many lives.
We have the same situation now. We are refusing to give proper documentation to settled migrants from the EU, despite the concern expressed on this by EU ambassadors and others.
Finally, there are many issues in the present legislation that we intend to probe; many of them have been highlighted by other speakers. Key among these is that the Bill leaves the immigration system to secondary legislation. This is unacceptable, and the Government should be prepared to expect problems in Committee.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My concern is the interests of EEA citizens who are victims of human trafficking and exactly how their situation will change on 31 December. Hitherto, some EEA victims have been able to remain on the basis of treaty rights that will no longer exist. Even if the Government allow all EEA victims of human trafficking to be automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain, the criteria are tight.
On the basis of past experience, only a tiny portion of confirmed victims of human trafficking are likely to be granted leave to remain. The EEA cohort of victims of trafficking is therefore likely to experience a significant net reduction in access to public funds. This will have significant implications for UK rates of destitution and retrafficking, given that 39% of victims were EEA nationals as of 2019.
In this context, do the Government recognise the strategic significance of my Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned, it is sponsored in another place by Sir Iain Duncan Smith. It provides confirmed victims of slavery a minimum of 12 months’ support to help them rebuild their lives, avoiding destitution and retrafficking with all its associated costs and trauma. It will also greatly assist the conviction of traffickers by making it much easier for all victims to think about giving evidence in court.
The Government deserve great credit for their commitment in dealing with human trafficking and slavery, and I am particularly grateful that they adopted my first anti-trafficking and slavery Bill after your Lordships kindly passed it in this House. I therefore look forward to their adoption of my second Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, as kindly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association and we are being contacted by an increasing number of members, who include some of the most vulnerable people in society today, desperately worried about the future shortage of skilled carers as a result of the planned immigration system. A very real staffing crisis is looming, with serious implications for the health and safety of a significant number of these vulnerable people.
Carers are not used just in hospitals and care homes. Many disabled people live in their own homes and have live-in carers or carers who visit them every day. These carers include many overseas nationals, and they are absolutely essential in managing disabled people’s health needs and enabling them to lead active, productive and fulfilled lives. They are key workers. Carers are a vital and integral part of the healthcare system.
Low paid does not mean low skilled. The vast majority of social care roles do not meet the planned immigration system’s salary threshold of £25,600. Restricting the numbers of overseas nationals who can work in this sector will put lives at risk, especially as we have an ageing population. We need people with a work ethos who want to help and look after people and enjoy and take satisfaction in doing this.
There is a danger that people who cannot get work of their choice are pushed into doing care work, with such horrifying results as happened at Whorlton Hall near Barnard Castle, Thors Park in Essex and Winterbourne View near Bristol, where patients were abused and bullied. This cruelty was exposed by “Panorama”. We must surely try to prevent this sort of thing happening again. I hope the Government will listen before it is too late.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to the debates on the Bill in Committee and at other stages and draw attention to my registered interests, not least the work I do with charities representing child refugees. I endorse the comments made by a number of noble Lords already in the debate about the need for us to show more humanity in our approach to that. Hopefully your Lordships’ House will indeed do that.
I pick up on one of the remarks made by the Minister in introducing the debate. She said that any regional approach to immigration in the UK would cause chaos and therefore should be avoided. I reflect back on 2004 when, as First Minister of Scotland, I had identified the problem of Scotland’s depopulation. One of the ways we could tackle that problem was to encourage in particular those who had come to study in Scotland to stay, but also to attract new people to Scotland to energise both our population numbers and our economy with the entrepreneurship they would bring.
I agreed a scheme with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary—an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent Home Secretary, who I think would win that debate he promised us at the end of his earlier contribution. He agreed a scheme that involved a fresh talent visa in Scotland. It was particular to Scotland and allowed those who had studied in Scotland to stay longer to secure work and perhaps establish a family and home in our country. The scheme was never abused. Report after report showed that it was possible to have a scheme in one part of the United Kingdom that worked for the local circumstances there. The partnership we developed at that time between the Scottish Government and the UK Government—the Home Office—was an exemplar in devolved-central government co-operation in the UK.
While debates about regional approaches to immigration are sometimes coloured by more extreme demands for devolving responsibility for immigration to one of the devolved nations—which I have never been in favour of—it is possible to have regional approaches. There are parts of the United Kingdom where a one-size-fits-all approach no longer works. This is not just in Scotland but can be in other parts of the UK too. I hope that when we come to debates on this in Committee or on Report, the Minister will be willing to listen to the opportunities that would exist if we opened the door to regional approaches, which would benefit the whole UK and not just the nations or regions affected.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the Government say that this Bill aligns the treatment of people from the EEA seeking asylum or to migrate to the UK with that of the rest of the world. From the Government who were responsible for the Windrush scandal, this is indisputably a levelling down and needs extensive scrutiny in this House. Some may question whether any EU 27 citizens would claim asylum. Clearly they have not spoken to people from Poland, where, under the latest iteration of Section 28, municipalities in one-third of the country have declared themselves LGBT-free zones, or to people from Hungary, where President Orbán used the Covid-19 emergency to obliterate the legal recognition of trans people. I hope our Home Office will not treat citizens as inhumanely as it does LGBT asylum seekers from the rest of the world.
Cancer Research UK has pointed out the fear that this Bill threatens the UK’s position as a centre for world-class research. We need an immigration system that enables our institutions to be go-to destinations for global research and innovation talent. That means having a skills pipeline of young junior research scientists, who do not reach the income levels set out in this Bill. Will the Government carry out an urgent review of the UK’s visa costs and their expected impact on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff? If our visa system remains one of the most expensive in the world, we will simply create a hostile environment for research.
We still await the Government’s detailed proposals for the future of social care, but this Bill will definitely disrupt the supply of care staff from abroad. What modelling have the Government done to work out the impact of this Bill on the health and social care sector?
The Bill is heralded by Ministers as laying the foundation for a new immigration system, but it is silent on the nature of that foundation, let alone the substance of any system that may be built upon it. Let us use it as an opportunity to remove one stain on our national reputation: unlimited detention. Let us use it to do what the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place said on 21 March 2019, when it made wide-ranging criticisms of our current detention policy and practice and concluded that:
“Lengthy … detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm.”
It recommended an end to indefinite immigration detention and the implementation of a maximum 28-day limit.
This Bill has the potential to do great harm to the health and well-being of our nation. I hope it receives detailed scrutiny and amendment during its passage through this House.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to take part in the Second Reading of this important Bill, as hundreds of thousands of final decisions are made annually under the Immigration Rules which are life-changing for the applicants.
In the past, many have said that the rules have been too complex, so I am pleased about the work to complete redrafting, making the rules simpler and more accessible to applicants, and the twice-yearly updates creating more certainty and transparency.
The Bill commits the Government to deliver a fairer, skills-led immigration system based not on where people come from but on their skills, not only enabling businesses to flourish but giving people the opportunity to begin one, to help drive and deliver a high-performing UK economy. It does this while giving us full control over our borders, together with a future points-based immigration system for when transition ends. As this new system is introduced, decisions can be made, importantly, far quicker and more accurately.
In supporting our economy, business and trade, the Bill ensures that workers and employers pay contributions in only one country at a time. Those who are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period are protected by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and will be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme to secure their immigration status in UK law until 30 June 2021. I am also pleased with the confirmation of the rights of Irish citizens.
Let us not forget that migrants play a huge role in our economy—you have only to look at the contribution they make to our health service, brought to prominence particularly during the Covid crisis. It is important to note both that those currently working in the NHS will be subject to an automatic extension for a year and the settlement scheme for EU citizens, which opened in March 2019 and received 3.7 million applications.
This Bill will allow the Government to identify understaffed sectors and make provision for those who want to make a new life here and contribute to our economy. The costs to the public sector of ending free movement will relate to the administration of the evidence-based system. They will not be minor costs, but the Government are responding to the people across the country who have called for this change.
As the Secretary of State said, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our immigration system so that all EU and non-EU citizens will be treated equally—a system to develop our national interest and the economy which treats immigrants from all countries on the same basis. It is fair and not anti-immigration. It is based on people’s skills rather than on their nationality. It is a system which mirrors those of other countries and will give us a lever to open up to the world, which I welcome.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fully endorse the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Hodgson. I declare a non-financial interest as founding co-chairman and now president of Migration Watch. In those capacities I have followed immigration for nearly 20 years; indeed, I am now on my 10th Home Secretary and 15th Minister for Immigration.
Migration Watch is the only body that has consistently called for a reduction in the scale of immigration, a view which, according to nine recent opinion polls, is shared by a majority of the UK population. That amounts to approximately 30 million adults. I add that Migration Watch has a remarkable record in projecting immigration levels. For example, in 2002, we estimated that non-EU net migration would run at 2 million over the following decade. We were met with disbelief, but the ONS later estimated that it had indeed amounted to 2.1 million.
This points-based system will cause net migration to spin out of control. The only question is how rapidly this will occur. Secondary legislation under the Bill will lower salary and educational requirements. At the same time, work routes will be opened up to the whole world and will generate a pool of potential—I stress “potential”—candidates running into literally hundreds of millions. Some employers will want cheaper, non-unionised workers; others will follow suit to stay competitive. Furthermore, as these routes will lead to settlement, many candidates around the world will have relatives already here to guide and encourage them—all this as unemployment in the UK heads into several millions.
In a nutshell, the Government are heading for a car crash. There is only one way to avoid this: to start with a cap on work permits and then adjust it as necessary. The public will simply not understand why, having promised to take back control over immigration, the Government should then hand control over to employers, most of whom have very little interest in controlling it.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, under cover of the pandemic, Ministers are doggedly pursuing their Brexit immigration agenda when we are in the grip of a pandemic-induced economic tsunami. A hard Brexit, sought by many Conservatives, will sever links with our most important trading partners and neighbours, and unilaterally end free movement on 31 December, with our economy still on its knees and facing a major skills crisis.
This will be the second time in the last 10 years that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants who have legally entered this country to live and work here. The Bill aims to prioritise “skilled” labour with a points-based system based largely on salary. However, as shown by a recent Ipsos MORI poll, the public recognise, with my noble friend Lord Rosser, the important role played in the pandemic by the 180,000 European Union-national health and care workers, most of whom would be identified by the Home Secretary as “low-skilled” and would not have qualified for visas under the Bill.
Unless deals on citizens’ rights are reached with the European Union, these workers, many of them heroes in the Covid crisis, will be exposed to the harsh reality of the Home Office’s failed and inhumane hostile environment policy. It is also likely that there will be a second Windrush for the children of migrants, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said in this House on 2 July. The Government’s promises on EU nationals’ rights mean nothing if they are not backed by primary legislation. They should be granted automatic settled status. The Bill does neither.
To lead a recovery from Covid, the Government are promoting investment in construction and infrastructure, highly dependent on skilled labour from the EU, yet they have no effective strategy for domestic skills-based programmes, which take years to deliver results. By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants, on whom we have depended for years. The Huawei debacle has illustrated that the “global Britain” assumed by leave in the referendum campaign no longer exists. Our legal, economic and trading relationship with the EU—the world’s biggest, richest market, right on our doorstep—which is in no way settled, should remain our most important for years to come. Our immigration system should reflect that, not the other way around.
Another huge consequence of the Bill is that, as a direct consequence of the lack of reciprocal agreements on citizens’ rights, 66 million UK nationals will lose the benefits of their EU citizenship, their rights to travel freely and to live, work and study elsewhere in our European home. Frankly, this is all a shambolic disgrace.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I believe our nation welcomes the broad thrust of this Bill, as I do, but in the short time available, I will pick out just three points. First, I suspect that all noble Lords are well aware of the challenge with care workers. There is no doubt that there needs to be some transition, some amendment to how we deal with care workers. We have 8% of roles in adult social care vacant at the moment: 122,000. In addition, 8% of the social care workforce have an EU identity—et cetera.
It seems to me that Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to mention just three countries that face a very similar problem, have found what they believe to be a fair answer to meet this challenge—which is not a challenge that can be dealt with in five minutes. I have been a Member of Parliament, as have a number of my colleagues sitting in the Chamber this afternoon. We know about care homes, old people’s homes and nursing homes, so we know you cannot adjust them furiously in a few minutes. But I say to my noble friends on the Front Benches that we have to find an answer.
The other aspect of the NHS is doctor recruitment. We have had far too few young men and women entering the medical profession. It is highly oversubscribed, but—I am sorry to say this; I might be seen to be sexist—60% of the intake today is female, and, of those, well over half only ever work part time, so that is not an answer. We need to increase the intake to our medical schools.
My noble friend Lord Lilley mentioned nursing. What was the figure he gave: 25,000 nurses applying to nursing schools turned down last year? We have to find an answer to this. If we do not, the figure of 29% of doctors working in NHS hospitals coming from overseas will never be solved. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: I hope that will be looked at.
Finally, a number of colleagues in the House know that I am closely involved with Sri Lanka. I know a fair bit about illegal immigration; I know about self-harm; I know about alleged torture; and it is still happening. I am sorry to say that: self-harm is still happening. That is not good for the individuals involved and it is putting money into the pockets of people that it should not be, so I should like that investigated, and I will be supplying my noble friend with some information about that.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Bill includes extraordinary powers for Ministers to make changes to primary legislation. It does so without any safeguards or restrictions on how they may be exercised. These powers were described as “very significant” by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Refom Committee, and it rightly expressed concern. I am concerned too. This legislation, even if it is narrow in scope, is seen as laying the foundations for a new immigration system. If that is the case, this is an opportunity to ensure that it is underpinned by principles and purpose that will guide the exercise of immigration powers and ensure that it is compliant with fundamental rights.
Our immigration system is becoming responsible for a vastly increased number of people and applications, but is the system up to the task? Apparently not; the Windrush scandal shows that. The Law Commission recently highlighted the complexity of the Immigration Rules. The system is in need of reform, and this is an opportunity to make it compliant with fundamental rights and, in the words of the Home Secretary, to make it firmer, simpler and fair. It is an opportunity to have a system which supports refugee family reunion and takes steps towards ending immigration detention, among other things.
With regard to family reunion, in Committee on the Bill in the other place, the Immigration Minister, Kevin Foster, stated that the Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children. These words should be matched with action. Currently, the Dublin regulation includes transfers for the purposes of family reunion, but at the end of the Brexit transition period this route for family reunion may be lost. This is an opportunity to amend domestic legislative rules and provide a legal and safe means for vulnerable individuals to join families, and to mitigate some of the risks of leaving the Dublin system. With regard to detention, this is an opportunity to significantly improve the law by providing a statutory limit of 28 days for any person to be held in detention.
Finally, I wish to raise an issue which has been drawn to my attention by English UK, the national association of English language teachers. The current situation is that EU, EEA and Swiss citizens can use ID cards in lieu of passports to enter the UK under free movement rules. The Government plan to scrap the EU ID card entry by 2021. This threatens to deter EU and EEA students, particularly junior students under 18. This could lead to a downturn of juniors coming here; we might lose them to Ireland or Malta. About 260,000 students travelling to the UK to study are under 18. Many do not have passports. The cost and bureaucracy of obtaining them for a short period is prohibitive.
Four hundred English schools bring in 550,000 students every year and inject about £1.4 billion into the economy. The benefits to the economy of the UK and to UK soft power are evident. The future of English schools is already in danger due to Covid, and if no action is taken on ID cards, we may see closure of those schools. A small amendment, such as creating a passport-free joint travel document which could be used by a group of students travelling together with the group leader, would ease the situation and minimise delays at the border. The security risks of juniors are minimal, as they will be travelling as a group with a leader, so I hope this small amendment will be accepted in the course of the Bill’s passage.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, immigration policy has been controversial, often bitterly controversial, in this country for more than 130 years, since the waves of Jewish immigration in response to the pogroms in Russia in the 1890s. Looking at policy since then, we see that there have been periods of substantial immigration that have led to civic reactions against it and then a closing down of immigration.
The last time we went through a process similar to the one we are going through at the moment was in the 1960s when, in response to the substantial immigration from the Commonwealth, there was a big social reaction, bitter political controversy caused by it and, in the two Commonwealth immigration Acts of the 1960s, an almost complete cessation of immigration. From the late 1960s until the expansion of the European Union in the early 2000s, there was almost no net migration into this country. Looking at the challenges that we have faced and the situation the Government are responding to in the context of Brexit, it is always important to get the history right to understand what the right policy is for the future.
What went wrong after 2003 was not too much Europe but too little. What we should have done with the expansion of the European Union to central and eastern Europe—I bear my share of responsibility for this—was to have implemented the same seven-year transitional controls as virtually the whole of the rest of the European Union implemented. If we had actually been a team player in the European Union, which we have been so bad at doing for almost the entirety of our membership, I do not believe we would have had the social pressures which led to the big immigration concerns about Brexit after 2010. We were at fault in that, which is why Britain became the overwhelming focus of immigration after 2004, and it was not properly managed.
However, two things were going on at that time. One was net migration into this country from central and eastern Europe, predominantly—although there had been earlier waves from Italy and Spain, they were of smaller numbers. However, the other crucial development, which is why the whole system is unstable is, of course, that Brits were going freely to travel, live, study and settle abroad. The bit which will make this system entirely unstable is that anything we do in response to migrants coming from the rest of the European Union will be done in respect of the more than 1 million Brits who have already settled and many others who want to take advantage of similar rights in the future. When the public wake up to the fact that their own rights to travel, study, settle and work across the European continent will suffer in exactly the same ways we restrict rights to others in Europe coming here, this situation will become controversial in this country and not just internationally.
Of all the speeches made so far, the one which the noble Baroness and the Home Secretary should be really worried about is that of the noble Lord, Lord Green. He is correct. My analysis of the points-based system with the salary threshold is that the Government do not in fact have any control. In the guise of taking back control, they do not have control over the situation hereafter. We now have a massively unstable system, potentially millions of new immigrants coming from the wider world beyond the European Union, and a British population that will be increasingly disgruntled when they realise that their own emigration and travel rights across the rest of Europe will suffer. I therefore see this as a staging post in a very unstable situation with regard to immigration in the future.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is clear from the Minister’s introduction that she knows how damaging the Bill is. The Government deploy a circular argument. They say they are delivering on the referendum result, and that immigration was a factor in that result, as if members of the Government had not been the ones who helped persuade the British public that leaving the EU was a good idea, and that there were risks of huge increases in immigration if we did not.
We have been clapping for NHS, social care and other essential staff. The Government are belatedly realising how important they are. It is specious for the Government now to say what they are saying about pay in the social care sector when they have not addressed it in funding. What will they say when those helping to underpin, for example, our virtual system, leave? Will they say that they just did not know? There are so many others in so many other sectors, from agriculture to warehouse distribution. We depend on the City of London for the tax revenues required for the NHS and social care, let alone the so-called levelling up of the north. Yet here the City of London is undermined.
We are in the middle of a pandemic, with things likely to get worse this winter. We choose this moment to fail to secure a deal with the EU that keeps us in the customs union and the single market, or any but the most basic of arrangements, further damaging our better businesses. Then we make it worse by introducing this immigration system into an economy which, prior to coronavirus, had record levels of employment. The Bill gives business totally inadequate time to prepare. Why is so much in secondary legislation, which is so difficult to scrutinise? It shows how unprepared the Government are that they are seeking to do it this way. They are beginning to realise the unintended consequences of their system.
The Chancellor said that he was not driven by ideology. He has recognised the support required for our economy. If only his colleagues in the Home Office could be as pragmatic, and spend their time protecting the country from the effects of that referendum. The proposed new system is deeply damaging to Britain, to the British economy and to those whom the Government say they wish to help.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I pay tribute to the Minister and her team for the immense work they have put into preparing for this stage of the proceedings.
I declare an interest in that I am half Danish—the product of a union between a Scottish father and a Danish mother. There are deep historic ties between the UK and Denmark and I regret that they will be broken at one swoop in the Bill. I too take very seriously the words of the noble Lord, Lord Green. My noble friend the Minister referred in particular to the vote. I am sure that she is right that this is the general folklore as to why people voted in the referendum for us to leave the European Union. However, did they vote to see EU net migration fall to now well below 100,000 and to see non-EU migration rise to 250,000 in the same period? I am not entirely sure whether the public have yet grasped the consequences of the vote.
I will put one or two specific questions to my noble friend and would like to explore them further in later proceedings on the Bill. Should we not be making provision for a grace period to clarify the rights of EU and EEA citizens who live here and who may be caught out between 1 January 2021, when the new provisions come into effect, and 30 June 2021, when more detailed subsequent statutory instruments and guidance will come into effect under the terms of the withdrawal agreement? It would be helpful to have that clarified, as obviously both those citizens and their legal advisers will be concerned by this.
I echo the comments of other noble Lords who flagged up category of the low-skilled worker, which will come back and cause the Government and the country enormous problems. All of us are concerned about the healthcare workers, and I mention the 29% of doctors working in the NHS hospitals, to whom we are enormously grateful, and the 12% of non-British EU health care workers who will be caught out by these provisions. There are also the farm workers, who pick the vegetables and fruit at this time of year. If my noble friend could address my concerns in that regard, I will be very grateful. I hope the Minister will also have regard to a plea from businesses about the lack of time until the new provisions come into effect. Will better guidance be made available before the end of the transition period?
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I acknowledge the comments from the Minister and welcome the Government’s intention to make significant improvements to the pay and conditions of social care workers. The health and care visa route recently announced excludes social care worker from its list of skilled workers. In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, where a points system like that proposed by the UK Government operates, they have included an alternative immigration route for social care workers.
In April 2017, the New Zealand Government increased care and support workers’ pay by 21% to improve recruitment and retention in the sector. That also resulted in greater parity between social care and health workers and meant that migrants in the sector were more likely to meet the income threshold under New Zealand’s points-based immigration system. In Canada, like in the UK, social care workers are in demand across the country. There they are listed in the target occupations list, which means that migrants with experience or relevant qualifications can gain a Canadian permanent resident visa.
If the Government will not create a visa route to allow social care workers into this country, prior to the new system being introduced next January they must develop a strategy for social care that will ensure an adequate supply of labour in the sector. Nearly 8% of roles in adult social care are currently vacant, equivalent to 122,000 vacancies at any one time. We know that the NHS is a direct competitor for staff in some roles and can offer enhanced pay levels and a national career structure. For example, nurses working in the NHS earn 7% more than those working in adult social care—a gap that is set to grow under the recent NHS pay deal.
Parity of recognition for social care staff is acknowledged as important. It is more than important; it is essential. I hope the Government will recognise this and act accordingly.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol [V]
My Lords, migration is a natural part of life and an experience shared between all living things on our planet. Moreover, for those of us who trace our faith back to Abraham, migration has been a continuous and inescapable feature of our human history.
In this context, I welcome any debate to discern together what guiding principles and moral framework should underpin a new system for managing migration. However, given the narrowness of the Bill, I hope we will not lack further opportunities for healthy public debate, and that the reservation of so much to secondary legislation will not hide future policy from scrutiny and discussion.
Research indicates that a hostile immigration environment does not deter migration. Rather, it makes migrants more vulnerable to abuse. I record my particular concern about the lack of provision for victims of human trafficking and modern-day slavery in the Bill. Indeed, this legislation could see crucial protections for the most vulnerable in society being lost, without appropriate replacement. I think in particular of the EU anti-trafficking directive, as the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McColl, indicated.
However, it is not just victims of modern-day slavery who are extremely vulnerable. Asylum seekers and refugees continue to be denied the right to work. It seems very strange that the Government continue to deny people waiting on a decision from the Home Office the opportunity to support themselves—and to pay taxes.
Meanwhile, the Government are keen that the United Kingdom should attract the brightest and best from overseas. Many people displaced by conflict or persecution have valuable professional skills in areas such as medicine and engineering but are stuck in refugee camps, unable to use those skills to support their families and rebuild their lives. I welcome the Government’s openness to considering a displaced talent visa to level up access to labour market mobility for those displaced from their homelands. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I look forward to further discussions in Committee.
Finally, I highlight the lack of provision for children in the Bill. According to Children’s Society research, many local authorities are not aware of how many children in their care will be affected by our exit from the European Union. This would leave an already vulnerable group of children and young people without recourse to public funds liable to immigration detention or forced removal from their home and the country they have grown up in.
Migration is a constant feature of our nation’s story. Our shared task is to discern how we can create a system that benefits all.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, although I too am pleased to speak in this Second Reading, I am sorry that we have this Bill at all. Like so many of our fellow citizens, I regret it. It is a Bill that makes provision to end the excellent free movement that we had under EU law in exchange for what I believe to be a punitive points-based system.
Like my noble friend Lord Rosser and others, I will concentrate on the care sector. We have seen how much care workers do under the pressures of the virus, and how the problems of funding and security have created problems for the care sector and shown how it is often treated as a poor relative of the NHS. We need to give more consideration to the care sector’s value and to work to keep its workforce; otherwise they will continue to be an afterthought in immigration, as well as other areas. As others have said, part of the new points-based immigration system disadvantages them. They will be excluded from the new health and care visa. Even senior care workers would not qualify with the minimum salary threshold. It is unjust and unfair, particularly on top of the lack of support they have had during the Covid epidemic. I hope this matter can be dealt with and looked at more carefully in Committee and on Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and my noble friend Lord McConnell, did, I will touch on whether this applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. As a Scots Peer, I think that immigration must remain principally a UK-wide competence, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said. I strongly disagree with the SNP’s proposal for an alternative immigration system for Scotland. That is very different from the very limited scheme that my noble friend Lord McConnell introduced, which he described earlier. Scotland’s immigration needs are not significantly different from other parts of the United Kingdom. Anyway, how could we prevent immigrants moving around the UK without border controls? The Deputy Speaker will know and I am sure that he would agree that the last thing we need are border controls at Gretna and Berwick.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, this squalid little Bill would end our participation in Europe’s greatest post-war achievement: freedom for all of us to live, love and work without hindrance anywhere in 27 countries. I deeply regret its loss.
We have to wonder how we have plummeted so far since the heady days of the London Olympics. In just eight years, that pride in our country and the welcome we gave to the world have given way to division and cynicism. What has changed is that the cabal of leave campaigners, who cheated and lied their way through the referendum, went on to capture the Conservative Party and then the Government. They have not changed their shameful methods. They are still peddling the beguiling but delusional myth of British exceptionalism, claiming that everything they do is world-beating when it manifestly is not. The hard truth is that their stewardship has taken us into the relegation zone of the world Covid league. When they combine that with a hard Brexit, we will tumble out of contention altogether. Our excessive death toll from the virus was caused by the PM’s absence in February while rearranging his marital affairs, his dithering over lockdown in March and his adviser’s barely concealed fetish for herd immunity.
Yesterday’s ISC report described Russia as
“a muddy nexus between business and corruption and state power”,
but this sounds a bit familiar closer to home. Here, we have rushed planning decisions to help party donors, huge untendered PPE contracts with unsuitable companies and the ruling party being dangerously close to wealthy, Kremlin-connected Russians. Indeed, Mr Johnson has a penchant for oligarchs’ hospitality. At the risk of gifting them kompromat in 2018 he cavorted with them, without his security detail, but with a former Russian spy, at an Italian palazzo. At the same time, the citizens of Salisbury were reeling from Russia’s use of deadly nerve agent on their streets.
The Prime Minister’s chief adviser, who, remarkably, retains his post while being literally in contempt of Parliament, and whose mantra is “Never admit mistakes, never apologise, never resign”, has three years in Moscow on his CV. Is it then any wonder that these people buried the ISC report before the election, or that they are still resisting the cross-party calls for an investigation into Russian interference in the referendum? What on earth could they possibly have to hide?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I shall strike a rather less partisan note. Like my noble friend Lord Naseby, I welcome the Bill because it is clearly a necessary part of the Government’s attempts to reduce the large-scale immigration we have had over the past 20 years to a more sustainable level. Large-scale immigration is damaging to Britain in a number of ways. First, it reduces the quality of life in these islands. The UK is a heavily populated country. The population is growing at its fastest for more than a century and two-thirds of that growth comes from immigration. The extra people have to be provided for, and that has many adverse effects. For example, an area of countryside the size of Cornwall has been lost to development since 1990. All this is well set out in a pamphlet by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which I recommend the House reads carefully. It is much more interesting than most government pamphlets and much better illustrated.
Secondly, large-scale immigration damages the economy. Most obviously it deters businesses from investing in training and apprenticeships for the domestic population. Thirdly, immigration on the present scale also increases inequality because the lowest paid suffer most from immigration. Fourthly, large-scale immigration makes the problem of maintaining social cohesion far worse. Fifthly, there is a moral point. What right has Britain to scour the world for skilled people when they are often desperately needed in their own countries? Finally, British people have repeatedly shown that they do not want large-scale immigration at this level. Despite this, the Labour Government under Tony Blair went ahead with large-scale immigration. It harmed the country, it cost Labour votes on a massive scale and it increased distrust of politicians because people felt they had not been consulted—and, indeed, they had not been.
This is an enabling Bill and does not set out the Immigration Rules. Like the noble Lords, Lord Green of Deddington and Lord Adonis, I hope that when the Minister considers these comments she will look at what they said because I am afraid we have insufficient control of this situation and we have given employers too much control. None the less, I am delighted that the Government have said that they will keep the situation under review and will act quickly when necessary. I hope my noble friend will confirm that in her wind-up speech.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by explaining that I am married to someone who has gone through the EU settled status scheme after having lived here for more than 25 years. His experience as a German national was relatively straight- forward, albeit expensive. The dénouement came when his citizenship ceremony took place. Other new migrants had been given crib cards showing the words of the national anthem, but they were unable to sing it when the audio system broke down in the town hall in the middle of their rendering of “God Save the Queen”. Suffice it to say that while we are good at most big things, we tend not to be able to pull off small but symbolic things very well in this country.
Turning to the Bill, I shall pick up the thread of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about data and statistics that will determine the future rights of some EU citizens. The Financial Times recently showed up the discrepancy between the Office for National Statistics data and the reality of the number of EU citizens in the UK who may be eligible for settled status. According to the ONS, some 3.4 million people from the EU are eligible for settlement. However, the number of EU migrants who have applied to stay after Brexit already exceeds the official estimate. At the end of May, there had been some 3.6 million applications. The FT surveyed EU embassies and discovered that the UK Government had underestimated the EU-born population of the UK by more than 500,000 people.
This is reminiscent of Mr Blair’s breezy estimates about how few people would move to the UK when people from the A7 countries were allowed to come, but it is more serious because of its consequences. When the deadline for applications comes on 30 June 2021, there are likely to be people who will lose their legal status overnight and face wrongful deportation. I understand that the Home Office has said that it will take a “flexible and pragmatic approach” and that anyone with “reasonable grounds” for missing the deadline will be given further opportunities to apply. I would like to hear from the Minister what the flexibility and reasonable grounds criteria will be. What opportunities will be available and, more importantly, will they be publicised to EU nationals and their family members? That further opportunity is bound not to be taken up if people do not know about it.
In Committee, I will press for an improvement in the granting of visa for the tech industry. When I was chairing the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee, we heard from numerous groups about the importance of a fast-track, simplified system for people who establish start-ups or work in the fintech sector. There is a vast amount of data on the success of those born abroad in driving growth in the fastest growing companies. Half of the UK’s fastest growing companies have at least one foreign-born co-founder, according to studies. As time is short, I shall pick up on this theme in Committee. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my questions.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in the time I have today I shall restrict my comments to two issues. The first is care workers. As noted by many noble Lords, there are around 120,000 jobs currently vacant in the adult social care sector and around 250,000 social care workers are EU or non-EU nationals. The immigration system proposed in the Bill will seriously undermine the social care workforce. It puts up barriers that will stop people from overseas coming to the UK to work in adult social care. This will lead to an even higher level of staff shortages in the care system, which is already stretched thin and experiencing a high number of staff vacancies. It is also wrong to exclude care workers from the qualifying list for the new health and care visa. While the senior care worker role is included, the salary threshold will make the vast majority of care workers ineligible to apply. Will the Minster set out clearly in her response why the Government are reluctant to provide a sector-specific visa route which allows international recruitment into social care? Such a route exists in other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, so why is such a route not being considered for the UK, especially as our need is as great as theirs?
The second issue I want to touch on is EU children in care. I echo the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Thousands of children in care and care leavers could be at risk of being left unlawfully resident in the UK next year without co-ordinated action between central government and local authorities. The Government are the corporate parent of these children and should act as any parent would. They have a responsibility to ensure that all children in their care receive the settled status to which they are entitled. Applying under the EU settlement scheme is not simple and straightforward. For children in care and care leavers, gathering the required evidence has been a challenge. Will the Minister give the House up-to-date figures on the number of children in care who have applied under the scheme to date and indicate how many of them have been denied settled status? If she does not have the figures to hand, perhaps she will write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Will the Government commit to put in place the processes and policies necessary to guarantee that all EU children in care and care leavers receive the permanent immigration status to which they are entitled?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank all the NGOs and businesses which have been in touch with me regarding the Bill.
The Bill allows the Government to create a new immigration statement by statutory instrument. The Bill is asking for a blank cheque, but on something as important as this, proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential. The Bill also dispenses with the consent of the Scottish Parliament to social security co-ordination measures. Not only is the content of the Bill bad, it is a constitutional outrage that concentrates executive power in the UK by taking control over the consent of nations and Parliament at the expense of child refugees, migrant workers and others.
Further, the Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that unaccompanied children, spouses or vulnerable dependent adults who have a family member legally present in the United Kingdom have the same right to be reunited in the United Kingdom as they would have had under Commission Regulation EU 604/2013.
The deadline for applying to the EU settlement scheme must be extended and a comprehensive plan implemented to protect, as many others have said, all children in care and care leavers to whom this provision is applicable. Furthermore, a child has the right to citizenship in UK nationality law and they should not be charged more than £1,000 to make it a reality. The current citizenship fee for children should be scrapped. I shall also support the amendments on refugee children that will be tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I share all the criticisms made by my noble friends but I shall focus on the potentially hugely detrimental impact on the higher education, cultural and tech sectors of the ending of EEA freedom of movement and on how government needs to take the necessary action required by those sectors so that the impact can be at least partially mitigated.
International students and academic staff contribute hugely to our universities and the UK as a whole. We have recently lost ground as a destination, and the new points-based system and Covid-19 are extremely likely to further damage recruitment. The creative and culture sector makes a major contribution to our lives and economy, but highly talented individuals in this sector are often paid salaries lower than the UK median. As regards the important tech sector, 13% of the UK’s digital tech workforce is international. The UK faces a chronic digital skills gap, and access to talent is the number one issue in the sector.
Given the issues faced by those sectors, will the Government take these steps? Will they extend the current, or make special, arrangements for EU students for the calendar year 2021? Will they confirm and ensure better promotion of the rules for the new two-year post-study work visa? Under the new minimum salary requirements, only 27% of current international academic staff will be eligible, and the figure is even lower in the creative sector. For each sector, will the Government therefore explore a further reduction in the current income threshold and provide greater flexibility for eligibility? For the creative sector, will they extend the permitted paid engagement scheme, allowing multiple visits and permit-free festival arrangements for EU citizens? Will they also seek a reciprocal touring visa with the EU to enable creators and performers to travel temporarily and take their equipment with them tax free?
The new system will place significant burdens on SMEs in particular. Will the Government give businesses and individuals time, guidance and support to adapt to the new system and provide a much more streamlined system for processing visas? Will they bring costs in line with other countries? The total costs are high. In addition to salary costs, they include the cost of a sponsor licence and a visa, the immigration skills charge and an immigration health surcharge, all of which make recruiting workers internationally much more challenging.
In just these three sectors, despite the huge detriment potentially caused by the new system, a number of crucial mitigating steps could be taken if there is the political will. I hope that the Minister can respond accordingly.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the way in which she introduced this debate. However, I echo the concerns expressed around the House about the Henry VIII powers in Clauses 4 and 5, which seem to deny parliamentarians the right to a say over the new Immigration Rules in the future. I fear that that is not the kind of “taking back control” that fits with our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty.
The Bill is silent on how the changes that it makes in relation to Irish citizens will affect the rights of Northern Irish citizens under the Good Friday agreement. However, I want to focus my brief remarks on the issue raised by many others across the House: the implications for the social care workforce and the elderly, disabled or frail individuals who rely on them for their basic quality of daily life.
I support the desire for employers to focus on investing in their staff, providing training and increasing the prestige of the care workforce, thus making it an attractive profession, but that will take a long time. Even in 2018, the National Audit Office highlighted the lack of any updated DHSC strategy for the adult social care workforce. Nearly 20% of that workforce is from overseas but, despite that, there are more than 120,000 vacancies and staff turnover is around one-third each year. The new points-based system will not include those workers.
I support the aim of attracting the very best migrants from around the world but, unlike in the Australian and New Zealand points systems, our limit of £25,000 a year suggests that those working in social care are not considered to be skilled or valuable enough to be worthy of British residence. However, low pay does not mean low value. What will happen if the domestic workforce cannot be trained? We cannot ask these frail, vulnerable individuals to just wait until the training programme works out. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, powerfully explained, this is not about care homes alone; it is about those who live in their own homes and who rely on some immigrants to help look after them.
The domestic workforce is unlikely to respond quickly or positively to work in the care sector—a sector that is underfunded and where workers are underpaid relative to the NHS. Unless we have the Government’s long-term plan for social care, for which we are still waiting a year after it was supposed to be oven-ready, we cannot seriously expect the social care workforce to be filled domestically. I urge my noble friend to listen to the words of my noble friend Lord Naseby and others and introduce a transitional scheme that will help encourage immigration for social care.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Before I start, I wish to say that I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
I shall focus my remarks on how immigration reform will affect science and innovation and the health and care sector. The Government have often said that they want the UK to be a science superpower. Apart from funding and international collaboration, which are crucial, this sector relies heavily on our ability to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent. Thirty-one per cent of UK Nobel prize winners in science where born outside the UK, and 50% of CRUK-supported PhD students are from outside the UK, rising to 70% of post- doctoral researchers. In part, the Government have recognised this by introducing the global talent visa, but serious concerns remain about the rest of the system.
I will focus on two issues. First, I want to talk about the significant cost of the system for employers and researchers, early-stage researchers and technicians, who will be punished by the new rules. Even researchers gaining a Global Talent visa will face costs of over £2,500. This is 10 times the comparable cost in Germany, the US and Australia, and seven times that in France. The UK will be the most expensive scientific destination in the world. Much of this cost is also associated with health costs. The impact is even greater for those not included in the Global Talent visa due to heavy visa costs, which can be as much as £8,500, and that does not include the costs related to family, which will be above that. The points-based system further disadvantages those whose salary level does not reach £25,000, such as lab technicians—a workforce crucial to science and innovation.
Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the effect that the Bill will have on health and social care workers. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications has played a vital role in enabling EU doctors to work in the UK. The legislation would remove that recognition, which applies also to other countries, and would have a significant effect on recruitment, and not just of EU doctors.
My final comment relates to the lack of any migratory route for unregistered care staff—a point already mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross, Lady Kennedy and Lady Altmann. The sector is already in crisis, with an estimated 110,000 nursing vacancies in social care alone. As has already been said, the classification of social care workers as low skilled devalues their contribution and their skills.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments and the opportunity to explore these matters further in Committee.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has withdrawn from the speakers’ list. The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
When this Bill emerges, it will define our place and reputation. Will we be proud to have been here? As the verse at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty says:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
Is that what we want to be remembered for? Or will it be: bring me those who earn between £25,000 and £30,000 per year? Or, bring me those we think of as being best for us? Is it not better to welcome those who are most in need in the world? About 200 or 300 members of staff at the House of Lords earn less than that minimum income that is required to come to the UK—those wonderful people. Need, not greed, should define us, so that people come to us because we want to welcome them. We are trying to build a world which is fit for children to live in, yet we are far, far away from that.
I suggest we look at what will happen with income in Committee, and say that we have to mend this. We have to make this an Immigration Bill with a human face. Thinking of those detained in our immigration centres, we know we are the only country in Europe that has indefinite detention. When the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited some of those detention centres in May this year, it was found that one person had been detained for three years, while another 12 had been detained for 12 months. There is something so wrong with what we are doing with our immigrants. This Bill gives us a chance, so that history will say we took a step that was humane, kindly and concerned. Let us take it.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, someone needs to say it. Those countries of Europe closest to us, our neighbours, are the ones we have most in common with. We should not be contemplating this Bill—I deeply regret it and find it totally depressing that we are considering it.
The first question I want to ask is of the Labour Party. There is a majority in the House, if Labour supports it, for this Bill to be improved. We saw in the Business and Planning Bill that Labour did not support any amendments, because it wanted it to get through without a Third Reading debate. My first challenge is to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, when he winds up for the Labour Party. I am not asking for specifics, but are we going to see the same again, or will Labour support reasonable amendments to this Bill?
My second point is that 1.2 million British citizens live in Europe. They have genuine concerns. They want three amendments to this Bill. The first would prevent the removal of the existing right of UK citizens who moved to the EEA to return with the families they have made there. The second and third would prevent the Bill’s regulation-making powers being used to breach the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Is the Minister prepared to meet representatives of Britain in Europe to discuss their concerns?
My next set of points is from Unison, the union that represents many of the low-paid workers who have been spoken about by noble Lords today. Many of these workers uphold our services, which would not exist without them. There are a number of areas where improvements are needed, not only in the £25,600 threshold, but also in other areas to help low-paid workers. I hope that the Minister will be significantly sympathetic to the need to draft provisions in this area.
Finally, we seem to have privatised the immigration system, with one great notable exception. We have all these difficulties: we need to sort people out and reduce migration— apart from 3 million people from Hong Kong, who, somehow, we can fit in with no problem at all.
This is not a very logical Bill, and I hope we can improve it as it goes through the House. If we can, we can at least make a depressing Bill just about adequate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this Bill brings me great sadness. It embeds and promotes a Brexit that has all the hallmarks of a disaster for the people of the United Kingdom, which, I will remind the House, the people of Northern Ireland did not vote for. This legislation ends the free movement of citizens of the EU, the EEA and Switzerland into the UK. At a stroke, that diminishes the UK, breaks family ties, damages our economy, creates huge obstacles for employers and degrades international research, co-operation and understanding. Frankly, it is a powerful demonstration of how common sense within the British Government has finally slipped its moorings. It makes aliens of European citizens, with whom we have shared common bonds for many years. For me, that is a tragedy, and I do not believe it is what people voted for in the referendum of 2016.
I have particular concerns about specific parts of this Bill that go beyond the obvious risk of creating another Windrush disaster. That would once again show that there are times when the UK’s callousness is matched only by its incompetence. The ending of freedom of movement will cause severe disruption to UK citizens living in the EU, an issue that has already been referred to by other noble Lords. It will also make European nationals coming here potentially subject to the full force of our harsh and often disproportionate immigration detention procedures. I would like the Minister to outline how the Government intend to address these deficiencies.
I note that the opportunity to regularise the position of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, who do not also hold UK nationality, has not been taken in this Bill, despite the safeguards of the common travel area. This potentially leads these citizens open to deportation. The Good Friday agreement guarantees their rights under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is time for the Government to fulfil their obligations here. I call on the Minister to address this particular issue and how the Government intend to remedy this gap in the common travel area provisions.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, without the economic and cultural benefits of the immigrant community to this country over the decades—15% of our population is black, Asian and minority ethnic—this country, with 1% of the world’s population, would not be the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
This week is the Joint Economic and Trade Committee meeting between the UK and India. As chancellor of the University of Birmingham, president of the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) and co-chairman of the APPG for International Students, I welcome the recent Government support for international students through the reintroduction of the two-year post-graduation work visa—I helped to spearhead this in this House in 2007, it came into place in 2008, was taken away in 2012, and has now come back—and the three-year visa for PhD students. Will the Minister say whether the Government will consider the graduate route as part of an international graduate employability strategy, to be developed in collaboration with the education sector and employers, that provides clear guidance for UK employers on how to employ students via the graduate route?
I ask the UK Government please to exclude students from the net migration statistics. Many of us have requested that for years; all our competitor nations do it. Including them is very misleading, as research has shown that more than 95% of international students return after their studies for postgraduate work. For example, when people enter, they say that they are coming to study, but when they are asked on the way out, anybody who worked afterwards says that they were working. This creates an illusion of illegally overstaying international students. The lag between arriving and leaving also means that growing numbers of international students exporting UK education shows an increase in net migration.
Can the Government include India in the list of the 25 preferred countries for the UK tier 4 visa rules being relaxed? For example, China is now included in that list. Furthermore, international students generate business and tourist visas. Can the UK Government also reduce the visa fees for a two-year multiple entry business or tourist visa for Indians to the same level as that for the Chinese? Four years ago, this was reduced for China to £85, whereas it is still more than four times that for Indians. This reduction would help to increase the number of business and tourist visitors from India in general, of course.
In April 2015, we introduced exit checks at our borders. Are the Government using those checks to work out their immigration figures or do they still rely on the International Passenger Survey figures? The noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about data. In August last year, Iain Bell, the Deputy National Statistician at the Office for National Statistics, said that
“the weaknesses in the data were due partly to the International Passenger Survey—a poll of travellers at ports and airports around the UK, which is used to extrapolate wider migration patterns.”
The Financial Times stated:
“The UK’s official statistics agency has announced it is downgrading its estimate of the country’s net migration to the status of ‘experimental’ data after discovering ‘limitations’ in the way the figures are calculated”
using the IPS. Can the Minister address this?
Finally, many noble Lords have mentioned that coronavirus has placed a spotlight on social care and that it is often treated poorly compared to the NHS in terms of support. It is important that the sector is also not an afterthought when it comes to immigration. Social care should be treated as equal to the NHS regarding visa exceptions.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to talk about unaccompanied migrant children. These children, and teenagers, are alone. They have fled war zones and famine. Many of them have been abused, sexually abused and assaulted. They are trapped in camps in Greece and northern France, but have family members in the UK who could look after them. As a country, we need to demonstrate our commitment to these children.
Under the current EU procedures, their rights are enshrined in a network of obligations reinforced by international agreement. When we leave the European Union at the end of December, those protections will fall away. The political declaration of 17 October 2019 between the European Union and the UK set out the framework of what can be negotiated in the future agreement. On the basis of that declaration, the Commission was given a negotiation mandate, but there is no mention in it of asylum, refugees or unaccompanied children. The Commission has competency in this area so, as I understand it, there is no question of negotiating with individual member states after we leave in December.
Therefore, to continue to offer a safe route for these children to join family members in the UK, we must have clear Immigration Rules. We need to amend this immigration Bill to ensure that, in taking back control, as the Government say repeatedly, unaccompanied children are not forgotten. We are talking about children and teenagers who are alone, frightened, isolated, vulnerable and desperate. Without safe legal routes to sanctuary, they will be easy prey for trafficking and smuggling gangs.
The Government’s position is to weaken these children’s rights. Their current proposals are discretionary, not mandatory, with no objective criteria on which to base an application and no rights of appeal, leaving a child in danger and in limbo. Time is running out for these children. We have to do better. Many improvements need to be made to the Bill. In particular, protecting the rights of these children is paramount. Are we a country that values, respects and protects children, or are we not? Will we fail in our duty to help these children and young people? I hope not.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am one of the people who finds this Bill to end free movement a sad and shameful moment in your Lordships’ House. I was proud to sit on these Benches when I listened to the inspiring and outstanding speech that opened this debate, from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I was encouraged by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, from the Labour Front Bench; I thought it sensible and liberal with a small “l”, if I may say so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I hope that the Labour Party can maintain that view as the Bill progresses.
It occurred to me that, over the last 50 years, a large number of families have become pan-European families. I was quite surprised when I worked it out to discover something I simply had not noticed: over half of my own family—a household of three—and our extended family, including cousins, aunties, grandchildren and so on, possess European Union passports. There is a large number of such families in Europe and here, including British families, all of whom will find life increasingly difficult as their families branch out and become more complex as time goes on.
I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is one that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked. What guarantees are the Government giving to people who did not achieve their settled status by the end of June? This is a serious matter.
Secondly, what will happen to people with pre-settled status if they do not convert? Will they simply continue their pre-settled status for ever, or do they have a guarantee that serious things will not start happening to them?
Thirdly, the Minister will know that 10% of the most recent applications were refused; there was a minor spike in refusals in the last lot. Can she tell us why that took place and what the reasons for refusal are?
Finally, the Law Commission suggested that the Immigration Rules need a thorough rewrite. In the spring, the Government issued a paper saying that they were preparing to do that in early 2021. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made and whether that deadline will be met? If it will, will this House have a chance to discuss the Immigration Rules thoroughly at draft stage, because they are so important?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, another important Bill with a potentially detrimental and permanent impact is being rushed through. Concerns are widespread, both in this House and among organisations that represent NHS front-line staff, the care sector and students, and business organisations that represent SMEs and the hospitality sector, including the Bangladesh Caterers Association.
These proposals shut the door on many of the people whom we clapped as heroes, yet the Government say that they will consolidate immigration law and the migrant’s voice. Immigration law experts are disturbed by the extortionate fees, which will penalise families and leave them impoverished. I share the disquiet expressed by many noble Lords at the Minister’s power to amend primary and secondary legislation without sufficient parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
As an officer of the APPG for International Students, I wish to refer to proposals to repeal free movement for EU students. Aside from those in our universities and private schools, 550,000 students come to the UK every year to learn English, contributing over £1.4 billion to our economy yearly. Over 60% of these students and over 59% of international staff in the HE sector come from EU countries.
The Bill would treat these students, who consider Britain an extension of their home country, on a par with other international students, removing their access to loan support. This would compromise our citizens in the EU in many respects. Will the Government consider some reciprocal arrangement to retain these EU students, to mitigate the many postponing commencing their courses as a result of the Covid crisis?
What expert advice are the Government receiving to ensure that the new points-based system will continue to welcome EU students as our neighbours without penalising them? To avoid any Windrush-like scandals, will all EU citizens, and non-EU family members eligible for the EU settlement scheme be provided with physical documentation as proof of their settled status? Without these, students will find it challenging to obtain jobs and accommodation in the future, and it will cause families to continue to exist on tenterhooks.
The Bill introduces a salary threshold detrimental to many NHS nurses and which definitely excludes care home workers, 100,000 of which are currently needed, as well as 93,000 people in the hospitality sector, including those in the curry industry. The Home Secretary made hyped-up promises of support to these people, who are excluded from the proposed list, during the Brexit campaign.
Finally, women make up more than two-thirds of the low-paid earners in this country who face financial uncertainty as a result of Covid-19 and the Bill. Have the Government considered what impact this policy will have on vulnerable women who have fled violence and are now working in this country?
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I join others in welcoming the Bill; it has been a long time coming. Though I have seen and acknowledge the benefits of freedom of movement, clearly the world is different today from what it was 10 or 20 years ago, for better or worse. It is a more volatile and unstable place and there is a lot more economic migration. Therefore, it is only right that we design and shift to a system which is sovereign and based on skills—that is what this country needs.
I hope that, as we make this transition over the coming 12 months or so, we send a message to the world that we are still open to migrants and that we are not closing the shop or raising the drawbridge. In fact, I hope we can see migrants—such as me and my own family, who came here from Hong Kong in my father’s generation—as people who want to come and contribute to Britain, be a bridge to the rest of the world once they are here and be part of helping to level up the country, which I know is a government priority.
I will not dwell on the Henry VIII clauses, because it is important that the Government have the flexibility they need over the coming months. However, it is important that Parliament is involved in this process and in the evolution of our immigration system, and that the Government do not create policy on the fly, which there is a risk of given the scope of the powers the Bill might give.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, while this is clearly not a regional matter, certain regions could benefit as well as suffer if this policy is implemented poorly. For example, areas that are already wealthy may get some of the more skilled, talented and wealthier migrants, whereas there are parts of the country which really need an influx of talent from overseas. Do the Government have plans, particularly around free ports, that are envisaged to encourage that kind of shift?
Secondly, I am worried about capacity: what preparations have been made in the Home Office and the Border Force to cope with the change and the demand that may come? If we can get our act together, I am excited about the potential to harness technologies such as blockchain. Estonia, for example, even has e-citizens who cannot come to the country on a long-term basis but can make use of its law, business and the ability to set up shop in Estonia. Is reform coming to the Home Office to enable it to handle this demand, given that is has such a backlog of regular passports to process currently?
Could we one day shift to a system where we can match the demand from different industries in closer to real time? There is such a delay between knowing where the skills are needed and whether you can match them through local skills coming through the pipeline, or if you need to import labour from overseas. Technology such as blockchain and internet technologies may be able to facilitate better matching than we currently have.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have mentioned the medical profession, I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I reflect on the irony that, as we seem to be curtailing the migration of doctors from the EU to our country, we are repeating history, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, and returning to the developing world big time to recruit doctors for the NHS. It is also ironic that the new health and care visa excludes a great majority of care workers, who will not meet either the income or the skills threshold.
In the Minister’s opening remarks, there was surely a sense of irony too when she said how much the Government value social care. I do not think the Bill shows much appreciation of that profession. Ministers point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which said that the problems in the care sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions. I do not think we need reminding of how important skilled care worker jobs are, and we certainly want more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage.
However, as UNISON said in its evidence, it is disingenuous of the Government to call for better wages and conditions in the sector when the Government are so influential on the financial health of care services. The rate paid by local authorities to care homes for people whose income is below the means-test threshold is highly dependent on grants from central government, which has been going down just as demand as has been going up. These rates have been tightly squeezed in the last decade and, as a result, self-funders pay exorbitant fees, which are in effect a subsidy for council-funded places. These self-funders get no support at all from the state and can see their assets run down considerably.
It is a Catch-22 situation. Essentially, the Home Office says that the care sector should recruit staff from people living in this country and pay them more, but the Department of Health, by its actions, is ensuring that there is no funding to enable this to happen. The Government have now had 10 years to sort this out. They had the Dilnot commission, they legislated for it and then would not put it into place. We had Mrs May’s promise in the 2017 election, which she withdrew. We keep hearing from the Government about a plan that will be brought forward—let us see it.
The thought that this plan, at a stroke, will deal with the immediate issues of the care sector is just blowing in the wind. We have 100,000 vacancies in England alone and, though I do not know in how many months it will be, at some point soon the Home Office will be forced to change this ridiculous policy. I hope the House will help the Home Office do that.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, during the protracted passage of the Agriculture Bill, I spoke about the links between it and the trade, environment and immigration Bills. These all have inextricable links and clauses in each affect the others. I will speak solely to the issue of migrant workers.
The agriculture business relies very heavily on migrant workers. The farm close to me is award-winning, milks huge herds three times a day and is totally reliant on migrant workers. In Cornwall and other arable counties, crops are sown, tended, matured and picked when they are ready to be harvested. This work is done almost exclusively by migrant workers.
At the start of the lockdown, television adverts appealed for those laid off to go and pick crops. The initial response was good, but the work was back-breaking, the hours long, the pay minimal and the accommodation inferior to what was expected. After three weeks, the British workforce melted away. No matter how hard the Government try to sell this as a means of making a living, most of our population is no longer willing to do this work.
The horticulture and agriculture sectors are heavily dependent on migrant workers. It is estimated that over the course of a year, 17,000 migrant workers will be required to fulfil the needs of ensuring that the crops grown are picked and make their way to the farm shops, supermarkets and farmers’ markets, and from there on to our tables.
I have read the points-based system document. The people picking crops are not going to earn anything like the salary threshold proposed. A good grasp of English is not necessary to cut flowers or cabbages; they are not skilled workers as the Government define “skill”. They are never going to accumulate the necessary 70 points, despite falling into the category of a specific shortage occupation.
The Government require businesses to adapt to manage without lower-skilled migrant workers. The development of robotics can help with both the tending and the harvesting of some crops. However, this requires heavy capital investment. While I support the extension of robotics into cropping in agriculture, some crops are not suitable for such methods—strawberries spring to mind.
During the Covid-19 crisis, we have seen in sharp focus how important it is to have a ready supply of healthy, locally grown food. I urge the Government to think again on this Bill and ensure that the workers our land needs are there to assist those running farming and horticulture businesses, so that their crops and produce do not go to waste and rot in the fields.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. This Bill, with its overhaul of the immigration system, presents a major opportunity to address issues of modern slavery and prevent the abuse and exploitation of migrant workers. It could be a crucial tool in the fight against modern slavery. Modern slavery is a hidden crime, and I hope that our borders will be more resilient to infiltration by the evil traders in human beings. I would like to ask the Minister what improvements the Bill provides to ensure that those slavers are denied entry to the UK.
There are some other measures I would like the Minister to consider. Will she look at introducing measures into the Bill to provide safe routes and safe working environments for low-paid workers? We should recognise the importance of labour market enforcement and protection for workers as part of any new such policy. As the Bill stands, I believe it lacks safeguards that would ensure migrant workers are able to come to the UK safely and with appropriate protection from vulnerability. We must create a system that does not encourage or exacerbate modern slavery risks.
We could embed labour protections into the design of any new temporary migration programme proposed, by making specific requirements of employers who wish to hire migrant workers on any temporary migration programme. Perhaps the Government could also include the provision of a safe route for regular labour migration, with decent rights and protections to reduce the risk of increasing the size of the UK’s undocumented workforce. I am sure there will be a high demand for workers in some sectors, which could combine to lead to a rise in undocumented workers and therefore the spread of exploitation. I hope the Government will commit to providing pre-departure and on-arrival information about working conditions and rights for all migrant workers to help identify and seek remedy for cases of abuse.
With our borders better controlled post Brexit, I hope, why not repeal the illegal working offence—a tool used by traffickers to threaten victims—at the very least for employees, if not employers, to enable them to co-operate with labour inspection and report labour abuses? This would also prevent the targeted recruitment of irregular migrants for exploitative purposes and ensure that employers perpetrating abusive or exploitative behaviours can be brought to justice.
I would like the Bill to be amended to establish a new safeguard to ensure that no personal information about workers that is processed or held by a labour inspectorate or the police is passed to the Home Office for the purposes of immigration enforcement. I believe that such mechanisms already exist in the Netherlands, the USA, Brazil and other jurisdictions. This would ensure that our future migration system does not undermine decent work conservation and anti-slavery objectives.
I suggest that we repeal Section 24B of the Immigration Act, which criminalises the act of working without required documentation in the UK, as it is proven to increase the risk of exploitation. Let us not waste this golden opportunity to further our fight against this appalling crime.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, many laws come before the House of Lords that I disagree with but few deserve the label “tragedy”—but the Bill now before us does. In introducing the Bill, the Minister set it out plainly:
“The heart of the Bill is that it ends free movement.”
She said it. The Bill deliberately and bluntly ends something deeply precious that had been available to hundreds of millions of people for decades—a freedom and an opportunity for a wider life. It is a tragedy that we are today, in a stroke, preparing to reduce the freedoms and opportunities of 450 million European citizens and the chances for them to come to the UK and contribute their skills, knowledge and energy to our life.
I will focus on the far greater reverse loss for 66 million Britons, and particularly our young people. Denying free movement from the EU to the UK also means the reverse. We lose freedom of movement in the EU in more than a score of countries spread across a good part of a continent.
Lots of this debate has focused on economics, as far too much of our debate assumes that people exist to serve the economy and not the reverse, but I will focus on people’s lives, hopes, loves and, yes, even whims; the chance to up sticks and move, to stop in your travels, to experiment and to change—an opportunity that this Bill wipes out for Britons.
Movement is integral to the nature of our species—indeed, the nature of our genus, when you look at how far even our ancestor Homo erectus spread around this planet. With this Bill we are choosing to deny it to ourselves. It is traditional in your Lordships’ House to declare interests, although I know that as soon as I open my mouth it is evident that I grew up in one place, which I did not much like, and decided to see what was on the other side of the world, being lucky enough to have that opportunity open to me.
Huge numbers of people in the world move not by choice but by force of war and civil conflict, climate emergency and nature crisis. We should be working towards a world where no one has to move, but we should want a world in which everyone can move and make choices. That option is always available to the rich; there are always ways. Losing freedom of movement is profoundly an issue of inequality. It is those without the cash, connections and languages who will be stuck while the few wander the globe at will.
Many noble Lords have outlined how we might make this Bill slightly less disastrous, prevent children being torn away from their parents and couples from each other, protect child refugees and stop Henry VIII powers, and in Committee I will join in that work. Today I ask your Lordships to consider taking a bold, brave step, stop a tragedy and stand up for a deeply precious right: freedom of movement.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will concentrate on an amendment which I hope will be tabled in this House, even though it was defeated in the other place, proposing new Clause 7. This would limit the time that may be spent in immigration detention to 28 days. It was moved by David Davis, shadow Home Secretary when the noble Lord, Lord Reid, then Home Secretary, famously said that his border force was not fit for purpose.
Last week, a number of us attended a briefing by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who exposed a situation that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, would find depressingly familiar. It is no use saying that under Brexit we have regained control of our borders when our fragile immigration system is in such dire need of direction and organisation. The situation in detention is reportedly even worse than it was when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons and responsible for inspecting it. All the important case work on which everything depends is chaotic. The “hostile environment” should never have been created and the culture of disbelief in the Home Office can be eliminated only by firm and consistent leadership.
As allegedly a civilised nation, we should be ashamed that what purports to be our immigration system is regarded as the most draconian in Europe. In 2019, it was found that a person had been detained for 1,002 days, and the cash-strapped Home Office can ill afford the £21 million that it had to pay out in compensation to 850 people—a shameful number—whom it had wrongfully detained. The Home Affairs Committee in the other place and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have both recommended that no immigrant should spend more than 28 days in detention, with judicial oversight after 96 hours. I shall be tabling an amendment to end the use of segregation during detention, unique in Europe. People describe the locking up of prisoners who have broken the law for 23 hours a day as inhuman treatment. How much worse is the use of similar treatment on innocent immigrants?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, when the electorate across the United Kingdom were given the democratic opportunity to choose whether to stay within the European Union or leave, they decided to leave. There were a number of contributing factors that energised the electorate to come out in their millions to cast their vote, and one was immigration. As one who voted leave, I support the general principle undergirding this Bill.
In the other place, the Home Secretary stated that she was endeavouring to end EU freedom of movement, get ready for a new global immigration system and help restore public confidence in the integrity of our borders. She contended that her aim was to have a fairer, firmer and simpler system that would attract the people we need to drive our country forward, attract the very best talent from around the globe, tighten security and keep criminals out, et cetera. These are laudable objectives, but how to achieve them will no doubt command varying opinions.
In recent years the United Kingdom has struggled with uncontrolled and undemocratic mass immigration that has caused unrest within our society. In my humble opinion, the previous system was untenable and caused increasing pressure on schools, health and hospital services that had to be rectified. We must pay tribute to those from across the world who have worked tirelessly in our health and social care sector, providing an excellent level of service to the community during the most difficult of times. The Government must ensure that these workers do not fall foul of any skills and income-threshold rule that would leave our elderly vulnerable.
Will this legislation exclude some health and care workers from entering the United Kingdom, primarily social care staff? What are the implications for the staffing of health and social care services, quality of care and patient safety in the foreseeable future? I appreciate that we must have an immigration system that is efficient, transparent and able to act against those who frequently break our rules, abuse our health and social services systems and commit serious crime, but we need to permit adequate personnel to come to the United Kingdom, not only to protect the healthcare needs of our community but to have a system that fully meets the needs of our businesses and our economy. During the Covid crisis we owe a great debt of gratitude to agricultural workers and food production workers, who were not only key to the survival of our local economy in Northern Ireland but essential to keeping fresh fruit on our table.
The United Kingdom must be open to receiving the brightest and best talents, wherever they are from, including those with the skills necessary to keep the wheels of industry moving, protect our hospitality sector and, I hope, rebuild our manufacturing base. I must stress that while I welcome the principle of ending uncontrolled immigration, it must be done in a manner that preserves the best of British decency and compassion. We must therefore have an open approach to refugees from communities affected by terrorism, war or persecution.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will leave to others the substantive policy consequences of the choices in the Bill and will leave aside my own views on the wisdom of the Brexit that prompted it—that is now a done deal. My points are focused on the ways in which the Bill will generate bad law, which is damaging in itself and as a precedent. I want briefly to mention two aspects of the Bill that seriously concern not just me but many legal experts.
First, picking up on the comments from many colleagues, especially those of my noble friend Lord Rosser, I will mention the provisions for delegated powers in Clause 4. The scope of secondary legislative power given to Ministers is absolutely astonishing. Clause 4(1) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make by statutory instrument such regulations as she
“considers appropriate in consequence of, or”—
in the famous phrase—
“in connection with, any provision of”
the part of the Bill concerned with ending free movement. This power may, among many other things, modify
“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act.
Noble colleagues have heard how the House’s Delegated Powers Committee has made its views on this aspect of the Bill crystal clear. It was disturbed by the phrase “in connection with” Part 1 because, as it said:
“This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”.
In short, this enables a Minister to decide whatever they want, as long as they can draw some vague connection.
This extraordinary problem is compounded further by a conspicuous lack of clarity in Clause 1 about which aspects of free movement law actually remain in place. With an extraordinary wide discretion to do something very vague, all this adds up to bad law, trouble down the line and a terrible precedent. This is no way to make immigration law, nor law in general. At the very least, Clause 4 delegation powers should be subject to a sunset clause for six months. Will the Minister consider that?
The second issue is the power to charge fees. Clause 4 provides that this charging power extends to making regulations in relation to
“fees or charges … made by or under”
any prior primary legislation. But there is no need for this power to amend fees or charges provisions, as statutory powers to make an order for an immigration health surcharge and related charges are found variously in Sections 38, 64 and 74 of the Immigration Act 2014. The provision should therefore just be removed.
Whether or not we support the removal of free movement, it is what was voted for and the Government are entitled to legislate for it. But that is no excuse for law that is open-ended, vague and inconsistent. Flexibility for Ministers is one thing, but sidestepping issues that should be the domain of primary legislation is quite another.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is much to say and to agree to, but today I will confine myself to four points. First, I very much hope that with the help of this Bill, government policy on immigration will in future pay better attention to the serious public concern around this subject, as displayed in the Brexit referendum. The fact is that all the polling found that the desire for an independent immigration policy was among the biggest motivators for leaving the EU. Such concerns are held especially strongly among the have-nots in society; they have held government policy on immigration to be far too lax for many decades. The haves, particularly the liberal professional classes, have not in general reacted sympathetically to these concerns. Rather, they have too often responded with smug references to their own virtue. But of course the downsides of immigration—the effects on public services and wages, and the creation of depressed areas—are borne disproportionately by the less fortunate in society.
My second point is that the scale of immigration must be reflected in planning within the public sector, a point made clear by my noble friend Lord Hodgson in his startling figures, which are on top of the 3.7 million EU citizens who have applied for the EU SS scheme. Given the number of people who are arriving on our small islands, this needs to be reflected in schools, hospitals, doctors and transport infrastructure, as well as in housing, as was rightly emphasised by my noble friend Lord Lilley. The Blair Government failed in this elementary task and we do not want that failure to be repeated. It is chilling that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has warned in such stark terms about the risk of much larger numbers if the operation of the rules is left with employers. We need a proper answer to this.
Thirdly, it is exasperating to see how often Government policies on immigration, supported by large majorities at the ballot box, are upset by decisions of the judiciary, allegedly on the grounds of human rights. The case of the young lady who travelled to Syria of her own volition is the most recent egregious example. Can the Government draft legislation in order to avoid this risk?
Fourthly and finally, noble Lords will know that I am always concerned about the practical side of laws. The only means of enforcing immigration law aside from tightening border controls is deporting those without a right to remain in the country, yet the Government’s ability to do this is embarrassingly weak. One reason for this is the complexity, expense and riskiness of arranging charter flights. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that to improve enforcement, the Government should purchase or convert some planes for this express purpose?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, on 15 July, the Minister told me that the Home Office is unable to state how many applications from asylum seekers for refugee status are currently being assessed or how long it takes on average to resolve each application. Data collection and the adequate staffing of care homes have both been mentioned during this debate by other noble Lords. Those are questions to which, along with others, I hope to return at later stages. At this point, I want briefly to ask about trafficking, exploitation, family visas, child refugees and indefinite detention.
I am a trustee of the Arise Foundation, which combats human trafficking and modern slavery. Alongside the new points-based system, the Government are considering an extension of their pilot scheme for strict six-month visas for seasonal agricultural workers. The system gives people limited opportunities to change their employer or to challenge abusive practices, and it is therefore essential to ensure that proper safeguards against exploitation are in place.
More widely, we know that traffickers will seek every chance to abuse new immigration policies. We also know that fear of prosecution currently deters many people from escaping abusive employment practices or presenting themselves to the police. Repealing the offence of illegal working so that no victim is at risk of being punished would be an important step towards protecting people from exploitation. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do that.
Under any new or extended scheme for seasonal agricultural workers, what steps will the Government take to inspect recruiters, working practices and living conditions, as well as ensuring that seasonal agricultural workers are aware of their rights and know how to challenge exploitation?
For those who are here legally but who miss the June 2021 deadline for the settlement scheme, what steps will the Government take to ensure that access to healthcare, housing or employment is not lost? Have they made any assessment of older and more vulnerable people who may not yet have applied to the settlement scheme and therefore will be at risk of losing their rights?
The UK remains the only European country without a time limit on detention. Last year, the longest detention stood at a shocking 1,002 days. Covid-19 has led to speedier and more humane decisions. Will the Government build on that and end indefinite immigration detention by replacing it with a 28-day time limit and robust judicial oversight, and amend the Bill to introduce a time limit on such detention? Simultaneously, it would be humane to examine the family visa system to prevent prolonged separations that are detrimental to family life, and to help families to stay together by reforming the minimum income threshold for family visas.
Can the Minister say what steps will be taken under the new rules to ensure that child refugees have access to family reunion with relatives in the UK? More than 1,600 unaccompanied refugee children are stranded on islands in the Aegean. Surely in the context of this Bill, we can do more to help people like them.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I find a certain paradox about what we are considering. We are favouring a policy that encourages those who are most needed for the development of their own society—highly qualified people who are desperately needed in their own parts of the world. We are encouraging them to come here, favouring them as compared with those who do not have prospects of a good future but have proved that they have become valiant parts of our public services and health service.
I want to put on record, however, my appreciation for the progress that has been made in rooting out the hostile environment. This was a disgraceful period in our history and totally contrary to everything we claim as our values. It was particularly damaging to those who had been through sad, traumatic experiences—sometimes hell, with torture. It required political leadership, and I think we should pay our respects to those who have been prepared to provide that political leadership, as compared with others who like to flirt with popularism. There is a difference between firmness and insensitive, harsh policies. We may need firmness, but we must always remember that people are people, and they must always, all the time, whatever the frustrations, be treated with respect and dignity.
We need to safeguard the position of European Union and EEA citizens, and we need to re-examine the right to work, which seems to me a logical development. We must look at the implications of the legislation for trafficking, and we need to be sure that there is real access to legal aid for those who most need it. We really must look at ending, or moving towards ending, detention; we certainly should be imposing a 28-day limit. We need vigilance about all the powers that are being delegated to the Secretary of State.
My final point is this: we all constantly emphasise the importance of family in terms of social stability and the well-being of society, so why is it that, in our immigration policy, we discourage family? We need to look at children and parents and at the part to be played very often by siblings. There is a lot to be examined and scrutinised in the legislation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot disguise my despair when I watch the ineptitude of this Government: their handling of the pandemic and the abysmal complacency and incompetence that we saw there; their blind pursuit of a hard Brexit, even though we are facing a serious economic recession and imagined contracts may be in short supply; the arrogant abuse of power, of which the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are but a searing example; the ugly rewarding of contracts to friends; the never resigning despite bad behaviour; their sweeping under the carpet of inconvenient truths, like the interference by Russia in the referendum; and other aspects of our polity being interfered with too.
This Bill, I am afraid, fits into that list of inadequate governance. It boasts that it is a short, simple Bill. Well, that is one of its failures, because in being so short it fails children, it fails trafficked people—men, women and children—and it fails migrant workers and asylum seekers. There is no mention of their need to be able to work to survive and no mention of detention without limit, referred to by the last two speakers. It fails families, particularly European families who are of mixed European heritage—they might have a parent who is British and a parent who is German or Italian—and the implications of that in keeping families together. It fails students and universities; it fails our elderly, who will be deprived of social care; it fails our farmers and our agri-food businesses: the list is endless.
I want to ask the Minister—I make no criticism of her, because I hold her in high regard—what are we going to do about EEA nationals, so that they are able to prove that they are in the UK lawfully? We were told that the statutory instruments that are promised should be published alongside this Bill, but will they be? Why cannot there be physical proof of settled status? We know that one of the great threats to our security comes from cyberattacks, so we all understand why people want to have a piece of plastic, like the membership card that we all have for museums, to prove their status in this country.
I also want to raise the position of people who settled in other parts of Europe when we were part of the EU, who married and have children but who may want to resettle back here. Will their partners be included in this points system? Will they face insurmountable financial criteria when wanting to come back here if their partner is a German, an Italian, or whoever? Will the Government honour the rights those people thought they had? What will happen about health coverage?
Finally, I want to raise the issues that have also been raised about indefinite detention—we really have to stop that, because it is so cruel and inhumane—and about our deportation regime. We are sending people back to countries they left when they were three or five years of age. There is something inhumane in doing that. There are many questions I seek answers to, but I am afraid that the Bill is a searing indictment of an opportunity that could have been quite different.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for her remarks, particularly in relation to those UK citizens living on the continent. The UK has embarked on a journey and, given the course the country is taking, I see a degree of fait accompli. A caveat would be to allow for flexibility should the need arise.
I had expected to deliver a diatribe this afternoon addressing the uncompassionate manner in which the immigration authorities deliver their services. However, I have taken note that the Secretary of State has underlined the desire to ensure that compassion will become the mantra. I am taking her at her word. This would be highly welcome, but she needs to be kept to account. We need to be able to say to the world—I borrow the Minister’s words, although said in a different context—“This country needs the reputation of being firm, fair and fit as a nation.”
Taking those words in context, we all know of horror stories, and I have first-hand experience whereby a family member undeniably fits those criteria. She was scholarship material at university and is considered to be world-class in her field, yet she was turned down for entry to the UK for a summer vacation to stay with my sister and son—no right of appeal, no nothing. An incorrect assumption was made by an official. I know because I filled in her form and, of course, I know the person concerned. We were eventually informed that her biometrics should be done, and a round-trip drive of 700 kilometres was undertaken, but then, quite extraordinarily, her application was rejected. The system assessed this totally incorrectly. If I were not a Member of your Lordships’ House, I would have made more of a song and dance of it. The report card for the Home Office on that occasion was a resounding F for fail, with a possible flaw in farmed-out services—in this case, a team that had been parachuted in from eastern Europe.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. I support the Bill, but I have a number of concerns I wish to raise with regard to migrant labour involved in the agricultural, horticultural and fishing industries, together with the food processing industry.
All these industries rely heavily on migrant labour. We have seen the reported problems caused by the lack of immigrant labour for fruit and vegetable harvesting over the past couple of months, caused by the lack of movement due to coronavirus. These problems have been severe, and recruitment of labour from home-grown resources has not been a resounding success. The work is tough, often in inclement weather conditions, and not everybody is suited to it.
Under the Government’s new immigration policy, there will be a rigid set of criteria which must be fulfilled prior to the application for a visa. EU and non-EU citizens will need 70 points to enable their application to go ahead, including: first, to have a job offer from an approved sponsor; secondly, to have a job offer which is at a required skilled level; and, thirdly, to be able to speak English to a certain level. I have absolutely no problem with any of those requirements. However, those workers are low paid, which is one of the reasons why we in this country cannot gear up enthusiasm for these jobs, and why we rely heavily on migrant labour.
Many migrant workers will also upskill while they are working here, and that needs to be taken into account. While great strides are being made to automate a wide range of jobs in these industries, there are still very many requirements which simply cannot be carried out by machine. Therefore, I believe that the Government must keep a watchful eye on the migrant labour situation as it unfolds, as the industries which I mentioned earlier might well be disadvantaged, and that would have a considerable effect on the consumer and on food supply.
Finally, I very much welcome the Government’s plan to exclude Irish citizens from migrant restrictions. The Irish are great friends of ours, and they are a major force in the horseracing industry throughout the UK. To restrict their movement would cause serious problems for that industry.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, many of your Lordships have made very valuable points, including the noble Earl who just spoke, so I shall keep my comments short.
I agree that there should be an independent review of the Bill’s impact on the health and social care workforce and the adequacy of public funding for those sectors. The Bill will see an end to free movement, but I am afraid that that is an inevitable consequence of both the Brexit referendum and the incompetence of the EU in the run-up to the referendum, which showed virtually no flexibility on this vital matter. The vote reflected the fact that the British public’s concerns about immigration were ignored by the EU and mishandled by David Cameron, who woke up to the danger of his reckless and opportunistic referendum gamble too late.
Her Majesty’s Government will introduce a points-based immigration system from 2021, as we have heard, but will not introduce a general low-skilled or temporary work route. The fact is that 180,000 EU nationals work in the NHS and care sector, but 69% of EU migrants would not be eligible for a visa if the Government’s immigration system applied to them. I welcome the fact that the Government will introduce a new health and social care visa and fast-track entry, but can the Minister explain further how this would work in practice?
Once the UK starts doing international trade deals, a number of countries will demand visa-free entry to the country as part of the package—India is one example of a country that has asked for that. Can the Minister explain how this fits in with the points-based immigration system?
Finally, will Her Majesty’s Government revisit the idea of ID cards, which are an accepted way of controlling illegal immigration and cracking down on crime elsewhere across the world?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, not only does the Bill do nothing to dismantle the institutional architecture of the hostile/compliant environment, directed by its predecessors, but it extends it to thousands of EU citizens, and with it, vulnerability to detention. So I, like others, hope that we will build on the efforts of Conservative MPs to introduce a time limit. Following the Home Secretary’s very welcome announcement that she has accepted Wendy Williams’ recommendations of a full review of the confined environment, can the Minister assure us that the review has the power to question its basic tenets and institutions?
Also at risk are thousands of children of EU and EEA nationals, particularly looked-after children and care leavers. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that these children receive permanent immigration status before June 2021? What procedures will there be to protect children’s best interests, including by ensuring that their right to British citizenship is not impeded by lack of information or the exorbitant £1,000-plus fee? Will the Minister also undertake to review the no recourse to public funds rule, recently ruled to be in breach of children’s human rights, as many more could now be affected by it? Could she give a categorical assurance that there will be no diminution in the rights of unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking children?
The Bill does nothing to address the existing immigration system’s many flaws, including those affecting asylum seekers. Yet it gives the Government carte blanche, particularly on social security with, as already noted, a clause described by the Delegated Powers Committee as “even thinner than skeletal”, raising serious questions on social security posed by some noble Lords that I hope will be answered.
What we do know is that a points-based system will be introduced through Immigration Rules which Parliament cannot amend. Far from being fair, as noted by other noble Lords, it confuses pay with skill and contribution, to the detriment of those recognised and applauded as key workers during the pandemic but now cast aside as lacking necessary skills. The Home Secretary herself conceded in February that caring is not a “low-skilled occupation”. Why is it being treated as one now?
Overall, the equality impact assessment acknowledges the adverse impact of a pay-based points system on women—as has the Minister. The Cavendish Coalition of 37 health and care organisations has warned the Prime Minister that we are heading swiftly towards an alarming destination with no obvious solution for the care sector and that it would be unwise to believe that domestic recruitment will solve all social care’s immediate problems. With adequate funding, domestic recruitment may well offer a long-term solution, but it is irresponsible to pretend it can do so from next year.
I plead with the Government to think again and, as other noble Lords have pressed, at the very least provide for a transition period during which the promised, much-delayed new care strategy can make provision for rewarding carers adequately in recognition of their essential contribution during the pandemic, which the Minister herself lauded.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I first thank the Government Whips for facilitating my substitution for my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is regrettably ill today. I send her my best wishes. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, she will participate during scrutiny of this Bill.
We have heard reference to “take back control” today, but I do not think the Minister had in mind the image presented by the noble Lord, Lord Green, of an uncontrolled car doomed to crash. If we are taking back control, as she has said, some Members have not given it the warmest of welcomes. But the fact that the Liberal Democrat Benches are among those who have not given it a warm welcome is a lower-order issue. What is most unwelcome is that millions of EU citizens continue to endure great uncertainty, bureaucracy and cost. This is scant reward for the great contribution to our country that these people have made—to our economy, our health and care systems, our culture, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones indicated, and our urban and rural economy alike, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell indicated.
The Minister referred to this Bill as simple. However, a great number of uncertainties arise from it, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who gave a characteristically forensic but humane response to the Minister’s speech. Some of those uncertainties have been outlined clearly in this debate, such as the very appropriate questions from my noble friend Lord Greaves on the legal position across Great Britain if a legislative consent Motion from Scotland is not forthcoming. Will a system come into place, as promised in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, of a
“fully digital end to end customer journey, requiring everyone … to seek permission in advance of travel”?
Or, as the Minister and the White Paper have been silent on numbers, if the Government disagree with the prognosis of the noble Lord, Lord Green and, as page 20 of the 2019 Conservative manifesto said,
“overall numbers will come down”,
to what level and over what timeframe? How will we know if this is a success and how will we be able to hold the Government to account for it?
What will be the limits on the order-making powers in Clauses 4 and 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, asked? The Minister referred to possible reciprocity with regard to UK citizens across the European Union— I stress “possible”. If it is possible that agreement will not be reached, there must surely be contingency arrangements. Will the Government publish those now? People need to know whether they will be enjoying the rights of UK citizens six months on.
The Minister also implied that Clause 2, on Irish citizens, is straightforward. As the Bill proceeds, we will scrutinise that further. We know that those who come from Ireland, processing through Northern Ireland from 1 January next year, are a distinct case. The Government say that the UK has left the single market, but while Great Britain has, the UK in its entirety has not—one whole nation remains. In the words of Boris Johnson to UK citizens there:
“You keep free movement; you keep access to the single market”.
With a common travel area with no immigration processes for people also living under the EU single market, or for those under the free movement of people rule set by the European Union going forward from next January, how will we know when they travel to Great Britain and what will the processes be? It may not be that a border point will be required in my home town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated, but what are the internal United Kingdom immigration processes to be? These are unprecedented and likely to be very unwelcome.
Turning to most of those who move from Northern Ireland to GB, or accompanying goods and for trades and services, this leads on to the issue raised with regard to trade. Another of the Minister’s comments that weakens when there is greater scrutiny was that we will have a single system with no privilege for particular nationalities. However, that is not the case, as the UK trade agreement with the Swiss Confederation illustrates. We know that Australia and New Zealand have asked for differential visa arrangements and that this is also part of the discussions with the European Union. The Government themselves have asked for preferential treatment for those working in banking and the City of London. Perhaps that is what the difference is when my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked who the best are. If they have money, we will want them, but if they have not, they will have to struggle.
Finally, “the brightest and best” will, I think, gradually be seen, along with “global Britain” as a toom tabard, as we in Scotland would say—an empty coat. The time for sloganising has gone; the campaigns for referenda or elections are finished. We now face the hard task of legislating and we need to make the Bill better. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated, it needs to be a more humane piece of legislation. Through those amendments that will be pioneered by my noble friend Lady Barker and others, we will give the Bill scrutiny. It is unwelcome, but we will try to make it better for all those people who are currently going to endure it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I start, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, by paying tribute to all the immigrants who have come to our country and worked in essential services and elsewhere. They have made a great contribution to the United Kingdom. They have made it richer, better, more diverse and a better place to live. Bills such as this are scant reward for that.
This has been an interesting debate, to say the least. It continues the path the Government have taken of inflicting harm on our country based on obsessive dogma rather than what is right. Dogma is the problem here. That is a tragedy and, working with colleagues across the House, I will work to improve the Bill and send it back to the other place in a better state than it arrived in here.
As we have heard, the Bill repeals retained EU law on free movement and brings nations which benefited from that status into a single immigration system. I suppose bringing things together in one system is probably the best thing you can do, but it is the Government’s attitude, and of the Home Office in particular, that concerns me when it comes to these matters. We have often heard the Government say that they have learned lessons and apologise for the latest scandal, but when you see a Bill such as this, you begin to ask yourself whether the lessons have really been learned.
We are in the middle of the biggest health emergency in our lifetime. We have clapped health workers, care workers and others who have kept the country going, including those who have picked our fruit and vegetables in the hot sun and worked in food processing and other essential jobs. Many are just the sort of people who in future will be materially affected by the proposals in the Bill. In turn, that puts our citizens at risk. The Bill creates a system which falls way short of meeting our needs in such sectors as health, social care, hospitality and food production. It imposes bureaucratic and financial barriers to recruiting skilled healthcare workers from the EEA. If they get past all the red tape, their rights and entitlements are diminished and, for the carers and other essential workers we have relied on during the pandemic, who have also put their lives on the line, there is no route to work in London or elsewhere because they will not meet the minimum income requirement.
The saying “shooting yourself in the foot” comes to mind. We need to look carefully at the powers of the Secretary of State to make immigration policy by way of the Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made an excellent speech. We have a serious problem which the Government must address. We must improve the position of workers coming from abroad to work in the health and social care sectors—they are vital to the proper functioning of our society and to ensure that people are looked after properly in old age and when they are ill—along with an affordable, simple, effective and clear route to residency and citizenship if they want to take that.
The Minister referred to the long-term plan for social care in her opening remarks. I was not aware that we had a long-term plan for social care. Perhaps she will outline it in her response to the House.
The other line I got from the Minister—and heard from many noble Lords today—was that the system has allowed wages in the care sector to be kept low, and that this new system will allow us to ensure that wages can increase. Of course, that is good to hear, but it is an interesting line from the Government. I have not heard it many times from the Benches opposite in the 10 years I have been in this House. It will be interesting to see campaigns from those Benches to ensure that wages for healthcare workers are increased, because we need to deal with the scandal of poverty pay. I cannot recall such a campaign, but I have contacts at the GMB, UNISON and the TUC. If any noble Lords opposite need them, I am sure we can get a campaign going for the Government to call on employers to ensure that they pay their workers better. But, of course, the Government have not used the powers they have now to do that. They have the powers to increase wages and so on, and they have chosen not to do so or to deal with these issues.
Many noble Lords have referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. It raised concerns about the previous version of the Bill, as did many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is important that we deal with this issue. I kept hearing “take back control”, but it never seemed to me to mean what we have now. It seems a very funny “take back control” where you do not like scrutiny by Parliament, engagement or challenge. That is what Parliament is here for. It is strange that the Executive seem to be shying away from those things. We need to remember that because what we have now is bad government. It is not good government; it does not get the balance right. This is a Government who do not like scrutiny, challenge or being accountable. They are a Government who will reap what they have sown. Their intolerance of scrutiny will leave us with all sorts of traps, which the Government will be dragged into. We shall sit here year after year, after all sorts of changes and moves backwards and forwards, because they would not listen and take part in that scrutiny. They will find difficulties in years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made some excellent points about the importance of proper, accurate data to make the decisions you need to make. I hope he gets a detailed response from the Minister on that.
A number of noble Lords referred to skills and the need to upskill our workforce. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. In his previous roles as leader of a major local authority, Education Secretary and Home Secretary, he has an impressive track record of improving the life chances of citizens, reducing class sizes, improving schools’ infrastructure, increasing literacy and numeracy and keeping us safe. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and thought he raised a number of important questions that need careful answering.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock raised concerns about the parts of the Bill that deal with social security entitlements. Can the Minister confirm how we will ensure that eligible residents take advantage of the settled status scheme? I have raised this before. The real risk, of course, is that people do not realise they need to take advantage of this scheme and potentially end up in our country illegally. That cannot be right.
As entitlements to benefits, healthcare and other services are denied or deferred here in the UK, how will that affect British citizens living in the European Union? A number of noble Lords made the point that they are our citizens living abroad and we need to ensure we protect them. If the EU sees its citizens having their rights denied or taken away here, there is a risk of changes to the rights of our citizens living abroad in Europe.
I support the calls of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, to support the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. It is a very good Bill, and I have supported him many times in the past. It would be good to bring the protection afforded to victims of modern slavery in England and Wales up to the same standards we have in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to address the issue of victims of modern slavery and why the Government are just not engaging with it. The loss of important EU protections is a risk to victims of modern slavery, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley asked a number of questions about the status of child EU citizens in care in the UK. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that these children’s immigration status is resolved properly and that the path to residency and citizenship is mapped out for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked me about our attitude to voting on Bills in this House. I am always happy to divide the House and defeat the Government on issues where I think they have not listened or are wrong and need to be given the opportunity to reconsider in the other place and come back. I think I have a reasonably good record of defeating the Government, but I am also happy to engage with them, work constructively and seek to persuade them of the need for change. I hope the Government would confirm that I am always constructive, as I am with all members of the governing party.
On the Business and Planning Bill I made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that I was prepared to divide the House if necessary. I was successful in winning a number of concessions, such as the 11 pm cut-off for off-sales, protections for pavement users and issues on which we felt the Government had unintentionally forgotten bodies such as the mayoral development corporations and TfL—for example, not allowing them to meet virtually. We raised those issues and the Government agreed. When considering the Business and Planning Bill or any other Bill, I have to weigh up what is right and get the right balance between further demands, important issues to be raised, engagement and when it is right to vote or accept the concession. Sometimes you can get that wrong, but I think I got it right this week. I am always happy to engage with noble Lords on that basis.
Moving on to other areas of the Bill, I warmly welcome the part that protects the rights of Irish citizens. There are historic links between Britain and Ireland, and that is to be welcomed. My parents came from the Republic of Ireland to work in London and then, some years ago, they retired back to the Republic. Like many others, I have a great love of both the UK and Ireland. We have many shared values and a shared history. My mum came to this country to work as a nurse in the NHS. Many years later she ended up working in the Members’ Tea Room in the House of Commons, and there will be many Members here who knew her when they were in the other place. The links between our two countries are to be treasured.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of immigration detention. We have heard some horrific stories of people being treated unfairly and unjustly, and that does nothing but bring shame to our country— we have to do better than that. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others raised concerns about this issue, and I agree with them.
In conclusion, this is a dreadful Bill and I hope that we will have made it a little better when we send it back to the other place. I will very happily join other noble Lords in dividing the House if necessary. I believe that the Government will reap what they sow with this Bill. I predict that over the next few years there will be many retreats, U-turns and changes, with the Government saying, “We didn’t really mean that”. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to the debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for all their contributions over the course of four or five hours, and I am sure that they will understand that I will not be able to answer every single question. We have covered a wide range of issues, and the fact that there has been either support for the Bill or comments such as “tragedy” and “squalid” shows that there is a wide range of views in this House. That demonstrates to me the importance attached to many immigration issues, and rightly so. I guess that there is a further irony, in that a first-generation Irish immigrant Front-Bencher is winding up the debate with a second-generation Irish immigrant; such is the importance that we attach to Irish immigrants.
My noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley reflected on the trends of the last couple of decades—which are very important in the context of immigration —and the consequences that immigration has had for those trends, whether they be in housing or infrastructure or indeed in attitudes among society. I was most intrigued that both the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Green of Deddington, who are probably on quite different parts of the spectrum on a number of matters, put down the marker of the importance of getting this system right—or else. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, outlined—quite openly, I thought—the problems and consequences of immigration in the early 2000s.
Many noble Lords expressed concern about the detailed policies proposed under the points-based immigration system and the immigration delegated power set out in the Bill. It is important to note at this point that the Bill is narrow. It is focused on ending the EU’s rule on freedom of movement now that we have left the EU. It is a short, technical Bill that does just that and it does not deal with wider immigration issues.
I must also make it clear that the delegated power in the Bill will not be used to make wide-ranging policy reforms; it will merely switch off the free movement rights that EU citizens currently enjoy so that we can align the immigration treatment for EU and non-EU citizens. The Immigration Rules will continue to be used to set out the detailed requirements that a person must meet in order to live, work and study in the UK under the new points-based immigration system.
The Immigration Rules are well established and their use is based on the powers in the Immigration Act 1971. That process is therefore nearly 50 years old, so it is not a novel concept in this Bill. The Immigration Rules are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and enable flexibility, so that policies can be adapted to respond to changing circumstances—for example, as we have done during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Bill does not legislate on the details of the points-based system, nor does it legislate on detention, asylum or compliant environment policies. These are important matters and I know that we will discuss them in Committee and on Report, whether they are in the Bill or not—I have been in this House long enough to know that. They are not part of the Bill, but I look forward to discussing them.
My final point in my introduction is that it is four years since the British people voted to leave the European Union. We must deliver on the will of the people, much as some people may not like it.
The topic that has probably been discussed most in this Second Reading debate is health and care workers. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked about the long-term social care plan. I am afraid that that is out of my powers. However, I know that down the other end of the Corridor, the various sides of the House are trying to come to some sort of consensus on the way forward. I should say that I got into local government more than 20 years ago, and it was a conundrum then and remains so to this day. All parties to the matter, whether from this House or that House, need to find a way forward on this. We should all be incredibly grateful for the work of health and care workers and for the lives that they have saved over the past few months in the fight against coronavirus. They should be valued more than they are.
The Home Secretary has introduced a free one-year automatic visa extension to approximately 3,000 key front-line health workers, including an exemption to the immigration health surcharge. The Home Secretary has also expanded the bereavement scheme to all NHS health and social care workers to include offering indefinite leave to remain for immediate family members and bereaved hospital support workers and social care workers.
On 29 April, we announced that we will extend the visas of NHS front-line workers and their families whose visas expire between 31 March and 1 October. We are working with all NHS trusts and the wider independent health and care sector across the whole of the UK to identify who will benefit. The extension to NHS visas will be automatic. There will be no fee attached and it will be exempt from the immigration health surcharge. We have extended this offer to more key front-line workers, including midwives, social workers and medical radiographers. Social care workers who are employed by NHS trusts, or independent health and care providers, and working in one of the defined occupations, will benefit from the automatic visa extensions offer where visas are due to expire between 31 March and 1 October 2020.
There has been much discussion about the ability of migrant workers to undercut UK workers. Much has been made of the idea that we cannot train people up between now and the end of the year. However, there is a challenge to employers across this country around the easy option of migrant labour, which has undercut our own home-grown workforce for far too long. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was who said that people in this country do not want to work in care, but I do not agree with that. Employers need to support this very worthwhile profession on which so many of us rely, both at the beginning of our lives and towards the end of our lives. That is a challenge for employers in this country.
I come next to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and family reunion. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, challenged me on this, as of course did the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I am sure he will continue to do so. I have said it before and I will say it again: the UK has a long and proud tradition of providing safety to those who claim asylum and it will not be affected by our exit from the EU. We will continue to provide protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations.
I have trotted out the statistics at this Dispatch Box time and again. Under national resettlement schemes we have resettled more people than any other state in the EU—we are incredibly generous to those who need our help. During the transition period, the UK will continue to reunite unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe with family members in the UK under the Dublin regulation. During the coronavirus pandemic, we brought over 52 people from the Greek islands, and I think we might be the only state in the EU that did that. We will continue to process all those transfer requests.
We have now presented a genuine and sincere offer to the EU on a new reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On 19 May, we published our draft legal text as a constructive contribution to negotiations. Additionally, children with immediate family members in the UK will still be able to join them under the refugee family reunion rules and part 8 and appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. These routes are unaffected by our departure from the EU. Finally, noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister’s pledge to resettle a further 5,000 vulnerable people seeking refuge, from not just Syria but anywhere in the world. That actually goes way beyond the asks that some of the NGOs have made of us. I am proud of the record that we have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, talked about children in care being denied EU settlement scheme status. Across government, we are working to ensure that all eligible children obtain the UK immigration status they are due. The Home Office has already spent £9 million funding third-party organisations across the country that support families and the hard-to-reach with the apps that they produce. In March, we announced a further £8 million to support this work. It is wrong to say that children will be subject to restrictive measures; they will not. Up to 31 March 2020, there have been almost half a million applications from under-18s. That is a really good figure. There is still plenty of time to apply before the June 2021 deadline.
In that vein, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked me about the EU settlement scheme grace period and reasonable grounds. We will publish the guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline; we intend to do so in early 2021. However, I will give her examples of what might be included. It will include children whose parent, guardian or local authority failed to apply on their behalf; people in abusive or controlling relationships who perhaps could not apply; and those who lack the physical or mental capacity to apply. I think that I might have talked to her about that earlier.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol talked about looked-after children. I think I am repeating myself, because I just mentioned that in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley. We are liaising very closely with local authorities.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, and my noble friend Lord Wei all asked about regional variation. Our new points-based system—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I think it was, supported this—will work for all parts of the United Kingdom. We will not establish different visa arrangements for different nations or regions of the UK. The MAC has repeatedly said that the economic situations in different parts of the UK are not sufficiently different to warrant different immigration arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to Northern Irish citizens and the Good Friday agreement. A person of Northern Ireland, as defined in the Belfast agreement, has the right to hold British and Irish citizenship, and the right to identify as British, Irish or both, as they may so choose. The Irish rights clause in the Bill is focused on protecting the rights of Irish citizens under existing CTA arrangements. Irish citizens in any part of the UK and British citizens in Ireland enjoy reciprocal rights. Maintaining these rights supports provisions in the Belfast agreement, specifically the right to identify as British, Irish or both.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others asked about fees—I think maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did as well. On the face of it they seem high, particularly when we are talking about children, but application fees for border, immigration and citizenship services play a vital role in our ability to run a sustainable system. The income helps to deliver the funding requirements to run the border, immigration and citizenship service and substantially reduces the burden on UK taxpayers. I am sure that noble Lords and members of the public rightly expect that. Any decisions regarding future fees payable or funding of the system should be taken in the round and outside the passage of this Bill.
Lots of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Dubs and Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others talked about a detention time limit. The main rationale put forward for a time limit is that, in the absence of one, individuals are detained indefinitely. Although I know that noble Lords have cited cases, it is not the case that the law actually permits indefinite detention. A time limit is not only unnecessary; it would severely limit our ability to use detention as an effective means of removal. A time limit would encourage those who seek to frustrate the removal process—and there are those who do—to run down the clock until the limit is reached and release is guaranteed.
Quite a few noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord McColl of Dulwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, spoke about modern slavery. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham also spoke to me yesterday about this. Modern slavery and human trafficking have no place in this society, and we are committed to fortifying our immigration system against these crimes while ensuring that victims are protected and offenders prosecuted. Decisions made through the national referral mechanism regarding whether someone is in fact a victim of modern slavery are not affected by their nationality or their immigration status. In fact, I might say that many victims of modern slavery are citizens of the United Kingdom. Support for suspected victims is provided through the NRM regardless of nationality and, although the UK has left the EU, our core international obligations to victims remain unchanged.
I had questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about specific sectors. The noble Lord asked about the creative industries and the noble Baroness asked about modern foreign language teachers. The shortage occupation lists are set on the advice of the independent MAC. It has considered the position of teachers in a specific report in 2017 and in a general view of the shortage occupation lists last year. Teachers of Mandarin are on the shortage occupation list, as I think the noble Baroness might have said, but the MAC did not consider that the case was made for MFL teachers. I can tell her and the noble Lord that the MAC is currently undertaking a further review of the lists and will keep them under regular review so, if they have concerns about this and the sector, I would encourage them to submit evidence to the MAC.
I turn now to another sector, that of ministers of religion, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked about. We greatly value the contribution that migrants make to faith communities in this country, and that is why there are two routes for religious workers within the current immigration system which will be continued under the future points-based system. When we made changes in 2019, the then Immigration Minister hosted a round table with representatives of all the major faiths, and just in the past week the current Immigration Minister hosted a further meeting with representatives of the Catholic church.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on data. This means that I now have a third friend in the House of Lords who is interested in this subject. On a much more serious point, however, the data that we collect on people coming into this country and going out again, along with noting the number who have applied for the EU settlement scheme—a figure that is much higher than we first thought—is absolutely crucial to some of the retrospective and future decisions that we make. We do not agree that Home Office data on immigration is poor. It may be criticised, but we publish some of the most comprehensive immigration statistics of any country and their quality is overseen by the UK Statistics Authority which has been clear that the data is good. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a point about exit checks. These are crucial to enhancing the robustness of our data and I believe that we have been collecting data on them since 2015.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, and a number of other noble Lords talked about physical proof of status. I smiled a little at that point because, just the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe were absolutely adamant about digital proof of status. We are developing a broader immigration system that, going forward, will be digital by default. As I told the noble Lord on a previous occasion, individuals will receive notification of their immigration status by email or letter. However, the one thing about digital status, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, is that you cannot lose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about the data for higher education and he noted that the vast majority of students return to their home countries after they have completed their studies. They do that and they are incredibly compliant. He quoted from published Home Office statistics. I agree that it is true for the current crop of students that the current sponsorship is working well. We do not want to return to the pre-sponsorship days, when there were significant concerns about the quality of some of our education establishments, particularly in the FE sector.
I have probably come to the end of my time. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I look forward to considering in Committee some of the issues that I know will be brought forward, whether they are in this Bill or not.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 7th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (7 Sep 2020)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Within six months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 are to be enforced.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister and her team for the briefing sessions arranged since Second Reading and the substantial package of materials circulated last week, including some illustrative statutory instruments, which I always find helpful in understanding how Bills will work. We will come on to those in later groups.
I know from all the legislation that I have made as a civil servant and as a Minister, and complied with as a businesswoman and a citizen, that how a new law is enforced and the resources devoted to it is almost as important as the law itself. Our amendment, the first in this group, is a probing one designed to elicit detailed information on enforcement ahead of Report. I note that there is very little in the Bill, no doubt because the enforcement provisions, penalties, powers of entry and enforcement officers responsible sit in existing legislation, but we need a road map. We need to know as much as possible now and, failing that, we need a public report to Parliament within six months, as stated in my amendment—the way the excellent Bill clerks thought that we could ensure the provision of adequate information.
As discussed at Second Reading, my general approach is that government policy should align itself more closely with the majority of public opinion, which has consistently held over many decades that more rigorous controls are needed and that the rules should be enforced fairly and firmly. This was shown unequivocally in the Brexit referendum.
There are a number of troubling issues with enforcement implications. The number of migrants seeking ever more novel ways to get into the UK illegally is growing. Last week, it was reported that a record 416 migrants exploited fine weather to make the crossing from France to England in one day, arriving on beaches all along the south coast. Immigration law can be enforced by tightening border controls or by deporting those without a right to remain in our country, yet we see repeated reports of the failure of government steps to remove migrants who have already sought asylum elsewhere or have no right to remain for other reasons. Last week, a charter flight took off for Spain that was meant to carry 20 such migrants; in the event, only 11 boarded the plane, after late legal challenges. The week before, the Government abandoned a similar flight with 23 migrants on board, after last-minute legal action. Many thousands are attracted to dangerous ways of entering the UK, because the authorities are known to be useless at enforcing the law.
We have passed many laws and regulations in recent years, including in 2014—when I had the pleasure of supporting the then Home Office Minister, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach—but enforcement has been weak. As a result, businesses, banks and landlords play a big part in policing the rules at very considerable cost to themselves—as I remember well from Tesco. Yet immigration continues to increase. There are large numbers here illegally, both putting pressure on our public services and housing and risking ill treatment and exploitation—for example, in modern slavery or in dangerous low-paid working environments.
The Bill focuses on the EEA and Switzerland, and migrants arriving from those countries are not exempt from the problems that I highlighted. There is never-ending pressure on the EU’s southern and eastern borders, and the growth of hotspots of deprivation in EU urban centres. This phenomenon, most shockingly shown by the queues across Europe a few years ago, helped to bring us Brexit. The Bill must provide the powers we need to tackle these issues properly or we will never be forgiven.
Against this background, I have some questions. First, where are the enforcement provisions that will apply to the Bill and regulations made under it? What are the fines and criminal sanctions that apply and to whom? Secondly, the Bill contains powers to amend primary legislation elsewhere. Can that include enforcement provisions and how would such powers be limited? Thirdly, what are the enforcement authorities—the Border Force, the police, local authorities, the Home Office or the DWP?
Fourthly, what resources are available for enforcement and how much will they be increased? For example, the UK points-based immigration system, set out in CP 258 and at the useful briefing arranged by my noble friend the Minister, requires a huge new administrative structure post Brexit and an ESTA-style system involving millions of individuals every week. According to the department’s interesting impact assessment—thank you to the Home Office for doing one, by the way—there were 142.8 million passenger arrivals in 2018. That included nearly 41 million from the EU and 20.5 million non-EEA citizens. That necessitates a lot of checking. Add to that the pressure on our authorities of the illegal attempts I described earlier, the complications of Covid and post-Brexit trade, and you have a case for much more resource.
Fifthly, what scope is there for the use of technology to ease the obvious pressures on our enforcement? Does that also have downsides too that have been anticipated?
Finally, will the Minister take another look at the economics of deportation flights? At Second Reading, I suggested the Government take advantage of the current market to buy some small planes for this purpose. Having some experience in this area, I was not happy with the response in the Minister’s letter. Given the failure rate and the apparent ability of lawyers to delay deportation on flimsy grounds, I am sure it would be cheaper, in the longer term, than charter flights. I am clear that, given media coverage and public concern, the public would not put up with the use of scheduled or mixed flights for that purpose. This approach would generate more confidence, and we need that. I urge the department to work with the Treasury if necessary to do a proper cost-benefit analysis, rather than applying some narrow procurement mantra.
In conclusion, I support Clause 1. However, we need to be clear about the rules for enforcement and entry. The other amendments in this group cover other aspects, and I look forward to colleagues making the case for these, although I must to admit to reservations about some of them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I agree with her that we need to tackle modern slavery and exploitation in the UK and that this is something the Government need to properly fund and prioritise, focusing on the exploiters, not the victims. I am, however, speaking in direct opposition to her statement as I am opposing Clause 1.
Today marks another step in the robbing of rights from millions of Britons that they were born with and the removal of rights for future generations. Clause 1 is a key step by which freedom of movement for Britons and to Britain ends. I believe we should not allow the destruction of rights and freedoms for Britons to pass unmarked, which is why I have put down my intention to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
As I did that, I was thinking back a couple of years to a rally in the centre of Brussels, held in ankle-deep snow, where I heard from lots of Britons who had come from across the continent to talk about how freedom of movement had changed and improved their lives. In particular, I think of a woman who, when young, had upped sticks when her life in the UK had not worked out, moved to several European countries over the years, built a couple of different careers and made a full, interesting, varied life for herself. She came from a very poor area of England and from a family with few financial resources. But she had bought a cheap coach ticket, shifted across a continent and found opportunities, interesting experiences and a comfortable place for herself in the world.
The wealthy have always been able to do this and, no doubt, will always be able to. Many an aristocrat set out on the Grand Tour and, by choice, never came home. Many a black sheep from a wealthy family snuck off to the continent and rebuilt their life away from scandal. The arrival of freedom of movement meant the chance for everybody to exercise that freedom to seek the opportunities, the experiences, the enhancements of life that change can bring and the chance to meet new and different people, learn a new language and find a different culture, environment and way of life.
Making that opportunity available to all was a huge step towards balancing inequality, and now it is being wiped out. All our lives are much poorer with the loss of freedom of movement. Of course, it has also been a safety net. British builders escaping the deprivations of 1970s Britain in Germany became a stereotype, but it was a fact. In our shock-ridden, insecure and unstable world, how vital might that right have been to many in the future?
As a noble and learned Lord pointed out to me when I was discussing my intention with him, I do not have the power to simply restore that movement right for Britons. That right is granted by other states under EU membership, which we have now lost, and all those rights will go when we end the transition period at the end of this year. These are rights, incidentally, that quite a number of Members of the House of Lords have availed themselves of. Freedom of movement exercised before the end of December will continue, unless by tearing up the withdrawal agreement signed just eight months ago, as was being threatened this morning, Boris Johnson puts into question the rights of the 1.3 million Britons who thought they were secure through their existing residence in the EU. What I am proposing would keep the rights of citizens from EU states in the UK. But the principle of reciprocation is strong, and we could, in accepting these rights, expect that reciprocation.
Moving countries is something that many people will never consider. My aim will always be for a world where no one is forced to leave their home by poverty, war, discrimination or environmental crises. But there are always people for whom this is an exciting idea: for some, the possibility of escape is attractive, and for others, the possibility of a fresh start they cannot find in their birthplace is essential.
We are also denying ourselves the talents, skills and energy of people from across the continent, who, without free movement, will not have the same opportunities their elders enjoyed. I am sorry about that too.
When young British people ask me what I did to keep their freedoms and opportunities, I will be able to say I did my best to defend them. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House: how would you answer that question? I am not going to ask Members to put their votes on the line today, but I intend to in the future.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, that was indeed a passionate speech.
When I was a first-year law student at Hertford College, Oxford, we learned that apparently the Roman Emperor Caligula ordered that laws should be displayed in small letters as high up as possible to make it difficult for people to know their legal rights and obligations. Amendment 3 focuses attention on an extraordinary provision in this Bill—paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1—which, if enacted, will make it impossible for people today to understand their legal rights and obligations.
Paragraph 4 is concerned with the EU regulation on free movement of workers. Paragraph 4(1) is a model of clarity; it says that Article 1 of the regulation “is omitted”. However, paragraph 4(2) displays the parliamentary draftsman at his or her most coy. It is so extraordinary that it must be read out:
“The other provisions of the Workers Regulation cease to apply so far as—
(a) they are inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts (including, and as amended by, this Act), or
(b) they are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
It is simply not acceptable that when people want to know whether a provision of an EU regulation continues to apply, they must ask themselves whether the provision is
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation"
of a provision of the immigration Acts. This is drafting so opaque that it puts a brick wall between the individual and the law which applies to him or her. It is drafting so lazy that it is comatose. The same woeful drafting technique also appears in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, a provision addressed in Amendments 4 and 5 in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I support. If the Government want to ensure that provisions of a regulation cease to apply, they should say so with clarity.
Amendment 3 is in my name, and in the names of two other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, our chair, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith. The Constitution Committee’s report, published last week, drew attention to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 as unacceptably vague and inevitably productive of legal uncertainty. We quoted the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Adrian Berry, the barrister chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. He said of this provision:
“You need to make better laws. Make it certain and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 9/6/20; col. 52.]
I agree. Basic standards of legislative drafting need to be upheld. Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 is way below what is acceptable. I can think of no precedent for such a provision.
I hope that the Minister says that she understands the objection to this provision and that she will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. I give due warning that if the Government do not address this concern, and if other noble Lords share my concern, I will return to this topic on Report.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment and the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I apologise if the Committee starts its debate on another report from the Constitution Committee before this section is concluded.
In many respects this is a skeleton Bill, and in this area it changes significant amounts of primary legislation into secondary legislation, therefore making it open to less effective parliamentary scrutiny when powers are used. If something needs to be changed because of inconsistency, then the face of the Bill is the place to put it, but here we are with the concept of inconsistency so subjective and vague that it is difficult to imagine how a court would interpret it. Is
“otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”
restricted to precluding the operation of the Act, or does it extend to casting doubt on provisions in this Act? What is it supposed to mean?
In our report on Brexit legislation, the Constitution Committee said that
“delegated powers should be sought only when their use can be clearly anticipated and defined”,
yet in this Bill we get terms such as “appropriate”, “in connection with” and the ones which I have just quoted. It is an unsatisfactory way of drafting, and I am bound to wonder what instructions were given to the parliamentary draftsmen when they worked on this section.
The Constitution Committee has had quite a bit of discussion over the last couple of years about the drafting of legislation and the circumstances in which parliamentary draftsmen should say, “No, this is not a way in which we write laws, this is not acceptable”, and if a dispute arises, then not only departmental Ministers but also law officers should be involved in defending the basic principles of law. Having looked at these provisions, which I hope the Government will find a way to remove, we concluded that
“they risk making a complex area of the law even more difficult to navigate and understand for practitioners and individuals alike”,
and that they threaten to
“frustrate essential ingredients of the rule of law.”
These seem to me to be compelling arguments for the Government to have more thought on this issue.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the proposed new clause in Amendment 60, which has cross-party support and is sponsored by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Garden of Frognal, and Lady Morris of Yardley, is largely self-explanatory. If accepted, it would continue allowing minors to travel from the European Union, other European Economic Area states and Switzerland to the UK on identity cards rather than passports beyond 31 December 2020.
Large numbers of junior nationals from these jurisdictions travel to the UK every year for school exchange visits, English language courses, adventure holidays and a range of sporting and cultural activities. Last year over 150,000 European Economic Area juniors travelled to the UK for English language courses alone, many of them travelling in groups for study programmes that lasted for less than two weeks. This is an invaluable cultural and educational exchange that builds friendships and fosters good will between the UK and other nations. Most of these students currently travel on identity cards. Many do not own passports but travel freely on identity cards throughout the EU and EEA states with no need for passports.
A survey last year by English UK, the trade association for English schools, showed that, in 2019, 90% of under-18 EU students who came to this country did so on an identity card to study at colleges accredited by the British Council, an organisation on which I served as a deputy chair for six years. The parents of these under-18s do not want to go through additional bureaucracy or incur the cost of getting a passport, having saved for the cost of the trip itself. Furthermore, if just one junior due to travel in a school exchange group is without a passport, the viability of the whole visit could be put in jeopardy. If this travel on identity cards ceases, the UK will lose out to other countries and its position as a popular destination could decline. This new clause would help to rectify the situation and sustain the UK’s position as a popular destination. I emphasise that the proposed extension of identity card-based entry for under-18s coming to the UK for a single stay of no longer than 30 days in any calendar year means that this concession would be available only to those presenting little or no border security issues or risk of abuse.
Some may object that allowing the continuation of ID card travel presents the UK with an unacceptable security risk. EU citizens with settled status will be allowed to continue to travel on ID cards, so why not children coming for short-stay trips, largely travelling in large managed groups?
Furthermore, the EU passed a regulation last year to increase the security of ID cards issued in EU states. The regulation requires that within two years of June 2019, all new ID cards need to be machine-readable biometric cards. Existing cards will be phased out by 2023 if they are not machine readable. This will bring the security features of ID cards into line with those of passports.
As this small exception would be a continuation of an existing procedure, I do not believe it will be very complex to administer. If the clause is accepted, it will be welcomed by our European partners as a significant gesture of good will. It is also worth noting that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland allow travel for EU nationals on an ID card, so I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
This is rather a mixed bag of amendments. I would like to return to Amendment 1, on enforcement; a very useful amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she so clearly described, enforcement has long been one of the weakest points in our immigration system. Indeed, enforced returns have been in steady decline for years. They fell from 16,000 in 2010 to just under 7,000 in 2020—that is more than half—and that was the lowest level since records began. Voluntary returns have also fallen since 2015. Partly as a result of these failures, we now have 90,000 immigration offenders living in the community; that is somewhat more than the size of the British Army. Furthermore, more than half of them—about 55,000—no longer even bother to report to the Home Office as they are supposed to do: they have simply disappeared.
I shall make three brief suggestions about how this could be tackled. First, we should adopt a much tougher approach towards those countries that take an unreasonable attitude to taking back their own citizens—India, Pakistan and Iran come to mind, but there are a number of others. As noble Lords will know, illegal immigrants frequently destroy their documents, and these countries usually refuse to accept the biometric identity documents that the British Government produce for them. I think that our willingness to issue visas for the UK should take this attitude into account.
Secondly, we also need to retain—indeed, restore—the detained fast-track system for asylum claims that are obviously very weak. It was very effective for some years, but was quietly dropped by the Government quite recently after several years in a legal morass. Thirdly, we should be much more effective in enforcing the laws on illegal working. It is clear that this is a major pull factor for illegal immigration.
Finally, a particular difficulty facing the new immigration system is that of preventing EU visitors and other non-visa nationals working while in this country. A report to Parliament on enforcement, as proposed in this amendment, would be a valuable first step.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much regret the end of free movement rights. This has often been presented as a one-way system, as if it applied only to nationals of other EEA countries inward to the UK, but it has of course been a two-way system, and something over 1 million UK citizens have taken advantage of their free movement rights to live, work and settle in other EU and EEA countries. When I was an MEP, I was proud to work on the 2004 citizens’ rights directive, which is often called the free movement directive. We did not get everything we wanted, as the European Parliament did not have quite the rights over legislation that it has today. However, it allowed lots of people who were not particularly well off to take advantage of EU rights to move, live and work abroad—it was democratised, if you like.
I fear that there could well be resentment in future, as divisions appear between those who retain a right to move around and those who do not. I also think that some British citizens who currently enjoy EU free movement rights may not fully have taken on board what is about to hit them. When I talk about divisions, for instance, there are those who will be able to get an Irish passport. I declare an interest here: apparently—I did not realise this until a few years ago—I am already an Irish citizen because my mother was born in Dublin. I have not yet got round to applying for the passport. I put it off partly in the hope that somehow Brexit would be averted, and also because I feel a little sheepish about my right to it. But I have not had to apply for Irish citizenship, as it has sort of fallen out of the sky, courtesy of my mother—or her mother, I should say.
There will also be people with means who will be able to move abroad. We know that it is possible to buy so-called golden passports in some EU countries. There are also investor visas. One way or another, it is not going to be the rich who will be affected by the grab of free movement rights.
This Bill is largely about the future of EU and EEA citizens in the UK and them coming under immigration control, but as the organisation British in Europe so splendidly details, we must remember the difficulties for UK citizens in EEA countries.
Reference has been made to Amendments 4 and 5, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee will probably talk about. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about Amendment 3. These amendments are similar in that they are objecting to wording about powers,
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision … under the Immigration Acts … or … capable of affecting the exercise of functions”.
The two committees that have very helpfully reported to us—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee—have pointed out the legal complexity of immigration law. It is a complicated policy area. I think it was the Constitution Committee that said,
“the complexity of law had developed to the point that it was a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently—not to mention raising rule-of-law concerns as to the ability of the general public to understand the law to which they are subject.”
This is the system into which we are catapulting EEA citizens who, up to now, have enjoyed the protection of EU law. I hope they continue to enjoy the complete protection of the withdrawal agreement, but noises off in the last 24 hours have not reassured people of the Government’s commitment to upholding all the provisions of the agreement.
This is a complex area. I know we are going to talk about the Immigration Rules on a later amendment but, as this Bill does not set out the domestic immigration framework that will apply to EEA citizens, there is understandable nervousness. One of the things that people are worried about is a retrospective demand to show private health insurance—the famous “comprehensive sickness insurance”. The Minister will know that it is interpreted by the European Commission—and was always understood when we were legislating on the citizens’ rights directive—that in a country such as the UK, which has a national health service, free at the point of delivery, the right to use the NHS is the comprehensive sickness insurance for people paying tax and national insurance. They should not be required to have private health insurance. There is a lot of worry that when people come to apply for citizenship the Government will say, “Show us that you had private health insurance all the time that you have been resident in the UK.” Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
Colleagues in my party and, indeed, people in other parties believe that there should be an automatic system instead of the EU settlement scheme, which is an application system. A letter went to the Prime Minister yesterday from representatives of five parties, including my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael MP, urging the Government, even at this stage, to replace the settled status process with an automatic right to stay for EU citizens, guaranteed in primary legislation, as a declaratory system. It is something that we have persistently asked for and will not stop asking for. I see that the Minister looks dismayed.
One group—I think it was Law Society of Scotland—raised an interesting question. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this. It asked whether Clause 1 is necessary in the light of powers in the EU withdrawal Act 2018 for Ministers to repeal retained EU law. I would be grateful for her guidance on that subject.
Finally, I thoroughly support Amendment 61 on EEA citizens having access to eGates, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will speak to.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 60 to which I have added my name, can I say, as a member of the Constitution Committee and a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I agree wholeheartedly with the searing criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith? I am appalled that we should start to have laws that are incomprehensible. It might be meat and drink for the satirist, but it should be no part of our arrangements.
By contrast, the amendment to which I have added my name, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is clear, straightforward and simple to understand. The noble Baroness gave a very good account of it and its intentions so I will not repeat them now for lack of time, but I want to make a serious point. If young people—minors—are not able to come to this country without a full passport, it is unlikely, when things return to normal, that many of them will come at all. They are far more likely to go to some other English-speaking country—one thinks immediately of the Republic of Ireland or even Malta. One might even think of the Netherlands, where it seems to me that they sometimes speak English better than we do.
Be that as it may, this is a very real worry. It is bad enough that young people have suddenly stopped coming over to schools and organisations as a result of Covid-19. Such organisations are in dire straits and we do not want to put some ghastly obstacle in their way as things gradually return to normal. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look carefully at this to see if we can simply have the identity cards, which are used at the present time and are simple and easy to use. They would be using only those that are properly instituted by the various countries of the EEA and Switzerland.
There is a further problem, looking forward. Many people first come to this country as a youngster on an exchange. Very often they will return, perhaps for higher or further education. We do not want to cut that off at the beginning. That would be extremely short-sighted.
Some areas of the country have a number of language schools. I am thinking of where I live in East Sussex where, within quite a small area of Hastings, St Leonards and around, there are three notable language schools. The same could be said of the constituency in Plymouth of which I had the honour to be the MP. If one looks round at some of the seaside resorts, one will find a good many more there too.
This is a useful, small part of the major issues of which this Bill is party, but I believe it is very important and I hope that my noble friend will be inclined to accept the amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I support Amendment 60, which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke to so ably. It is a good thing for young people to come over to learn English here or to have adventure holidays or to do an exchange. We can all remember it if we had that opportunity. Those, who like me who were teachers, knew the benefit for children, and the children and grandchildren of many of us have taken this opportunity.
I cannot think of one reason why we would want to make it more difficult for these things to continue. It is one of those things that we can all agree on—it is what we would want for young people, whether they are our own children or somebody else’s. It is not just meeting people and learning the language, there is something about it that, perhaps, you only realise as you get older. The seeds that you sow in those early years, culturally and in terms of understanding, stay with you for life. Even if you do not come back to university in the United Kingdom in a few years’ time, in your heart you remain friends with somewhere you have been as a young person. I had an opportunity to be an exchange student in America when I was doing my teacher training. It has had a huge effect on me throughout my life. There is an affection, a loyalty and an understanding that I have never lost. Why would we want to make it difficult in the future for more children to have an opportunity like that?
There is a problem with the Bill. I do not think it is intentional, but an unintended consequence of the rules and regulations. It is not just a few young people who would be affected; most young people in this group travel with identity cards rather than passports, and that certainly makes it easier for the group organisers. If a card is lost, it is easier to replace it when you are abroad than it is to replace a passport. Quite simply, it is an extra cost, and parents will have choices—there are English-speaking nations other than ours that their children could visit. Therefore, it will make a difference. Schools are already trying to recruit for next year and they will be put at a disadvantage because we are now putting a further barrier in the way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, outlined the solution very clearly. Along with people who are here with European Union settlement status, for the next few years—at least, while we think this through—there should be the opportunity for people to make this kind of journey, restricted to 30 days once a year and very often to language schools approved by the British Council, with an identity card, rather than putting a barrier in their way and making them have a passport if they make such a journey.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, having been reprieved from the Woolsack, I rise to speak on Amendment 60, to which I have added my name and which was so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Morris, have also spoken persuasively.
In the post-Brexit landscape, preserving good relations with our EU neighbours is of the utmost importance. Of course, freedom of movement is ending but that does not mean that we need to create unnecessary barriers to cultural exchange and destroy all the good will and soft power benefits created by school exchange visits, English language study programmes, sports, culture, leisure holidays and the like.
As someone who has covered, among other policy areas, education, rural affairs and tourism, either from the Opposition Front Bench or as a coalition Minister and Whip—we were multitalented in coalition—I can certainly attest to the important educational role played by school exchanges and the opportunities they afford our children to experience other cultures, as well as the economic contribution that the English language teaching sector makes to, for instance, rural and seaside communities here in the UK. Equally, the sector plays an important export role, as evidenced by its membership of the Education Sector Advisory Group, run out of the Department for International Trade.
As a linguist who studied French and Spanish at university before going on to teach both languages here and in Germany, I know the value of spending time in the country of the language being learned—it really is the best way to do so. I was a child in France and a student in Spain, and I lived in Germany with my RAF husband, where, as a French and Spanish speaker, I managed to get a job teaching in a German school, so I learned quite a lot of German as well. I fully agree with some of the other arguments that have been made in support of this proposed new clause. They are also familiar to me as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group and a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
As has been mentioned, many Europeans under the age of 18 do not own passports and their parents will find it expensive, cumbersome and unnecessary, in the ordinary run of things, to obtain them. If these trips do not go ahead because one or more of the children in a group does not possess a passport, that means that UK teenagers are likely to miss out too. School exchanges are just that—reciprocal exchanges. If schoolchildren from Europe cannot travel here for lack of a passport, ours are unlikely to be hosted by their counterparts in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain or other countries.
Currently, nearly 40% of UK children in our secondary schools take part in at least one international exchange visit during their school careers. This rises to nearly 80% of teenagers at independent schools in the UK. Therefore, while privately educated children from the independent sector may go on exchanges to wealthier parts of Europe, where parents may have less financial difficulty in obtaining a passport for their children to come to the UK, pupils in state schools could be very badly affected by this.
The stated aim of the Government is to boost these sorts of trips for all British schoolchildren, given the life-changing experiences and academic opportunities that they can afford them. However, the Government can hardly be said to be promoting this if one of their first acts is to place barriers in the way of under-18s from the European mainland coming here. A simple amendment to the Bill, in the form of this proposed new clause, allowing these children to continue to come to the UK on their national identity cards for short visits, would resolve this issue. As a former member of the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs in this place, I too look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. This amendment will do the Government no harm and will generate a great deal of international good will.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I associate myself with comments made during this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I would like to ask a couple of questions in this regard.
If the purpose of the Bill is to repeal EU law on the free movement of people and if the provisions are not already enshrined in retained EU law elsewhere, can my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to explain why, as has already been mentioned, Clause 1 is required? Like others, I would like to say how much I benefited from the free movement provisions—which have been in place since 1973—as a student and then as a stagiaire in the European Commission. I went on to practise European Union law before becoming an adviser to, and eventually being elected to, the European Parliament.
I come to my main concern with Clause 1. Can my noble friend put my mind at rest that, in repealing EU law on the free movement of workers from the EEA and Switzerland, we will still have access to a constant supply of labour in essential services such as health and social care? I would also like to add food production, farming, and vegetable and fruit growing. I know that the amendments failed in the other place, but I hope that my noble friend will look very carefully at this with fresh eyes.
It is also extremely important to ensure that those whom we welcome from the EEA and Switzerland after 1 January 2021 are made to feel welcome and are employed and given access on exactly the same basis as UK nationals. In this regard, will my noble friend confirm that migrants will continue to be employed on the same basis as UK nationals? Will the principle that has existed to date of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality still apply, so that no employer can discriminate between a UK national and an EEA or Swiss national who might find employment in this regard?
I am conscious that there have already been a couple of very unfortunate cases of Covid-19 outbreaks in food processing plants, partly due to the fact that the working environment is very cold but also partly because, by necessity, the employees probably sit very close to each other. We will obviously need to revisit many of these conditions going forward, but will the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality still apply to the Bill and other provisions?
Given my background, I have some sympathy with those who have put their names to and supported Amendment 60, and I will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in replying to that debate.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who spoke to his amendment. I regret the lack of transparency and what appears to be very poor drafting, and, again, will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in summing up on that. However, as regards this amendment, those are the questions I would like to put to my noble friend at this stage.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support what was said so authoritatively about Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. We need to hear what our Constitution Committee has said, and I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government will do this.
My purpose is to say a few brief words on Amendment 61 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before I do so, I want to say a quick word on the wider context. Admirable though the quality of this debate is, I cannot help feeling that we are fiddling while Rome burns. In Downing Street, it seems that the Government are planning to take powers in the internal market Bill to override certain provisions of the withdrawal agreement—in particular, Articles 5 and 10 of the Irish protocol. Tearing up ratified treaties is what rogue states do; sanctions usually follow. If such a proposal were put to us, I would expect us to examine it particularly stringently. I cannot recall any precedent in UK diplomatic history. What we are doing today is important, but what we might have to do then would be historic.
Turning to Amendment 61, it seems to me that it is either completely unnecessary or absolutely essential. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that it is unnecessary because the Government have no intention of making our closest neighbours stand in a queue at the frontier. If she cannot make this assurance, we must surely ask the Government to think again.
It seems highly likely that, for the next few years, the relationship with the EU will become damagingly rebarbative. That would, of course, become a racing certainty if we tore up the withdrawal agreement, but even if we do not, the disruption, the economic damage and the inevitable frontier friction—deal or no deal—is likely to drip poison into the relationship for some time to come. So we should be careful about choosing to add insult to injury. We have left the EU, but we do not need to leave Europe. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right to detect a risk, we would be right to support her Amendment 61.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 61 in this group, and I am grateful for the support that it is receiving. Clearly, the Government say that EU citizens will be allowed to continue to use e-passport gates at airports after the end of the transition period, but that is the problem. From what I can see, as a result of leaving the European Union, far from ending free movement of people, the Government are effectively opening it up to the citizens of more countries outside of the European Union, the EEA and Switzerland.
I must make it clear that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, I am in favour of free movement. The point I am making is that lack of enforcement means that, in practice, free movement will not end at the end of the transition period.
EU, EEA and Swiss nationals have been able to use the e-passport gates at UK airports because, under European Union freedom of movement rules, they have been entitled to come to the UK without restriction. With the UK’s imminent departure from the EU, and the Government’s commitment to ending preferential immigration from the EU, the Government were faced with turmoil at the UK border if EU, EEA and Swiss nationals were not able to use the e-passport gates but had to be manually checked by Border Force staff; the queues for non-EU passport holders were already verging on the unacceptably long. Rather than remove the ability of EU citizens to use e-passport gates, the Government extended their use to citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America, thereby delivering on their promise not to give EU citizens preferential immigration rights, as these are now shared with the citizens of some non-EU countries.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has raised pertinent points on which we look forward to hearing from the Minister. Like so many of the groups when we are in Committee, this is a massive catch-all group, and I sympathise with the Minister for having to cover so many bases at the end.
I completely sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in not wanting Clause 1, but we are a revising Chamber and have to take for granted that this broad power is going to be taken because it is consequential on us leaving the EU. The issue for us is what its specific and defined consequences will be. All the issues raised so far seem to be valid ones that we would wish to return to on Report if the Minister cannot give us sufficient assurance. On Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Morris said: it is vital we do not do anything to imperil the free exchange of students and young people in and out of the country. I cannot believe it is in the mind of the Government for that to happen. If this simple change in Amendment 60 can safeguard that, we should surely make that possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have spoken powerfully about Amendment 61. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the legal abuse involved in Schedule 1 were also very well made. Could I ask the Minister more about the consequences for British citizens when seeking to exercise their existing EU rights on the continent? One of the problems of legislating on this issue in real time is that it is not always clear to the House what we know and what we do not, and that will be important when we come to Report.
The big issue when we leave the EU is that the rights we take away from EU citizens are liable to be taken away from British citizens in respect of travel, work and study on the continent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, these are essentially reciprocal rights. It is hard to think that if we take the rights away from fellow EU citizens, they will not be taken away from us. The question is, what exactly are we taking away? The single biggest source of the exercise of these rights by UK citizens is those who want to travel as tourists and those who want to study, live or work on the continent. On the biggest group—those who travel—I want to ask the Minister if my understanding is correct because it will have some bearing on where we go on Report. My understanding at present is that for travel from 1 January 2021 no visa, or visa equivalents such as an ESTA, will be required for what are defined as short trips to the EU. Short trips are defined as 90 days in any 180-day period. I assume that that would be reciprocal. However, I quote from the Government website on changes from 1 January:
“You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.”
Therefore, under the current withdrawal agreement—that said, almost everyone is concerned that this could all be thrown up in the air—is there agreement that visas will not be imposed on EU citizens coming here, or vice versa for short, tourist-related trips, but it is entirely open as to what will happen about visas or permits required for longer stays or for work, study or business travel? If I have got that right, what is the regime likely to be for working longer periods and business travel, which is of huge consequence to us?
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we are legislating in the dark for the withdrawal of many rights of EU citizens coming here, it is also true that we are legislating in the dark for the rights that we are going to be taking away from UK citizens that they can currently exercise in respect of their travel and legitimate business on the continent. That is not sufficiently appreciated. Could the Minister confirm the situation? What is definitely agreed? My understanding is that short trips will definitely not be covered by visas or ESTAs. Also, what is the situation for other forms of travel, work and study, including business travel?
It may seem an unlikely alliance but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the integrity of the immigration system. There cannot be any doubt that one of the things that causes most public concern about extending the rights of people to come here is the fear that those rights will be abused. In principle, their concern about the implementation of Clause 1 is well-founded, and it does not apply to policing and monitoring of the immigration system just for EU countries, but for other countries. This amendment, which is just a probing amendment, asks for a report after 90 days on what progress Government are making and their policy on security.
As our legislative stages are a process of mutual learning, I wonder whether I could put the debate back to the noble Broness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green—particularly to the noble Lord, who is probably one of the greatest experts in the country on the detailed working of the immigration system. I can see the Minister is smiling; the noble Lord creates a great deal of work for her and others. I do not begrudge that: it is the job of people in this House and in interest groups and policy groups to see that we are well-informed. It would be useful for us to know, if they want to retable this amendment on Report, what specific changes and improvement to the policing of the immigration system they think Parliament should be considering. The noble Lord referred to recent changes to the policing and detaining of asylum seekers and illegal migrants. It would be useful for us to know what they would wish to do and see the Government report on within 90 days. That might get a more fine-grained debate on Report on what further steps we should take to police the immigration system.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches—I am on them virtually—make no bones about how much we oppose the ending of free movement. That includes both welcoming EEA citizens—the collective term which includes the Swiss for this purpose—and their families to live and work in the UK, and the equal and opposite right for British citizens in the EU. For myself, it offends my politics, my emotions, my values, my logic and, you might say, my whole outlook on life. However, I will endeavour to keep my remarks within the scope of the Bill and not to seek to reopen what has irreversibly been decided—although “irreversible” may have gained a new definition overnight—nor do I want to make a Second Reading speech.
What is relevant is that the Bill does not set out what will be in place of the current arrangements. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the importance of the integrity of the system. We might want different systems, but what we have should be robust.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord spoke in terms of enforcement—a term used in the amendment. I prefer to talk in more inclusive rather than exclusive terms. She talked about so many of the issues that we are addressing now, or failing to address. One must use the opportunity to say that the best way to address them is to create safe and legal routes to the UK. I do not want to divert on to the wider question of those who seek sanctuary, but I have to disagree with her approach and some of the language that she used.
By no means all of the new, much-heralded immigration system which will apply to EU citizens is yet in the public domain. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to UK citizens in the EU; he may see that Amendment 23, which we will come to later, may give us more of an opportunity to discuss their position. When the system is in the public domain, however, we will not be able to rely on it in the same way as we can rely on primary legislation because of the flexibility—would that be a polite word?—provided by the Bill. So much of our system is contained in rules which Parliament cannot realistically amend, and indeed often it takes an awful lot of background knowledge and experience, application and concentration to understand those rules. It is no wonder that the Government had some years ago to require a particular level of expertise to advise on immigration. The rules are difficult for most of us—other noble Lords may say that they waltz through them with no difficulty; I do not—and they are often impenetrable to those directly affected. I have too often heard Ministers say, “It is on GOV.UK.” That is not everyone’s bedtime reading. Indeed, however detailed the rules and however much they flesh out the Bill, it remains a skeleton.
My noble friend Lady Ludford and I have three amendments in this group, all to Schedule 1. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the coy but comatose draftsman—I may use that term on other occasions—and my noble friend Lord Beith asked an important question about what instructions had been given to the draftsmen and draftswomen. After all, the responsibility lies with Ministers.
Amendments 4 and 5 take out some of the most offensive words in Schedule 1, which I do not think I need to read into the record again, as others have referred to them. They are wide and imprecise; there are references to “application or operation of” provisions, and
“otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
If any of your Lordships on Opposition Benches were to produce amendments using that sort of terminology, we would quite rapidly be shot down, and rightly so, by the Government Front Bench.
A lot of functions are connected with immigration, and we will come on later to employment, renting property —the rest of the hostile environment. There are also all sorts of functions which I would accept are necessary but which I would not want brought within the repeal of
“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures”,
to which Section 1 applies.
Amendment 6 in our names would add words to the schedule by not applying it to rights which do not arise under an EU directive. Directives which do not relate to immigration include, in our view: the protection for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive—there is an amendment specifically on that—the protection for asylum seekers in the reception conditions directive 2013/33, and the protection for victims of crime in the EU victims’ rights directive 2012/29. We do not suggest that we believe that these protections are at risk, but we do not know. If the Bill remains as it is when it becomes an Act, the only way to know for certain is to test the matter in the courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was critical in the context of removals from this country of applications to the courts. However, that is what they are there for, and they are applying law that has been made by Parliament, or by Ministers subject to the rather inadequate scrutiny that parliamentarians are able to give them.
On Amendment 6—this is something that has been identified by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned the comments on the Bill by its chair, Adrian Berry—the protections are potentially at risk as what the association describes as “collateral damage”. We hope that they do not fall within the scope of the Bill, but I think it is a matter for the Government to explain what the position is. This is all about the lack of clarity, the bad rule-making, to which other noble Lords have referred, all offensive to the rule of law.
To return to the first amendment in this group, I welcome reports to Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. I am hesitant to criticise or comment on the wording of the clause, having learned from the noble Baroness that the clerks were involved in crafting it, but I am not sure that the provisions of Schedule 1 are correctly described as enforceable. A provision within six months would take us beyond the end of the year. However, I should not carp about that sort of detail because, whatever the language, I understand that the supporters of Amendment 1 are seeking to ensure that free movement ends and that Parliament is told how. We have made our views about the first part of that very clear.
Before I finish, I want to mention the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I thought the points made by noble Lords were very telling regarding the reference to soft power. I was reminded of listening to the European Union Youth Orchestra a couple of years ago in Edinburgh. That was a very special experience and it rather goes to why we are so distressed by what we are having to go along with in the Bill.
I think I have said enough not to have to refer specifically to our opposition to Amendment 1.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to address the issue of the lack of clarity in the Bill, not least in Schedule 1. I am sure we have reached the stage now where noble Lords want to hear the Government’s response. I wish to comment briefly on three of the amendments in this group, although all of them raise issues of significance, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has said. That has become clear from noble Lords’ contributions, even though noble Lords have not all been coming from the same direction.
Three days ago, we were sent a letter from the Government sharing illustrative drafts of regulations that they propose to make under the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill. One wonders why at least some of the terms of these draft regulations could not now be or already have been incorporated in the Bill and thus be open to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Schedule 1 revokes Article 1 of the EU workers regulation, which provides freedom-of-movement rights. Paragraph 4(2) of that schedule provides that other parts of the workers regulation cease to apply so far as they are
“inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”
or
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”.
This is a very broad drafting. Amendment 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke with his usual considerable authority, would remove paragraph 4(2), as it is so broad and lacks clarity. We share the concern that that amendment seeks to address.
No doubt the Minister, in giving the Government’s reply, will be giving a pretty comprehensive list of examples of how and why, in the Government’s view, other parts of the workers regulation might credibly become, first, inconsistent with provisions made by the Immigration Acts and, secondly, capable of affecting provisions made by or under the Immigration Acts.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for her thoughtful amendment. I understand noble Lords’ concern about the repeal of EU law relating to free movement set out in Schedule 1 and how that will be enforced. Before I address that, I want to pick up a question from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who wanted confirmation that the Bill was non-discriminatory. The whole point of this immigration Bill is that the whole world is treated the same, so I can confirm that.
Schedule 1 sets out a list of measures to be repealed in relation to ending free movement for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens, with the intention that both EEA citizens and their family members will fall within the scope of the Immigration Act 1971 and become subject to the UK’s immigration control—for ease of reference, I will refer to this group as “EEA citizens” during the committee debates. This will create a level playing field for EEA and non-EEA citizens. Those EEA citizens and their family members who arrive here after the end of the transition period from January 2021 must have leave to enter or remain. The Government want EEA citizens who are resident in the UK before that date, and who wish to do so, to stay, and our focus has been on helping them to apply for that status. They can apply online for the EU settlement scheme free of charge. As of 31 July, we have received 3.8 million applications, with plenty of time until the deadline of 30 June 2021.
In order to protect those living in the UK before the end of the transition period, we propose to use the power under Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to save free movement rights otherwise repealed by Clause 1 of the Bill and Schedule 1 so that those EEA citizens and their eligible family members resident by the end of 2020 but who have not yet applied to the settlement scheme will continue to be treated the same until 30 June next year. This will ensure that they are able to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline and retain their existing rights in the meantime. This includes pending the decision on their application after that deadline and pending the outcome of an appeal against any decision to refuse status under the EU settlement scheme.
During this grace period, immigration officers who encounter EEA citizens who are still able to apply under the EU settlement scheme will not take any enforcement action but may encourage them to apply by the deadline. Furthermore, we have always been clear that where EEA citizens and their family members have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We will take a flexible and pragmatic approach to this, and those who need it will be supported through the application process.
Ultimately, however, we are aiming to reach the position where EEA citizens who do not qualify for leave are treated in the same way as non-EEA citizens. As such, if they require leave to enter or remain in the UK but do not have that leave, they will be liable to the same sanctions and enforcement measures. These enforcement provisions are set out in the Immigration Acts and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has mentioned that those cover the rights of access to work, renting property and banking services. It would take a long time for me to list all the relevant provisions here, but I would be happy to write to my noble friend to set those out.
In response to my noble friend’s question on whether this Bill can be used to amend the legislation, I do not think this is the right Bill in which to make any changes to enforcement provisions, which would need to cover both EEA and non-EEA citizens because it is limited to immigration changes as a result of EU exit. However, we are actively exploring legislative options to ensure that key elements of our immigration system, including around enforcement, can be tightened up. This work is at an early stage.
My noble friend also asked me about who the enforcement authorities are. They are primarily those of the Home Office Border Force and immigration enforcement, working in partnership with the police and other government departments, including the DWP, HMRC and the Ministry of Justice.
With regard to my noble friend’s question about available resources for enforcement using technology and the economics of charter flights, which she was right to ask, planning is under way to factor in the requirements of the new points-based system and ensure that all aspects of operational resourcing, recruitment and training are fully delivered. These plans include the redeployment and/or recruitment of new staff where appropriate to deal with applications from EEA citizens. Part of our long-term vision has always been to make better use of digital technology and greater automation to improve the passenger experience while maintaining security at the border.
In terms of staffing, we will always ensure that the Border Force has the resources and the workforce needed to keep the border secure. We will also introduce electronic travel authorisations—or ETAs—for visitors and passengers transiting through the UK who do not currently need a visa for short stays or who do not already have an immigration status prior to travelling. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This will allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions to be taken on information obtained at an earlier stage as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK. Therefore, the ETA scheme will add an additional security measure while also providing individuals with more assurance at an earlier point in their time about their ability to travel. The noble Lord also asked about longer-term visit visas for EU citizens, and he is right. Arrangements for longer visas will be set out in the Immigration Rules for people coming to the UK.
On my noble friend’s question about charter flights, the majority of returns take place on commercially scheduled flights. Where a chartered flight is required, the Home Office procures the use of chartered aircraft through a broker to ensure competitive pricing and access to different aircraft and contractors depending on the requirements of the operation. We think that this blended approach provides the best value for money for the taxpayer. However, I will take her point back and ensure that it is made. I also assure noble Lords that the Home Office will be updating its published enforcement policy with regards to EEA citizens at the end of the transition period.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pressed that point about enforcing laws on illegal working, as did my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The overarching ambition of the illegal working strategy to tackle illegal working is to work with businesses to deny access to the labour market and encourage and ensure compliance. The illegal working strategy is intelligence-led and it focuses on three main areas: deterring illegal migration, safeguarding the vulnerable and protecting the UK economy,
The further report this amendment requires is unnecessary because policy guidance on enforcement is already published on the GOV.UK website. I can hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, virtually moaning from behind the screen on referring her to the website. However, I am sure noble Lords will join me in encouraging all those who are eligible to apply before the deadline expires next June. On that note, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in total to Clause 1. The clause introduces the first schedule to the Bill, which contains a list of measures to be repealed in relation to the end of free movement and related issues. Noble Lords have asked whether it is needed at all. It fulfils a purely mechanistic function to introduce the schedule. Without Clause 1, we cannot deliver on the will of the people in the 2016 referendum result; we cannot end free movement without repealing Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988.
In line with long-established practice, the detail of this future system will be set out in the Immigration Rules rather than in this Bill and it will be in place from January 2021. It is of paramount importance that, as an independent sovereign state, the UK must have the ability to forge its own immigration policy and depart from EU law. The people of the UK gave us the mandate to end free movement when they voted to leave the EU and the Government gave a commitment in their manifesto to deliver on that mandate. The people are now expecting us to uphold that commitment; Clause 1 is essential to doing so and this House should not stand in the way of delivering what is a priority for the people of this country. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, withdraws her opposition to Clause 1.
I turn now to Amendments 3 to 6. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to their amendments. Their purpose is to retain rights derived directly from EU law after the end of the transition period. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, unlike Caligula, I am not going to put the law up at a height and in small writing so that people cannot read it.
However, I know that the noble Lord has an issue with paragraph 4(2) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies directly effective provisions of the Workers Regulation where they are capable of altering the interpretation, application or operation of any part of the Immigration Acts. His amendment seeks to remove this paragraph, meaning that provisions within the Workers Regulation, which may be inconsistent with those in the Immigration Acts, will continue to apply.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extended explanation. She talked about electronic travel authorisations and referred to The UK’s Points-based Immigration System: Further Details document. As far as ETAs are concerned, that document talks about the “border of the future” and that it is part of a phased programme to 2025. How will EU and EEA citizens using the e-passport gates be stopped from coming in if they have not provided details in advance? If it is not necessary for them to provide details in advance, why are the Government introducing ETAs for EU and EEA citizens up to 2025?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord asked about the lead-up to 2025 and the ETA. It is a new immigration system—there will be a pragmatic approach to people coming in and out of this country, because it is a whole new system and will take some time to bed in. The ETA will give both security and certainty on people coming in and out of this country.
In terms of data sets, we obviously now use exit checks; if someone has a visa, it will be on their visa how long they are able to stay. The noble Lord talked about the person who literally went in and out of Lille in one day in order to update their boarding card. He makes a very good point.
This system will take some time to bed in. I will write to the noble Lord about some of the very specific supplementary questions he has asked; I am just giving him the answers that I know off the top of my head. As for sanctions for someone who has not complied, obviously it is easier for someone with a visa, and less easy for someone doing a series of short stays.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am very sorry to correct the Minister, but she made a statement earlier that was incorrect. In response to my noble friend Lady Bennett, she said of retaining—or not taking away —freedom of movement that it was the will of the people and what the people voted for with their Brexit vote. That is absolutely not true. We voted—I voted—for Brexit for many different reasons, and freedom of movement did not particularly come up as a reason. Quite honestly, none of us understood that the Government were going to make such a shambles of it. We could not have predicted that it could be so badly handled. So please, it is not the will of the people, and it was not what people voted for with Brexit. They voted for a variety of reasons.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we did vote to leave the EU, and I do not think anyone can be in any doubt about some of the reasons. People voted for a variety of reasons, but the noble Baroness will totally understand that I am not going to get into a debate about why people did or did not want to leave the EU. I will leave it there.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her careful response to Amendment 3. It was very thoughtful—not a response off the top of her head. I am also grateful for the offer of a meeting, which I will happily take up.
The Minister gave an example of a provision in the regulations that she said was inconsistent with the immigration Acts. I accept that there may well be many such provisions. My point is very simple: spell them out in Schedule 1. Do not use this vague language of drafting which means that people cannot identify what their rights and obligations are. My amendment is not designed to keep or remove any particular right; it is simply designed to require the Government to instruct the parliamentary draftsman to produce a provision that implies basic standards of legal certainty. I hope the Minister has noted the substantial concern around the House at this lack of certainty in the drafting of Schedule 1. It is simply not good enough and it needs to be addressed. I look forward to discussing this with the Minister prior to Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I totally understand the point that the noble Lord makes about certainty. In addressing this, I should like to meet him, because I totally get what he is saying. He is not being difficult; he is just asking that we lay out the law and provide certainty.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this catch-all group of amendments. There have been some very high-quality contributions. In particular, I thank my noble friend for her careful and full answers; they have got us off to a good start.
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quoting the insights of the sociopath Caligula. However, I think he—and other noble Lords—made some good points about clarity of drafting and the complexity of immigration law, which makes its fair, efficient and firm enforcement more difficult. It also creates a great deal of work for lawyers. That is not an unvarnished advantage.
The noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Rosser, rightly referred to the use of secondary rather than primary legislation, and I am sure we will come back to that when we come to scrutinise Amendment 9.
We heard good support for the two practical amendments on minors visiting the UK using identity cards and on e-gates. The response was a bit disappointing on identity cards, but there were some very good points made about e-gates, and the Minister will obviously answer the more detailed questions on that from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Adonis.
The most powerful intervention about robust enforcement was from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whom I call a friend. He made a number of practical suggestions. I am not sure I have heard quite enough about how the Bill will be enforced or its “integrity”, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I will talk to the noble Lord, Lord Green, and we may return to the issue on Report, in the same or in some alternative form, because enforcement of the law is very important. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 2
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Duty to commission an independent review of the social care sector in regard to the effects of section 1
(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the matters under subsection (3) and lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent panel to undertake the review.(3) The review under subsection (1) must consider an assessment of the effects of section 1 on—(a) the social care workforce;(b) the adequacy of public funding for the social care sector;(c) the ability of care sector employers to improve the pay and conditions of their employees; and(d) such other relevant matters as the independent panel deems appropriate.(4) A Minister of the Crown must, no later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make arrangements for a motion relating to the report to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require an independent review of the impact of section 1 of this Act on the social care sectors to be produced and laid before Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the General Medical Council board.
I want to return to a major theme from Second Reading: the decision of the Home Office to exclude the great majority of care workers from the new health and care visa, as they do not meet either the income or the skills threshold. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, justified this by saying that employers had to end what she described as “the easy option” of using migrant labour to undercut our own workforce “for far too long”. She also pointed to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, which has maintained that the problems in the care sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions, in itself caused by a failure to have a sustainable funding model—quite.
I certainly do not need reminding of how important skilled care worker jobs are; I want to see more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage. However, surely it is disingenuous for the Government to call for better wages and conditions, when they have so much influence on the financial health of care services. The Government are the main source of funds for local authorities; they are the direct funder of the National Health Service; and they set the conditions under which the private care market operates. The Home Office, which I have always thought of as being a bit semi-detached, is essentially saying that the Government—of which it is a part—has neglected the care sector over many years. They have been in government for 10 years now and have had a series of reviews, none of which has come to fruition.
Our own House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported that, in 2018, 1.4 million older people in England had an unmet care need. It found that publicly funded social care support is shrinking, as diminishing budgets have forced local authorities to limit the numbers of people receiving public funding. Just as demand goes up with the demographics, the funding of social care gets lower and lower in real terms.
When we turn to the workforce, we see a diverse range of nationalities and backgrounds. Some 83% of the workforce is made up of British nationalities, with 7% coming from other EEA countries and 9% from non-EEA countries. As such, the UK is reliant on a fair and balanced immigration system. Overall, however, the social care workforce is already facing a crisis, with more than 120,000 vacancies and a growing level of demand among people who need to access care services. This is a real problem for the future.
We also have the problem that the Government classify social care workers as unskilled. Unskilled? As Mencap points out, their colleagues are trusted every day with people’s lives. They are trained to provide medication, to undertake feeding, to deal with seizures and to administer first aid. They help people manage their finances, their health and their well-being, and they provide emotional support. Unskilled they are not. Yet as Unison has pointed out, many migrant workers are not included in the category of people who have had their visas extended free for a year. Many are struggling to save the large amounts needed for visa renewals.
The Minister says that staff should be paid more. I agree, but is she going to will the means? Will she commit to increasing the level of support to local authorities? Is she willing to see self-funders pay more? If she is, I remind her that if you took the current lifetime pension allowance of £1,730,000 and bought an annuity with it at age 60, you would not have enough to pay the average nursing home fee.
We are in a vicious cycle. After decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need in our care system is increasing and the pressure on unpaid carers is growing stronger. The supply of care providers is diminishing and the strain on the care workforce is continuing. And that is before these new immigration controls are imposed at the end of the year.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said that she would not be drawn on the details of the long-term social care plan which apparently the Government are still promising to bring forward. She did refer to various sides in the Commons trying to sort a consensus on the way forward, but there is not much sign yet of the Government reaching out, and given the state of the public finances, I would not bet on immediate action in any case. I refer the noble Baroness to the letter in July from the Chancellor to Secretaries of State on the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. From that, it is clear that spending will come under a huge squeeze. It is noticeable that, while the Chancellor said then that he would prioritise the NHS, no mention was made of social care at all.
The argument I put before noble Lords is this. If the Home Office is convinced that the woes of the care sector are entirely down to the sector itself, let it produce the evidence. Let Ministers agree to the quick review that I suggest in my amendment, looking at the funding of the sector and the impact of Clause 1 before shutting off an extremely valuable source of labour for this important but vulnerable part of our society. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton has her name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which we support. My noble friend is indisposed at present, but I know that she will be here in spirit. I start by saying to the Minister that I will try not to moan. I generally try not to moan. It is reasonable for her to refer a Member of the House to GOV.UK; my point was that most of the public would be bemused by the reference. I think I can see on my screen that she is nodding.
There was enthusiasm for tabling amendments quickly after Second Reading, especially on what were particularly topical issues. A health and social care visa was one such. It remains topical, as does the whole operation of the social care sector, even though it is not in the headlines quite so much. I have spoken about immigration arrangements being in the rules. The scheme set out in our Amendment 47 may not be ideal—I confess I do not think it is—but it is about pinning down the arrangements into primary legislation to make them not too easy to amend.
My noble friend Lady Brinton and I also have our names to Amendment 57, on a social care visa. Many of your Lordships will have direct experience of the work of those in social care and share what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has talked of—the importance of proper payment reflecting the level of skill, which is very significant. As it happens, I cannot praise too much someone who recently cared for a close relative. She came from Romania.
The essential core skills are not ones that can be trained into anyone; there are the practical, technical aspects of care, but you cannot train someone to care as part of their personality. They either have it or they do not. That is why so many carers, little supported, are people who look after their spouses, children or parents at home. I mention this because, last time I mentioned care at home, the Minister thought I meant domiciliary care. That is part of the subject matter of the amendment, but I depart from the scope of the Bill for a moment to recognise the dedication and sheer hard work that family members undertake, which is inadequately recognised. Other noble Lords in the debate may know how much, in pounds and pence, that work saves the state.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will explain the importance of her proposal in Amendment 66. I simply say that my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester added her name to that amendment, and she is very sorry that she cannot take part in today’s proceedings.
Also in the group is Amendment 82 of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which I thought was interesting. Some of us leap in; calmer heads propose an analysis of the issue. I suspect that will not preclude some pithy points in support of progressing with analysis.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 66 would provide for the creation of a fast-track health and social care visa for EEA and Swiss nationals who provide personal care for severely disabled people, after the end of free movement. The visa would be limited to EEA and Swiss nationals who, immediately prior to the commencement of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, had the right of free movement into the UK.
Subsection (1) of my proposed new clause says:
“The Secretary of State must provide by regulations made by statutory instrument for the introduction of a fast-track health and social care visa for a relevant person who provides personal care for severely disabled people in the United Kingdom.”
Subsection (2) defines “fast-track” and “relevant person”:
“In this section, ‘fast-track’ means processed by UK Visas and Immigration within three weeks from the day on which the applicant provides their biometric information, and ‘relevant person’ means an EEA or Swiss national who immediately prior to the commencement of section 1 and Schedule 1 had the right of free movement into the United Kingdom.”
The proposed new clause would provide for the introduction of a fast-track health and social care visa for a person who provides personal care for severely disabled people. The visa would be limited to EEA or Swiss nationals who, immediately prior to the commencement of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, had the right of free movement into the UK. This is a probing amendment to see what consideration the Government have given to extending their new health and social care visa to persons who provide personal care for severely disabled people in the United Kingdom.
In July, the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that a
“new Health and Care Visa will be launched this Summer, creating a new fast-track visa route for eligible health and care professionals and delivering on a key manifesto commitment.”
However, the Government have been criticised for excluding care workers from being able to apply for visas designed to fast-track those coming to the UK to work in the health and care sector.
On 13 July, the Home Office released details of the UK points-based immigration system, which will come into effect from 1 January 2021. Under the new system, the health and care visa will allow people working in eligible occupations, who speak English and have a job offer, to come to the UK. Under this visa route, workers and their families will gain fast-track entry to the UK, with reduced application fees and dedicated support, the Government said. Those who are eligible to apply and their dependants will also be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge—a move that has been welcomed by doctors. But applicants must meet a salary threshold of £25,600, which is €28,200 or $32,000, to be eligible to apply for the visa, unless they are entering a shortage occupation, such as nursing and medicine. The NHS workers’ union, GMB, said that this threshold would mean that many NHS cleaners, porters and support staff will not qualify for the visa.
The Government have faced a backlash because social care workers are not eligible to apply for the visa, although the Migration Advisory Committee, on whose advice much of the new system is based, recognised the workforce shortage faced by social care in its most recent report and did not recommend that care workers be added to the list of shortage occupations. I cannot understand this. Perhaps the Government can tell us why. Instead, the committee said that it hoped the Government’s forthcoming Green Paper on social care would provide more clarity on the future of the sector in the UK and contain concrete proposals to improve terms and conditions for care workers. Waiting is not acceptable. There is a crisis.
Critics have said that the exclusion of care home staff from a post-Brexit, fast-track visa system for health workers could prove to be an unmitigated disaster and may increase the risk of spreading coronavirus. Professor Martin Green, the chief executive of Care England, which represents the largest private providers, has said that the decision amid the pandemic in which 20,000 people have died in UK care homes has the potential to destabilise the sector even further, with disastrous consequences, confirming that there could be no special treatment for carers coming to the UK from the rest of the world.
The Government have said that they hope that Britons will fill the shortfall of around 20,000 workers, equating to 10% of all posts. Currently, 17% of care jobs are filled by foreign citizens. In the debate on Second Reading, I drew attention to this when I said:
“There is a danger that people who cannot get work of their choice are pushed into doing care work, with such horrifying results as happened at Whorlton Hall near Barnard Castle, Thors Park in Essex and Winterbourne View near Bristol, where patients were abused and bullied. This cruelty was exposed by ‘Panorama’. We must surely try to prevent this sort of thing happening again. I hope the Government will listen before it is too late.” —[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2251.]
The health and care visa has been designed to attract the brightest and best from around the world. It has been criticised for excluding front-line care home workers and contractors. It has been pointed out that the minimum salary threshold means that many cleaners, porters and other support staff will not qualify. This will discriminate against severely disabled people living in their own home who need paid carers. The Government are discriminating against any care workers.
Vic Rayner, the executive director of the National Care Forum, has said that in London, where around 38% of care workers are non-British, the policy could be “an unmitigated disaster.” She said:
“‘We have 122,000 vacancies, growing demand for our services, and then the tap is turned off like this … It is not good news at all. What you need for good care is a stable, skilled and plentiful workforce. And in the context of Covid-19, where you are trying to minimise movement of staff, any shortages might increase movement of staff and use of agency staff, which we are trying to avoid.’”
Robin Hall, the secretary of the Hampshire Care Association, has said that a shallower pool from which to recruit could drive up wages, which, without greater public funding, would mean fewer staff employed per resident. She said:
“‘That will damage the quality of care we can deliver … You also may have to get less choosy about who you employ, and that’s a dreadful thought. A lot of our EU staff are highly skilled. They are smart, articulate and speak three or four languages. We don’t get that quality of applicants from the UK because of the status the profession has.’”
With the advances in medical treatment made over the years, many severely disabled people are living in the community in their own home. Many of them need live-in or daily carers. We also have an increasing elderly population. A bright young man called David who broke his neck in a rugby accident and was paralysed from the neck down had been cared for by his mother. As she got older, her arthritis became worse. David was fearful that he might end up in a care home, which was something he could not accept. David lived in a comfortable bungalow with a garden and a lily pond. One day he was found drowned in that pond. In desperation, he had driven his electric wheelchair into it to end his life. Surely we do not want more cases like that.
Good care workers who work in people’s homes must be dedicated to the job, get satisfaction from it, be honest, skilled, compassionate and flexible. Caring for severely disabled people is not for everyone, but those who undertake these positions are special and they should be valued, not treated as “also rans”.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on Amendment 66, and I hope that it will be taken seriously.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 82, I want to support strongly the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who spoke with his usual passion when presenting his amendment. I hope the Minister will respond to that.
Amendment 82 can be taken in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the exceptional contribution and sacrifice made by our health and social care workers every day in protecting and caring for people in the community. It has also made clear how much we depend on our international workforce. Around 29% of doctors working in NHS hospitals and almost 14% of healthcare workers overall in the United Kingdom are from overseas. International workers account for approximately one-sixth of care workers in England.
The pandemic has had a profound impact on all aspects of our health services, but I draw the attention of the House to its impact on the all-too-often overlooked sector of social care. Between March and July this year, there were 30,500 excess deaths among care home residents as well as 4,500 excess deaths among people receiving care in their home. Figures from the Office for National Statistics also show that social care workers are among the occupational groups at the highest risk of Covid-19 mortality. The United Kingdom recorded the second highest number of deaths among healthcare workers in the world, second only to Russia, and a significant number of those deaths were among social care workers. These figures highlight the immense sacrifice and heartbreak that these workers have faced while trying to do their job in a system that was already overstretched. The vital contribution they make to the health system has been overlooked and undervalued for too long.
Adult social care is facing stark recruitment and retention challenges, with an estimated 122,000 vacancies, while the demand for social care workers is expected to rise in line with the UK’s ageing population. The CQC’s State of Care report concludes that workforce shortages in adult social care are
“affected by the lack of value given to social care by society and disproportionate levels of pay.”
The pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that we need to value our social care workforce more. In a sector where one in six of the workers are from overseas, any changes to the UK immigration system that could deter or prevent those who want to work in this country are of deep concern. There is a risk of significant implications for the staffing of health and social care services, as well as the quality of care and patient safety in the future. While measures to help recruit doctors to the NHS, including the fast-track NHS visa, are welcome, the lack of any route into the UK for social care professionals is extremely concerning. The average salary for a care worker in England is between £16,400 and £18,400, which means that individuals would fail to meet even the lower salary threshold of £20,480 to enable them to trade points to be eligible to work in the United Kingdom.
The current proposals for new immigration controls risk exacerbating the current social work workforce shortages and, as a result, putting some of the most vulnerable members of our society at risk, as already mentioned. Social care staff play an integral role in the efficient and safe running of the health service, and it is vital that any future immigration system recognises this. We owe our overseas health and social care staff a huge debt of gratitude. We should do all we can to keep these dedicated workers and ensure that there are no barriers to future recruitment.
It is important to grow our domestic workforce to help to meet workforce challenges, and to improve working conditions, pay and training as part of that. However, we must also provide an entry route for overseas staff who want to join such a vital part of a healthcare system that would struggle to cope without them. There is a consensus across healthcare organisations, as well as growing support for the idea from parliamentarians right across the political spectrum, that social care needs a long-term, sustainable solution that includes better funding. In the short to medium term, the immigration system must include a migratory route that meets the needs of the social care sector, which is facing severe challenges. We now need the political will to act and reverse this public policy omission.
I therefore hope that my amendment will be supported. It is supported from outside very strongly—by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, UNISON, Independent Age and the Royal College of Physicians. It places a duty on the Government to report on migratory options for health and social care workers ineligible for the skilled-worker route.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out in detail the options for overseas workers excluded from the skilled-worker scheme, within a period of 30 days beginning on the day on which this Bill is passed. It would need to specify a migratory route for care workers, home workers and healthcare support workers. It is time we recognised the vast contribution of the social care workforce to our community. Showing that there is a migratory route into the UK for them would be a step towards achieving this. They have demonstrated that in low-paid jobs they provide good social care, and even die for us, as shown by Covid-19.
I had not indicated that I intend to divide the Committee today, but I look forward to the Minister’s response and I will reserve my judgment. All I can say is that the support for this amendment outside and from all sides is immense, and I hope the Minister will respond to that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of my Amendment 93. It is obvious that many of the amendments in this group are heading towards the same sort of thing, which is protection for people of all kinds as well as holding the Government to account for what they do. I support several of the amendments that have been spoken to, and I have been moved by some of the speeches from noble Lords.
My amendment is supported by over 50 organisations from all the devolved nations, including the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Macmillan Cancer Support, UNISON and the Association of Camphill Communities. Amendment 93 would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the effects of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on the health and social care sectors across the UK. This would be made after consulting the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department, service providers, those requiring health and social care service and others. One would hope that this would be automatic with any measure that a Government introduce as they really need to know whether it is working or not.
Proposed new subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament no later than one year after this Bill is passed. Proposed new subsection (8) would require a Minister of the Crown to make arrangements not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, for the report to be debated and voted on in both Houses.
My amendment is necessary to safeguard the interests of the many people who rely on the contribution of EU citizens and non-EU citizens for the provision of health and social care across the four nations. This of course includes disabled people, children and young people, older people, unpaid carers and those with long-term health conditions. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am getting older and this might apply to me in a decade or two.
Prior to the UK leaving the EU, a number of studies had highlighted the significant adverse impact of Brexit on the health and social care sectors across the UK. These studies, and the initial information about the points-based immigration system provided in the Home Office’s policy paper, The UK’s Point-Based Immigration System: Policy Statement, suggest that the ending of freedom of movement and the introduction of a points-based immigration system will potentially have a major adverse impact on the health and social care sectors across the UK. I think every speech so far has highlighted that fact.
The proposed independent evaluation that would be introduced by Amendment 93 could play a key role in supporting the health and social care sectors across the UK, helping them to address a range of concern about the proposals. These include concerns that many health and social care workers from other European countries, and from non-European countries, would not meet the proposed income threshold under this system, and that the requirement to have a job offer is unnecessarily restrictive, and will create addition administrative burdens and cost for health and social care organisations trying to recruit staff from abroad. As we have heard, there is a lack of recognition of health and social care specific skills, experience and professional qualifications in the proposed points-based system. As a result, it does not recognise the skills and experience of the workers from across the EU, and from non-EU countries, to enrich health and social care support and services here. Nor does it value the sector and its growing importance as a result of demographic changes.
There is much wrong with the Government’s immigration policy, but health and social care will feel a particularly brutal impact. This independent analysis is required so that the Government can think properly about the needs of health and social care and develop policy accordingly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. I speak to Amendments 2 and 66, to which I have added my name, and I strongly support Amendment 82, tabled by my friend Lord Patel.
The current proposals will exclude a group of workers we desperately need: carers for those with physical and/or mental disabilities, especially, as my noble friend Lady Masham highlighted, those with spinal injuries and similar severe physical constraints, and those with severe impairments of mental capacity for a wide variety of reasons. Many of these people are at a high risk of Covid and some will have been on the official shielding list. They wish to remain in their own homes and need care around the clock. For them, a live-in carer is the best option, but the annual salary of such a carer will fall below the level to accrue points in the system. That workforce just does not exist here. UK residents are not coming forward to train as live-in domiciliary carers.
Those carers already here are fearful that they will not obtain leave to remain. UNISON is calling for key workers to remain here and be eligible for NHS care—that is, to be exempt from the “no recourse to public funds” criteria—during the pandemic. Around 17% of the social care workforce is made up of migrant workers, with 115,000 European nationals and 134,000 non-EU nationals.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 47, to which I added my name, but I also strongly support other amendments in the group, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Patel, who spoke powerfully in favour of making sure that we do not create barriers preventing health and social care staff coming to this country. I do not want to duplicate what others have said, so I will speak briefly about the difficulties we have in recruiting staff over here, which others have certainly emphasised.
The NHS employs half a million staff and has 100,000 vacancies reported by trusts, many of them among low-paid workers. This figure is projected to rise over the coming years, rather than diminish. Our problems will become pretty well impossible to manage unless we do something about it.
We want more support staff employed in primary care. This has been a policy goal for a long time and the NHS long-term plan continues to reflect this ambition, but the number of support staff working in community services has continued to fall, and I expect it to continue to do so. GP surgeries are desperate to appoint support staff but cannot do so. As others have said strongly, a similar picture applies to the social care sector, where we have 8,632 vacancies, according to the latest available data—surely unsustainable, as the number of elderly people needing care rises relentlessly, not to mention, as others have, the many people with disabilities and a range of problems.
The NHS Long Term Plan acknowledges that international recruitment will continue to be vital in the short to medium term if we are to deal with our staff shortages. This is being constrained, says a report by the Health Foundation, by immigration policies. Surely the Government need to pay attention to that, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point. Immigration policies are really causing problems for our health and social care services. Instead of imposing barriers to EEA and Swiss entrants, would it not be better for Ministers to concentrate on reducing barriers to well-qualified migrants with good English from the rest of the world? Amendment 47 is key, as are the other amendments in this group, if we are to improve our health and social care staffing or to avoid a serious drop in the quality and availability of these crucial services. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendments 47 and 66, but the intentions and sentiments already expressed so well by many noble Lords are ones that I fully endorse. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham, and other noble Lords for the excellent way in which they have explained the urgent need for measures in the Bill that specifically address the shortage of social care staff. I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I know cares about this issue as much as so many of us around the House, to take back to the department the strength of feeling across the House on this matter and address some of these issues before Report.
We are talking here about the biggest failure of social policy in modern times. The inadequacy of our social care provision is already well documented and well known, and the Government are already committed to addressing this issue as soon as possible. We cannot move forward and improve the quality of social care without staff. We cannot mechanise this. Care workers may be low paid, but that does not mean they are low skilled. They are essential to enabling increasing numbers of people to live decent lives. We are not talking about bringing in low-paid shelf stackers; we are talking about the emotional, physical and mental well-being of some of our most vulnerable citizens.
Given that the Government are the main funders of social care and have not yet funded adequately social care providers who employ staff who might generally earn above the £25,000 cut-off, that imposes on the Government a duty to ensure that our immigration policy does not deter those who might be willing to work for less than that figure—most of the people who work in social care already do so—from coming to this country when, as we have already heard, around one in five of our social care staff is already from overseas.
I know my noble friend responded to these concerns at Second Reading by saying that the Government hope that Britons will fill the shortfall, but hopes are not good enough. It takes time to try to find any UK nationals, train them in the right skills and raise the standards of pay. What are these elderly and disabled people supposed to do in the meantime? They need care. I therefore hope my noble friend might still consider the implications of these amendments, or at the very least agree to a transitional, temporary social care visa, perhaps for five or 10 years, that specifically enables social care providers and individuals who need to employ somebody to care for them in their own home to find those overseas workers who are willing to come here and fill the gaps we currently have, rather than having an immigration system that rules out being able to bring them in.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I very much agree with what she had to say. I am speaking primarily in support of Amendments 2 and 93, but I am supportive of all these amendments. I underline the importance of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Finlay, said about personal care.
When the Bill was postponed in the House of Commons, I thought that perhaps the Government were thinking again about the treatment of care workers in the points-based system in light of the Government’s and the country’s applause for them during the height of the pandemic. How naive I was; there was no rethink. Despite the crucial role they played and continue to play and the range of skills involved in their work—organisational, clinical and
“soft skills of empathy and patience”,
as the chief executive of the National Association of Care & Support Workers has explained—the Government, as has already been said, continue to confuse pay with skill and contribution.
Back in February, the Home Secretary herself conceded that
“care is not a low-skilled occupation”—
so why is it being treated as one now? To do so in the proposed points-based system is in effect discriminatory, as the equality impact assessment makes clear. It says:
“The Government is aware that prescribing a minimum … threshold could have differential impacts on individuals on the basis of their sex. Women may find it disproportionately more difficult to meet the threshold than men.”
Indeed, but there is no “could” or “may” about it. It will have a differential impact and women will find it disproportionately difficult because, of course, women make up the majority of care workers. Moreover, black and minority ethnic women are disproportionately represented in the care sector, and the equality impact assessment shows that BAME workers will also be adversely affected by the salary threshold.
In the Commons, the Immigration Minister said that
“our vision for the future of the care sector is about providing rewarding opportunities to UK-based workers, not basing it purely on immigration.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1250.]
Likewise, the Minister, at Second Reading, said that
“the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector.”—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2232.]
No one is suggesting that immigration provides the sole solution or that the future of care should depend purely on immigration but, to quote the Cavendish Coalition of 37 organisations in health and social care:
“For a sector where one in six are foreign nationals and which is struggling with 122,000 vacancies in England alone it would be unwise to believe that domestic recruitment will solve all social care’s immediate problems.”
It warns that we are
“swiftly heading towards an alarming destination with no obvious solution for the care sector.”
Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that those “rewarding opportunities” to which the Immigration Minister referred are to be provided when local authorities are already on their financial knees? As we have heard, funding has gone down in the care sector and the Government have done nothing about it over their 10-year period in office. Do the Government believe that the market will miraculously provide the solution in the absence of immigrant labour?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I associate myself in particular with Amendments 2 and 82 but, like other noble Lords, I support many of the amendments in this group in principle.
A constant theme since Second Reading is the need for key workers to continue to supply workforce in the UK, not least in the NHS and social care. It is a matter of fact that, quite apart from us potentially sending out the wrong message to those coming from countries other than the EEA and Switzerland—international care workers on whom we currently depend—many of our care home workers and care workers in general are sourced from Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and other EEA countries. I therefore suggest that this is a wake-up call to the potential immediate crisis that the social care sector could face on 1 January next year as a result of the Bill, if my reading of it is correct.
I always remember that during my time as an MP, when I used to ask the local jobcentre where the main vacancies were, the answer usually came back that the vacancies that were the most difficult to fill and therefore the longest on the register were those in the care sector. I hope this might provide an opportunity to really look again at the status of social care workers. They are the flip side to the NHS family. I remind the Committee of my interest in that I come from a medical family; my brother and father were GPs, and I currently work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. We can see the extent to which we were dependent on care homes taking often still quite poorly patients out of hospitals in the immediate pandemic circumstances of Covid-19.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will use her good offices to liaise with the relevant departments in this regard, particularly the Department of Health and Social Care, to look at valuing the skills and caring qualities of our social care workers and look to raise their salaries to more realistic levels.
I also ask my noble friend whether a compromise in this regard, particularly in view of the visa requirements, might be to look at whether it would be appropriate for the immigration system that will commence in the new year to have a two-year temporary work visa so as not to leave the country potentially short-staffed in this crunch period, as we deal with the knock-on effects of Covid and its economic consequences and as a result of our ending the transition period as we leave the European Union.
Furthermore, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am deeply concerned that many of the details are not in the Bill and that we are relying very heavily on secondary legislation and a points system, the details of which are not that transparent.
I conclude by lending my support to Amendment 2 in particular, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Adonis, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton. It requires the Government to commission an independent review of the social care sector, which would, I hope, cover many of the points that I raised today.
I also support Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which would introduce a duty to report on migratory options for health and social care workers who are ineligible for the skilled worker route. It is nonsensical to have such a constraint on a sector on which we are so heavily dependent.
I found the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, very moving. In my days as an MP, I visited a Leonard Cheshire home, where I encountered the tragic case of a young Olympic rower who had suffered a stroke and was incapacitated. If this Bill was passed, these two amendments—and all amendments in this group—could do so much good for people of all ages who are in care, particularly the vulnerable and the disabled in the community.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I want to return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his introductory remarks. The important amendment in this group is Amendment 2. All the others could be things that potentially fall out of a review, and so the key is to have that review and then look at the most appropriate way forward.
Many of the issues that have been spoken to in this debate are not new; we have been talking about social care for as long as I have been in the House. We could say many things about the current situation we find ourselves in, and some of the issues are fairly long-standing. One that I talk about a lot, but not many others do, is the fact that there are currently about a million people who are ageing and do not have children. Our health and social care service is predicated on the fact that you have children who will look out for your needs in any health or care setting. We will have 2 million people in that position by 2030. We have, therefore, an acute and growing need for paid social care. Also, at the moment, a number of our biggest care providers are owned by private equity firms, run at very low cost and margins—they are not about to stay in this business if they cannot do that, and to them, it is a business.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness talked about the need for the United Kingdom to stop colluding in an international trade in low-cost care. I can understand that argument but, at this moment, given where we are, we would be the first affluent western country to take itself out of what is, in effect, an international market in care. No other affluent western country—nor Australia, for that matter—has solved its care problem by suddenly turning off all access to people from other nations. It would be a very bold statement if we were to do that, but noble Lords have today pointed out the dangers of doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to argue that, at this moment, there is a case for a review. The Government, if they were not being so ideologically pure on the matter, would want to give themselves flexibility in addressing these issues as they arise. There is no need to do this: it is just government ideology. The Government could bring in a transitionary process, over about five years, that would enable people to get through a period of uncertainty. I therefore commend Amendment 2 to the Minister and ask her to look at some of the other amendments in this group.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will focus on Amendments 82 and 93, and particularly their implications for reviewing the need, or otherwise, to recruit nurses and doctors from overseas. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling them.
I suspect, however, that these amendments are based on the common fallacy that the NHS needs to recruit doctors and nurses overseas because supposedly not enough British people want to do these jobs. That is simply untrue. The latest year for which UCAS figures are available is 2019; I apologise to the House for giving out-of-date figures at Second Reading. The most recent figures show that 53,000 young British people applied to train as nurses last year, of whom 20,250 were turned away—that is 43% of applicants, or nearly half of those who applied. UCAS unfortunately does not produce figures on the same basis for those seeking to train as doctors, but it is clear that an even higher proportion of those who apply to medical school are turned away.
This is a double scandal. First, it means that tens of thousands of young Brits who aspire to serve their country as doctors or nurses are refused that chance and have to pursue less attractive options. Secondly, we have to recruit tens of thousands of doctors and nurses from abroad, mostly from countries that are far poorer, have fewer medical staff per head of population, and can ill afford to train people who then migrate to the United Kingdom.
This double scandal is compounded by the way this issue is excluded from the national debate. Why do we allow this situation to persist? We allow effectively unlimited numbers of students to study every subject from art history to zoology. The only subjects where places are numerically restricted are medicine, where they are formally restricted, and nursing, where they are de facto restricted.
I will pass over the political reasons why it may have seemed wise to advocates of mass immigration to invoke the needs of the NHS and nurses and doctors to sanctify their cause. The other reason is nakedly economic: we found it cheaper, in the short term, to employ people trained at the expense of foreign taxpayers, rather than pay to train our own citizens. At the same time, relying on nurses and other health workers from abroad, on whom many other noble Lords have focused, helps to keep wages low. What a paradox it is that many noble Lords who have spoken today and railed against the level of inequality in our country pursue a policy whose prime justification, as they have made clear today, is that it depresses the wages of the lowest-paid people in this country and keeps them below what economists call the domestic market clearing rate—the rate at which we could meet our needs from our own employees.
I was at first minded to support these amendments, but, on looking more closely, I note that one thing the reports that they call on the Government to produce do not cover is the scope for training more of those aspiring to become nurses and doctors in the UK, so that we can end the plundering of foreign health services. That is a very significant omission and shows that there is a blind spot in this discussion, which I hope we will not perpetuate in future debates.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
I had intended to withdraw from the debate, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I have to say that I agree very strongly with what he said. The debate so far has covered the case for a short-term arrangement to make sure that our failure to train in recent years can be made up for, but there is no justification in the medium term for taking doctors and nurses to look after people here from countries that need them far more than we do. That is our responsibility; it is time we trained our own and got a grip on it.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and the brief, excellent speech he made at the beginning of this debate. I also want to reinforce points that have been made by the majority of your Lordships, with the exceptions of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green. Although I do not dispute for a minute that both noble Lords have a point, they have highlighted what I hope to put across this evening, which is the complete contradictions that exist in this debate.
I shall start by picking up those points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green. I am presuming that, when we reach Report, they will be moving amendments that will remove the so-called health and social care route announced in July, because under that route doctors and nurses could be recruited from across the world to fill vacancies at that level.
One of the contradictions that I want to highlight relates to young people. Young people who cannot find a job anywhere else due to the aftermath of Covid-19—the 20% drop in GDP and the knock-on effect on unemployment—might decide to go into social care. Most young people I speak to want a career and to be able to progress, and there is progression in both residential and social care. However, as things stand with the proposals by the Government, the area from which we would allow people to be brought in from overseas would be at that higher level, whereas at the lower level the vacancies that have been mentioned—122,000 in England alone—would not be fillable from outside the country. I do not know whether the Government believe that, given the crisis in unemployment that is about to accelerate, people will just take up those vacancies even if they are not emotionally and physically suitable to take up caring duties. As has been made clear in this debate, you have to be a particular type of person to take up some of the less attractive duties of caring for someone who is severely disabled or frail and has dementia.
The contradictions, also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, abound. We all want to see improved wages in this sector. That would not only reward people morally for what they do but help fill vacancies. But the danger of simply putting money into the sector, given the level of private equity ownership, might well be that it gets creamed off, rather than helping to fill vacancies. Or, they will simply close the homes if the money is not provided, which will cause an even bigger problem—as part of the contradictions, we would end up with older, frailer and more severely disabled people in hospital settings, which are more expensive but would allow for staffing to be brought in from outside this country. We saw that in March and April, when people who should have been in different settings in the first place were cascaded out into the residential sector unchecked for Covid-19 and ill-prepared in terms of PPE to be able to deal with it. The consequences, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, are obvious for all of us to see.
The biggest contradiction of all—and I put this to the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green—is that, on the centre-left in politics, people are generally suspicious of markets and, on the right, people generally embrace markets. But as I said on Second Reading, in the case of the labour market, the situation is reversed, and those who believe vehemently in markets are against a labour market and against being able to draw in from across the world those who have something to offer the area we are talking about this evening.
We need to sort out the contradictions. That includes the issue of austerity, which led to a bigger downturn in funding for local government services and those funded by local government than any other public service area in the country, with the result that local government has been struggling both with its own direct health provision and with funding in the market and the ability to sustain services.
I have one question—I have learned over the Covid-19 period that you do not get an answer from the Minister unless you ask them a question. My question is simple, and the Minister might be able to answer it tonight: we know what the vacancy level is, but do we have an up-to-date picture of the turnover level in the social care sector? The turnover gives you an idea of how long people can stand working in this challenging but often rewarding setting. What steps might have to be taken if the Government’s hope is that the downward pressure on job availability will help fill, in the short term, the vacancies that we have talked about?
At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the care of human beings. We are not talking about markets or political or economic theory; we are talking about the reality of caring for people in their own homes and stopping them, therefore, having to move into hospital, residential care or residential settings that are dealing with people at very difficult times of their lives. In the end, we have to care enough to get it right.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the powerful opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is very experienced in this field, and to the speeches that have followed.
Who can argue about the need for a properly skilled, staffed, trained social care workforce? “Skilled and settled”, I think, was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. That is why the issues in subsections (3)(a), (3)(b), (3)(c) and (3)(d) in the noble Lord’s proposed new clause seem entirely appropriate questions to ask. But when they are tied back into an immigration Bill, I begin to get nervous. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about contradictions, and I listened carefully to what he said, but the fact is that the issues in subsections (3)(a) to (d) are issues for the sector not linked directly to the immigration matter we are discussing this evening.
I recognise I am probably swimming against the tide, but it is important to realise that workplace psychologists will tell you that you go to work for three reasons. First, you go for the money, and let us not be precious about that. Secondly, and equally importantly, you go for what they call self-actualisation —to improve and increase your life skills, work with decent people, have career progression, have a good performance that is noted and rewarded and, hopefully, operate in an atmosphere of good team spirit. Those are the internal desires most people have in going to work.
The third area is external reputation. When you mention where you work, what do people say in the saloon bar of The Dog and Duck or around the table at a dinner party?
It is worth taking those three yardsticks and applying them to the social care sector. First, there is the money. There is no getting around it: £8.70 an hour is clearly not good enough when compared with £9 for stacking shelves in a supermarket. However, money is not the only motivator here, and when we turn to self-actualisation —the second of the criteria that I mentioned—the situation is quite serious. I have had the privilege of serving on the boards of many companies in my career. When I join one, I often say, “Tell me about your staff turnover.” No staff turnover is not an attractive thing; very often it means that the company has got a bit complacent and is not at the cutting edge, and that the service is not as good as it could be. You want some staff turnover—5%, 10%, that sort of level—to provide the dynamic but, if it rises above that level, it is operationally destructive, distracting and expensive, and the quality of the service starts to fall away.
I understand that in 2018-19 there was a 32.2% turnover in directly employed staff in the sector. Worse, among care workers the turnover was 39.5%. Further evidence of a lack of considered career progression is that half the workforce—excluding registered professionals —have no relevant social care qualifications, which seems to me a question not of money but of managerial grip and organisation, and of making the sector better managed.
Lastly, on the external reputation, one of the great advantages and developments of the pandemic is that people have begun to see how useful, worthwhile and attractive social care can be. People have begun to think about it. Long may that continue but, historically, we all must accept that its reputation has not been that good.
This is a system under acute stress, as many noble Lords have said. The danger of amendments such as these is that they will result in new arrivals, and that immigration will be used as a crutch to maintain what is close to being a broken system. I cannot believe that this is the right approach. More importantly, if the sector believes that it has a “get out of jail free” card, to use the inference that the Minister made when winding up at Second Reading, then there is no pressure on the sector to make any improvements or changes to how the businesses are run or operated, nor indeed is there any pressure on the Government to do likewise. We must find ways to improve the operational performance and the financial performance.
I have two final points. First, on the issue of morality, referred to by my noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, recruitment in this area is a zero-sum game. What we have, other people lose. Maybe one could say that within the EU there is sufficient prosperity for us not to worry about it, but the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned the wider recruitment. This is a very serious issue. We must look ourselves in the mirror and decide whether it is right and fair for us to be recruiting doctors, nurses and care workers from less- developed countries. It may be serious within the EU, but it certainly is serious around the world.
I will give just one example. When the Ebola virus struck Sierra Leone, there were 136 doctors there, one for every 45,000 people; in this country, the equivalent figure is one for every 300 people. At that time, there were 27 Sierra Leone doctors working in the NHS. If we had not employed those people, we could have given a 20% boost to Sierra Leone’s health facilities. It is not the answer but when we set out our stall for the future we must consider our attitude towards the less developed world, and whether we will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, take ourselves out of the international market for health and social care workers.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that many fear the impact that a sharp and purely tailored approach to ending free movement on growth could have in certain important economic sectors, especially within Northern Ireland. The move to reduce the £30,000 salary threshold to £25,600 for skilled migrants coming to the UK is welcome. However, it is not sustainable in Northern Ireland because quite a number of jobs, especially in the care sector, pay less than £25,600. The requirements of the sector have always been different from most of the rest of the economy, but I address my remarks mainly to Amendments 2, 82 and 93, and the need for workers in the health and care sector.
The pandemic has shown the enormous contribution of overseas workers to our health and social care system. Indeed, they have put their lives at risk to keep us safe. Over these last months the care sector has been under extreme pressure, and clearly any major changes will have serious consequences. Unless we have a breakthrough with a vaccine, care homes and that sector of our health provision will still be battling Covid-19. A large percentage of our doctors in the NHS are from overseas, yet there are thousands of posts vacant across the medical profession. There are serious staff recruitment and retention problems within health and social care, even with freedom of movement and flexibility of opportunity. Added to this is an ageing population with increasingly complex care needs. The Government have ambitious plans to fill staff vacancies, which noble Lords have spoken about, but it will take a concerted effort and a very considerable period of time to train doctors and nurses—even if they are recruited tomorrow—and to provide thousands of professional care home staff for our various facilities across the United Kingdom.
In my opinion, this is a mammoth task. It is not realistic to pretend that we can address the vacancy shortage within a short period. To suggest that those who have lost their employment elsewhere would adequately fill these vacancies is also unacceptable, as we are speaking about a caring profession; vulnerable people who need assistance need loving, professionally skilled attention. I fear that deterring the recruitment from overseas of care assistants and other junior care workers who already have skills will lead to a serious decline in the quality and availability of care for the most vulnerable in society.
We also need an independent evaluation of the impact of the Bill on the health and social care sector across the United Kingdom. The appointment of a person independent of government should be done following consultation between the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations. If what is being done under the Bill is right and professionally competent, there is nothing to fear from such a comprehensive independent evaluation. This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament no later than one year after the Bill is passed, and that no later than six months after the report is laid it will be debated and voted on in the Commons and Lords. The effects of these changes on disabled people, older citizens, children and young people and those with long-term health conditions—in other words, those who rely on the service provided by health and social care to make life bearable—could be profound. Therefore, we had best be sure that we get it right.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak particularly to Amendments 2, 47 and 57. I strongly agree with the excellent opening speech on this group by my noble friend Lord Hunt and with many other speeches, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Lister. This Bill illustrates that the pandemic has revealed fundamental flaws in the present United Kingdom non-EU immigration system and the Government’s post-Brexit plans for immigration. In an economy which previously had record levels of employment, and despite the joblessness effects of Covid on the labour market, their proposed points-based system could produce damaging labour shortages in many sectors, including the NHS, social care, which has been spoken about authoritatively in this debate, farming, food processing and construction.
None of this should come as a surprise, as the 2016 referendum campaign was based on rhetoric falsely linking the free movement of EU workers with the legacies of Tory austerity: housing shortages, depressed wages and huge cuts in public services, especially social care. The promise to take back control of borders may have appealed to nationalistic jingoism, but it was never rooted in the reality of modern Britain, where EU and non-EU migrants of all skills levels and income brackets keep the economic and social wheels turning. EU and other migrant workers were always, in fact, net contributors, through tax and national insurance, to the National Health Service, social care and other public services. Despite the Government’s intention to equate low pay with low skills and low value, the pandemic has abruptly brought migrants’ significant front-line roles as key workers in keeping the country afloat to the attention of the public, among whom it is now widely recognised, whereas perhaps it was not in 2016. As the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has stated, the Bill
“will deny our communities the care and professionalism contributed by migrants in these areas, to our own detriment.”
The Bill does not set out in detail what the future points-based UK system will look like. These changes will be covered in unamendable Immigration Rules. The Bill gives the Government Henry VIII powers to modify primary or secondary legislation as appropriate. Despite the Government’s claims that these powers are usual, they will diminish the role of Parliament in an area of policy where many, including the Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 2019 46th report, have concluded that greater scrutiny is already required.
In the social care sector, on which millions of extremely vulnerable British people depend—many of them our relatives, in care homes and in their own homes—the vast majority of social care roles do not meet the planned immigration system’s salary threshold of £25,600. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, who spoke immediately before me, emphasised that point in relation to Northern Ireland. Using data collected before—I stress, before—the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Skills for Care estimated the number of vacancies in the sector at 133,000. It also estimated that 5% of the 1.65 million workforce, or more than 80,000 staff, are at risk of losing their employment rights at the end of the transition period, in a sector where nearly half of employers are already struggling to fill existing vacancies because of low pay, anti-social hours and the demanding nature of care work.
The Government, in their wisdom, have decided that front-line social care staff will be excluded from their fast-track health and care visa, with the Home Secretary stating that this will encourage employers to invest in workers from the UK. Who is going to pay for this? Will it be people receiving care, cash-strapped local authorities, whose budgets have been massively cut, or private-sector care providers, many of whom are teetering on the brink of financial collapse? Parliament’s library briefing confirms that
“a wide range of organisations are concerned that short-term funding pressures remain. In 2018, the Local Government Association estimated that adult social care services faced a £1.5 billion funding gap by 2019/20 and £3.5 billion gap by 2024/25.”
While the points-based system is a fundamental change, other aspects of the non-EU immigration system such as enforcement, the right to bring dependants, settlement criteria, asylum, no access to public funds and more will remain unchanged when EU citizens without settled status become subject to them in 2021—next year. The pandemic has demonstrated that because of these policies, many such migrants are at significant risk of exposure to the virus, fear accessing healthcare, lack access to safe housing and are unable to stop working or to self-isolate because they are on poverty wages. This is not only detrimental to the health of migrant communities; the health of the wider public is also put at risk.
The Bill is a missed opportunity to deal with many more important questions, on which I support contributions and amendments from noble colleagues, including measures to combat modern slavery and indefinite detention, and to address family reunion for refugees and safe routes for unaccompanied children. These unresolved issues mean that the existing UK immigration regime for non-EU immigration is already a stain on our national reputation. Its extension to EU citizens from 2021 is a matter of deep regret, creating a new Brexit generation alongside the Windrush generation.
All British citizens living in the EU want to be reassured that we will uphold the treaty rights of EU citizens in the UK, the better to insist that they are upheld for our citizens in the EU. The Bill fails to provide that reassurance. If the Government want to retain the respect of our former friends and partners, they should listen to the concerns expressed by EU ambassadors and others and accept amendments which will guarantee the rights of the Brexit generation of European Union citizens, including vital social care workers, who have legally made their lives in our country, by writing them into this primary legislation.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we have heard from across the Committee the concern about this crisis in social care. Many noble Lords have considerable expertise on this topic and I am grateful to them for sharing their knowledge.
History will record the failure to deal with the fragile state of the provision and funding of social care as one of the major failures in domestic policy, and one has to say that particularly of the last 10 years of Conservative and Conservative-led government. I wish that as much energy had been applied to this subject as to Brexit. It shows a peculiar set of priorities.
I do not know whether the Government are being ideologically pure, to use the term employed by my noble friend Lady Barker. I certainly think that they are being obdurate and, I am afraid, unintelligent in not responding to the enormous problems in social care. The idea that in a short space of time we are going to find loads of people in the United Kingdom who want to work in this sector when they have never previously shown any interest in, inclination towards or aptitude for such work is pie in the sky. We learn that there are 120,000—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to an estimate of 133,000—vacancies in the social care sector. When a quarter of a million social care workers—that is, 20% of the workforce—are EU or non-EU nationals, the ending of free movement under this Bill will lead to even greater shortages of staff.
I agree that it is wrong to exclude care workers from the health and care visa route, since only maybe senior care workers will be included under the salary level criterion. My understanding is that Canada and New Zealand have sector-specific visa routes. Since they are flavour of the month, why don’t we follow countries like them?
I was very moved by the tragic account from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of the suicide of quite a young man through the fear of a lack of care. I experienced this a little when my late husband, four years before he died, had to have a leg amputated due to sepsis. He benefited from carer support, as well as, I hope, from my support. I can absolutely relate to the emotions—the fear and anxiety—of people, whether the elderly or those with a range of disabilities, who do not know whether they will be able to get care either in a care home or in their own home.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, low skilled and low paid does not equal low value. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to the right caring personality being one of the necessary skills, but somehow that seems to be disregarded as though it comes with the territory, not least with women. Women are expected to be natural carers; well, we are not necessarily.
My noble friend Lady Barker referred to an acute and growing need for paid social care as the number of people without children grows to, I think she said, 2 million in 2030. I am one of those guilty parties—I have failed to grow the population—and my noble friend makes a very good point. Many families are not necessarily in a position anyway to provide care within the family, but she makes a very good point about a factor that increases the necessity.
Various amendments call for a review. Some of them could talk about health and social care but the emphasis in this debate, just like Amendment 2, which was very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has rightly been concentrated on the social care sector, which is where we are facing a crisis. One of the factors in that crisis is going to be the lack of an adequate workforce, and quite honestly it is astonishing if the Government do not respond to that. I hope the Minister can give us some hope of progress when she replies to the debate.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on his powerful speech opening this debate. I wish to speak in particular to Amendment 57 in this group, to which my name is attached, although I agree with the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords who have spoken to other amendments in this group. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, advised the Minister to reject my amendment before I have even spoken to it, though I fear that my speech will probably only reinforce his view of his advice to his noble friend.
The amendment would make provision for the Secretary of State to provide a dedicated social care visa for EEA and Swiss nationals who had the right to free movement and have a job offer to work in the social care sector, and to their dependents. They would not be subject to the NHS surcharge or the immigration skills charge and the visa route would be available for three years from the end of the transition period, with the option to extend for further years if necessary.
The thinking behind the amendment is that the Government’s intention to suddenly shut the entry door at the end of the transition period in a few months’ time on the overwhelming majority of future overseas social care workers under the criteria laid down in the new points-based immigration system, and the exclusion of care workers from the qualifying list for the health and care visa, will have serious and immediate adverse consequences for our already stretched social care provision in the UK. The amendment would remove the suddenness associated with this policy change through the social care visa available for three years with an option to extend, and would give the social care sector a realistic chance of being able to adjust to the loss of a significant source of labour.
A Commons Home Office Minister said in July said that the reason why care workers had been excluded from the qualifying list for the health and care visa was that the Government had a “vision” for the social care sector that it should no longer
“carry on looking abroad to recruit at or near the minimum wage”,
and that the Government’s priority was that in future care sector jobs would be
“valued, rewarded and trained for, and that immigration should not be an alternative.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; cols. 1249-50.]
If that means significantly better rates of pay and an associated increased degree of widely accepted and acknowledged professionalism in the underpaid and undervalued social care sector, that is to be welcomed—a widely accepted and acknowledged professionalism that does not leave care homes and care workers at the back of the queue when it comes to personal protective equipment and does not regard the care sector as so forgotten and unimportant as to send vulnerable people from hospital into care homes who have not been tested for Covid-19.
The fundamental change needed is far from the current position and cannot be achieved in the space of the next few months, when the transition period ends, without potentially serious adverse consequences for those who are vulnerable and dependent on care provision either at home or in a home. It requires a change of culture and attitude both towards and within the sector, a change that the Government have to accept is their responsibility to lead. That will take time, as the Government implicitly accepted when they said in July that with the vast majority of social care staff employed in the fragmented private sector, their
“ability to influence pay rates there”
is limited.
Some 17% to 20% of the social care workforce are migrant workers, with 115,000 EEA nationals and 134,000 non-EEA nationals. Vacancy rates in the care sector now stand at 6.5% in England and 5.5% in Scotland. Since there are already 100,000-plus vacancies in England’s care sector alone and the current flow of people from abroad to fill low-paid care sector jobs is about to dry up, the Government cannot possibly have been able to satisfy themselves that not only will UK-based workers immediately appear to fill that gap but they will be there in sufficient numbers—with the right training, aptitude and caring qualities for social care work—to lower the vacancy levels in the sector as well.
One assumes in making that statement that the Government do not believe that anyone can successfully do this kind of work and that anyone available should be recruited. We are told that the Government have an “oven-ready plan” to address the issue of funding the increasingly expensive social care sector. Unfortunately, the person claiming to have this plan for more than 12 months now has been unable to figure out how to turn the oven on.
If higher pay rates did suddenly materialise in the social care sector in a few months’ time, which would apparently solve the labour shortages—as the Government seem to assume will happen as a result of the points-based immigration system and the drying up of non-British labour—there will presumably be a potentially significant increase in the cost of providing social care. What do the Government think that increase in cost will be since it is only a few months ahead of us in a sector with a 30%-plus annual staff turnover rate, a high vacancy rate and a major source of labour about to end? Will it be the elderly, vulnerable care-home residents and people receiving care at home—the self-funders—who will have to find yet more money? Will it be the already cash-strapped local authorities? Will it be the providers of care provision or will it be the Government themselves financing the cost of a much better paid, more highly valued, more highly trained and increasingly professional social care workforce? I hope that the Government will provide an answer to this point in their reply.
The care sector was in crisis before Covid-19. Local authority spending on adult social care in England has fallen, I think, by some 7% per person in the past decade, thanks to austerity and cuts in grants from central government. Councils have had to tighten eligibility thresholds as cost, rather than need, has become the dominant factor in decision-making. One inevitable result is that some 1.5 million elderly and disabled people have unmet care needs and care workers are often expected to deliver home care within a 15-minute visit or less.
The work is usually low paid and seriously undervalued. However, high-quality care is not low skilled and the Government’s apparent policy that the rising unemployment on which they are banking will solve problems of staff shortages is misguided and potentially dangerous. What is needed is a better funded and resourced care sector with a new focus on training and continuing professional development. We need a cultural change in how we view social care and the value we place on those who work in the sector, including the way in which the immigration system regards social care workers—a change that recognises that there is direct competition from the NHS for many care staff, an NHS that offers higher pay levels and a career structure. With nearly one-fifth of the adult social care workforce being from overseas, in a sector with already high levels of vacancies and turnover rates it is unrealistic to believe that the effect of shutting the door to future care sector staff being recruited in any numbers from overseas can be overcome in rapid time by finding and training appropriate personnel with an aptitude for care sector work from within the ranks of British citizens, both already employed and unemployed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, says that we are a contradictory lot and I do not disagree with that, but what we are all consistent on is that this is a matter that, through Covid, we have seen as incredibly important. We need people with these skills; they are valued and their careers can progress in this sector. He raised a very pertinent point around the turnover. I think you can tell the state of a sector or indeed a business by its turnover. Turnover is high; it is estimated to be around 31%. That is a high turnover in anyone’s book. I will confirm that figure because it is one that I have on the top of my head but my officials might disagree with it. If it is any different, I will confirm that in writing.
The amendments cover a range of issues, all of which relate to health and social care. They can be broadly split into three themes: the need to review the effects of the new immigration system on the health and care sectors, dedicated visa routes for health and social care workers, and immigration routes for those who do not meet requirements under the future skilled workers route. I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments because they give us an opportunity to discuss a very important issue. It might be worth reflecting that there is nothing more important than how we, as a society, look after the most vulnerable people, be they young or old.
I will say another general thing about the health and social care sector, not as a Home Office Minister or even a Member of your Lordships’ House but as someone who formerly led one of England’s major metropolitan councils—which, as with all local authorities, was a significant user of care services, which consumed a substantial portion of the council’s budget. I became leader in 2004; it was an issue then and it is even more so now. I assure noble Lords that the Government very much appreciate the contribution of the social care sector, and its value to this country has never been better demonstrated than during the Covid crisis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. The Government are working alongside the sector to ensure that the workforce has the right number of people to meet increasing demands with the right skills, knowledge and behaviours to deliver quality, compassionate care.
I will respond to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The Department of Health and Social Care has recently launched a new national recruitment campaign, called “Every Day is Different”, to run across broadcast, digital and social media. The campaign highlights the vital role that the social care workforce is playing right now during this pandemic along with the longer-term opportunities of working in care.
The Government have commissioned Skills for Care to scale up capacity for digital induction training, provided free of charge under the DHSC’s workforce development fund. This training is available for redeployees, new starters, existing staff and volunteers through 12 of Skills for Care’s endorsed training providers.
Finally, of course, I must mention—and I am sure noble Lords have heard me saying this before—that the Government are also providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adults and children’s social care in 2021. This is a significant funding uplift.
On the amendments, I will start by addressing Amendment 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 93 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which are similar in intent. Both would require an independent review of the effect of our new points-based immigration system on the care sector. I very much agree that it is essential that policies are kept under review, particularly when the Government are introducing a new, points-based immigration system from January. Independent scrutiny and review are a good thing, but I am not sure that we need to legislate to provide a whole new mechanism.
We are very fortunate in already having the Migration Advisory Committee, a body that is widely recognised for its expertise and impartiality. It is testimony to the MAC’s standing that it has operated under a Labour Government, a coalition Government and Conservative Governments. In each instance it has been valued for the quality of its advice, and its recommendations have been accepted. Noble Lords should be in no doubt about the close interest that the MAC takes in the health and social care sectors. To put it into context, social care featured prominently in the MAC’s report from January of this year on salary thresholds and the points-based immigration system, just as it did in its report from last year on the shortage occupation lists, where there was a dedicated section on the sector, and in its 2018 report on EEA migration. I can assure noble Lords that the MAC will continue to look at these issues, particularly as the effects of the new immigration system start to be felt.
I also remind noble Lords that the Government has expanded the MAC’s remit. It is no longer constrained to reacting only in response to specific commissions from the Government; it now has licence to consider, and comment on, any aspect of immigration policy. To that end, we have asked it to start producing annual reports that not only cover issues such as its budget or staffing but provide a commentary on the operation of the immigration system. The MAC has accepted this challenge with customary gusto, and I understand we can look forward to the first such annual report later this year.
Therefore, while I totally understand the sentiment behind Amendments 2 and 93, they are not necessary. We already have a world-class, independent body to review the operation of our immigration system. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 47 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and Amendment 66 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, Lady Finlay and Lady Thomas. I join noble Lords in having been profoundly moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. These amendments seek to introduce a dedicated route for health and care workers to come to the UK. I do not think that any of us would disagree about the value of the work that migrants and all staff working in the health and care sector do, and I recognise that these amendments were tabled to highlight and enhance this vital sector. That is obviously of great importance to those individuals with severe disabilities and care needs, who will rely even more on the support of health and care workers.
That is why I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Government launched the health and care visa on 4 August. The visa is available to health and care workers, and their families, from all parts of the world, not just EEA and Swiss nationals. Applicants pay a visa fee of £232 for a visa lasting less than three years, and £464 for a visa lasting more than three years. Applicants, and their families, are also exempt from having to pay the immigration health surcharge. Finally, most applicants for the health and care visa can expect a decision within just three weeks of enrolling their biometrics.
That leaves two further points for discussion. First, if inserted into the Bill, these amendments would require the Government to establish a scheme to admit care workers. I am not sure that that would be a wise way to proceed. The decision not to offer a general immigration route for those who do not meet the skills and salary thresholds is not one the Government have taken lightly. We have done so on the advice of the MAC which, as outlined earlier, are the Government’s independent advisers on migration issues. We also need to respect the wishes of the people of the UK, as expressed in the referendum vote four years ago.
The MAC has been very clear that the solutions to the challenges which the care sector faces do not lie in migration. My noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, made this point, as, largely, did my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the evidence which the chair of the MAC, Professor Brian Bell, gave to the committee in the other place. When asked about a visa route for care workers, he said:
“If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, ‘Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage’, first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with and, secondly, it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers. You are saying that you are going to keep on allowing their wages to be held down by allowing employers to bring in workers at the minimum wage, whereas we want to see wages rising in that sector.”
That is a telling point. It would be a very odd position for this Government and for noble Lords to take if we were to conclude that the best way to reward those working in the care sector—the vast majority of whom are British—for their selfless and unstinting actions over the past few months was to institute a visa regime which, as the MAC chair has indicated, has the effect of depressing their wages.
Amendment 57 from the Official Opposition suggests putting in place a scheme for three years to tide the sector over and allow for some adjustment. Again, it is worth reflecting on the wise words of the chair of the MAC—this time when he appeared before the Home Affairs Committee in June. On the issue of some sort of temporary or transitional scheme for those working in social care, Professor Bell said:
“The risk is that you say that there needs to be a temporary arrangement for social care to make sure it can still access workers at usually minimum-wage wages from the rest of the world. That often then becomes a permanent solution”.
Indeed, I note that Amendment 57 explicitly contains a provision to allow it to be extended beyond its three years.
In the very next question, the chair of the Home Affairs Committee asked Professor Bell whether there would be a transitional scheme for social care workers, something my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady McIntosh of Pickering talked about. He explicitly said that he did not advise that course of action. He went on to say:
“If unemployment rises very substantially in the next few months, of which there is certainly a risk when the furlough scheme unwinds, there will be a large supply of workers in the UK looking for work. If social care is ever to succeed in attracting workers, that is a pool of workers that they should be able to attract. If they can’t, I go back to my point that there is something fundamentally wrong here and it is nothing to do with immigration.”
These amendments seek to exempt health and care sector employers from paying the immigration skills charge. However, we consider it is right that the immigration skills charge continues to apply. In its September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the MAC supported continued application of the immigration skills charge, without exceptions for particular sectors, alongside salary thresholds, as a way to protect against employers using migrants to undercut the domestic workforce, as my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, said.
The Government stand by this requirement, given our desire for immigration to be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s resident workforce. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made the point very strongly about the sector taking responsibility here; my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, also made these points. This has only become more important due to the uncertainty that many UK resident workers will face as a result of the current pandemic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have given their support to my and other noble Lords’ amendments.
The Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green, say we should not be using migrant labour to undercut our own workforce. Let me make it clear: I absolutely agree. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the current turnover of care staff is appalling and cannot possibly be defended. But, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said in his marvellous winding-up speech, you will not solve the care sector’s problems by suddenly snapping off its ability to recruit staff from abroad from the end of the year. All you will do is tip it into an even bigger crisis than it is in. This is complete madness. We know what is going to happen; towards the end of the year, or at the beginning of the new year, there will be a total panic in the Government and they will reverse the decision. They have had practice at reversing decisions in the last few months, have they not?
On those pressures, noble Lords who oppose what I am saying seem to think it is the care sector’s fault. This is a government-controlled sector. The Government are the main funder and regulator; they set the whole context in which the sector operates. They have had countless reviews but will not face up to coming forward with a costed solution. We all know that the Green Paper, if it eventually comes, will be about funding the sector 20 to 30 years in the future. It will not deal with the issues as they now are.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says that, if you go for my noble friend’s amendment, which I commend, a transitional arrangement will become permanent. That is the point: it is down to the Government to make sure that it is not permanent. The beauty of my noble friend’s amendment is that it sets the challenge to Government. Let us go for a transitional arrangement but, if the Government want it to end, they have to come forward with effective proposals to reform and sort out the care sector, once and for all.
I do not see the Migration Advisory Committee in the same way that the noble Baroness does. She quoted the chair of that committee presumably proclaiming the rise in unemployment that he foresees as the solution to the care sector problem. I have been trying to ponder the Government’s Brexit strategy. Clearly they are prepared to let the automotive and aerospace industries go to the wall and, presumably, they are happy about that, because the care sector’s problems will be solved as a result of the decimation of people working in those sectors. You could not make it up. This is the worst Government there has been in my lifetime. From issue to issue, they clamber around with some ideological nonsense about what the British people were supposed to have voted for in the referendum, and we end up in this dire situation. Having said that, it has been a great debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Schedule 1: Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.
Amendment 7
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“( ) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to any other EU-derived rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures does not include a reference to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising under the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive (2011/36).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to confirm the status of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive under EU retained law and how it might be affected as a result of Schedule 1, paragraph 6.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 7 because, as I raised at Second Reading, there is a great deal of concern about the situation that will be faced by victims of modern slavery after the Brexit transition period concludes at the end of December. Other noble Lords raised this concern at Second Reading, including the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Randall, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who has kindly added her name to my amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who was gracious enough to support the Private Member’s Bill in my name, to which I shall return later.
The Minister will know that I firmly support the Government’s aim of bringing immigration policy solely within the control of the UK Government and that leaving the EU should also mean that the UK is not bound by EU law, other than that which we have chosen to incorporate into domestic law. However, I was and remain a strong advocate for the content of the EU anti-trafficking directive which the Government agreed to adopt in 2011. Having left the EU, exercising our sovereignty does not compel us to make fewer provisions for victims of trafficking than those available under the directive. Indeed, I suggest that we should use this freedom to ensure that we have the very best provisions for victims of human slavery.
Since the Government opted into the directive, we have passed the excellent Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, that does not contain any provisions relating to immigration status or access to support or benefits for victims, something which my Private Member’s Bill, the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill currently before the House, seeks to rectify.
The directive has filled this gap to a degree, since the direct effect of the EU directive in practice made it part of domestic law, unlike the statutory guidance and the Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention. The statutory guidance is valuable but does not have the force of law and can easily be changed; the convention creates obligations for the Government, but these are not rights which would take precedence over other UK law such as, for example, immigration law.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I detail some background to my amendment. In a nutshell, there is uncertainty about whether aspects of the directive remain part of what is known as EU retained law. If parts of the directive are retained EU law, it is also uncertain whether they could then be disapplied by this Bill under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, because they conflict with immigration policy
On the first uncertainty—namely, whether rights under the anti-trafficking directive remain recognised and available in domestic law—the answer depends on whether rights under the directive fall within the relevant definitions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The key definition is set out in Section 4(2)(b) of the 2018 Act, which requires that the rights in question are
“of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom”.
Given that definition, part of the problem associated with trying to understand whether rights will obtain after the end of this year is because, to my knowledge, the phrase “of a kind” has yet to be interpreted by the courts. The Explanatory Notes to the 2018 Act offer some assistance, indicating that where a UK or EU court has recognised rights arising under directly effective provisions of directives, these will remain in law, meaning that they
“could be relied upon by other individuals who are not parties to that case”.
What is less clear, however, is the status of other rights in the same directive that may meet the test for having direct effect but have not yet come before the court. Will these be “‘of a kind” with those other rights and be available in domestic law? Or, as the Explanatory Notes—but not the legislation itself—seem to imply, will those rights no longer be available simply because they will not yet have been tested in court?
The second area of confusion relates to those rights that do fall within the withdrawal Act definition and have been retained in domestic law. The issue here is the broad nature of the terms used in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to this Bill, which could see those retained rights being disapplied because they conflict with immigration policy. Since the majority of the victims of modern slavery in the UK are not British nationals, there is necessarily an intersection between immigration policy and the rights relating to the support and other treatment of those victims. It is the combination of these two uncertainties that compounds the risk for victims of trafficking.
Experts who support victims of modern slavery, including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association —the ILPA—have said that, in the light of the above concerns, some of the protections which may be lost include the
“protection against removal of a victim of trafficking because they never received sufficient support and assistance under Article 11, or because an investigation was never conducted, or the protection against removal during their reflection and recovery period.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has withdrawn, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow my noble friend Lord McColl, who has been such a doughty campaigner on this issue. I would like to say at the outset that I would be a strong supporter of his Private Member’s Bill. I should start by declaring that I am a vice-chairman of trustees of the Human Trafficking Foundation, a position I share with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who with her legal background is more able to discuss these matters.
I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord McColl that the anti-trafficking directive from the EU will not necessarily be implemented into domestic law; he has explained clearly the exact position. I would like to say this. There has always been a conflict between the victims of modern slavery and the people who find them, who are often the same officers who check on illegal immigration. Many of the victims, certainly those not from the EU, could well be illegal immigrants. When they were EU citizens who had free movement, even if they were brought here under duress or false pretences they would not have been illegal immigrants. What will happen is that there will probably be more of an impetus to remove people, even though they are victims. That is not what the Government intend, and I am sure that the Minister will say so, but it might well be the result. In theory, the fact that we are supposed to be taking control of our borders might well mean that we should be in a position to stop more people coming in who are actually victims, and particularly to try to stop the evil purveyors—the traffickers themselves.
I am proud that when the Modern Slavery Act was brought in, I was still in the other place and able to be part of that. However, it is light on victim support. While it is acknowledged that it is world-beating in many respects, its provisions on victim support are not sufficient. There is therefore, as my noble friend Lord McColl has said, a real opportunity for this country to prove once again that we take the terrible crime of modern slavery extremely seriously and to be the world leader in how we deal with its victims.
I want also to commend to my noble friend on the Front Bench the review recently instigated by the Government. I am not sure, but I think that we are still waiting for a response to some of the points raised in the review by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the soon to be ennobled Frank Field —I do not know whether technically he is yet a Member of the House—and Maria Miller, an esteemed Member of the other place. While this is a probing amendment, we want assurances. This is a fantastic opportunity to do the right thing and to do it very well.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I was one of those who raised concerns about paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 at Second Reading. As I stated then, an important body of EU-derived rights stems from the anti-trafficking directive—in particular, victims’ rights to support, assistance and protection. I have a particular interest in this subject because I took Northern Ireland’s equivalent legislation to the Modern Slavery Act—the human trafficking and exploitation Act—through the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although one of the central purposes of the directive is that the assistance and support should
“enable the victim to recover”,
there is no statutory requirement for support and assistance for victims in the Modern Slavery Act.
Section 50 of the Act, which deals with the statutory requirement to provide victim support, has never been used and remains optional, depending on the views of the current Minister. In this respect, the Modern Slavery Act is quite unlike the human trafficking and exploitation Act in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, in both of which the obligation to enable the victim to recover is transposed from the trafficking directive and on to the face of law in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I note that, when previously challenged on this point, the Government said there would be no erosion of the rights of victims of human trafficking in England and Wales following the demise of the directive at the end of this year because legal obligations to victims under the Council of Europe human trafficking convention and under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights remain unchanged. However, this assertion is deeply problematic and, to remind noble Lords why, I ask your Lordships to recall the period of May 2010 to March 2011. In May 2010, Britain was subject to both the Council of Europe trafficking directive and Article 4 of the ECHR, and the Government decided that they would opt out of the EU anti-trafficking directive because they claimed we did not need it. There was then a public outcry and a campaign by NGOs and Members of this House which resulted in the Government U-turning and opting into the directive in March 2011.
The convention covers much of the same ground as the directive, including victim support. The reason why those who work with victims of trafficking were not prepared to say, “Don’t worry about the EU anti-trafficking directive, because we are already signed up to the convention,” is very simple. The sanctions that exist in international law are much weaker than those in domestic or EU law. The passion that drove those who care for victims of human trafficking to campaign for Britain to opt into the EU anti-trafficking directive between May 2010 and March 2011, when we were already signed up to the human trafficking convention and Article 4 of the ECHR, means that the ongoing presence of the human trafficking convention and Article 4 of the ECHR are never going to result in those of us who speak for victims of human trafficking meekly trading the directive for the Modern Slavery Act, as currently defined, when that Act provides no statutory right to victim support.
Some might say, “But isn’t the statutory obligation to provide victim support part of retained EU law?” If we could be clear today that victim support is part of retained EU law, then the Government could respond to this debate by promising not to use the powers in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to remove these rights. That would at least provide an assurance as far as the current Administration are concerned.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this afternoon my noble friend Lord Newby, speaking on a business Motion, made the point that Private Members’ Bills should come back on to our Order Paper. This would certainly be a candidate for that. I referred to this directive when I spoke to my Amendment 6 earlier today. We have heard long, careful and impassioned speeches from previous speakers, so I do not intend to say a great deal, but that should not be taken to be any indication that I do not feel strongly about these issues.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is about how the support that we would all want to see for victims of trafficking is given. The Modern Slavery Act is only five years old, but thinking has moved on since then. Knowledge and understanding have moved on. We need to continue to develop and refine the support that is made available and recognise it as a right beyond guidance. It is a moral duty and it needs to be made certain in law. It does not require much imagination to understand that the need for protection varies from victim to victim, but it is likely to have to be long and intensive and, as we have debated in other contexts, certainty is an important component of recovery. I support this amendment very warmly.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to support amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and I pay tribute to his tireless work in this area over many years and I wish him success in the future. I am sure he will be successful. I hope we will shortly hear a positive reply from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, confirming that the EU anti-trafficking directive will still apply and that the Government will go further. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, told us, leaving the EU does not compel us to offer less protection and less support to victims of modern slavery and trafficking.
I am also aware that in March, only a few months ago, the Government said that at the end of the transition period the UK will no longer be bound by the trafficking directive but they have not set out plans to retain or incorporate any of the directive into UK law. That is a worrying and alarming position. I will go further and suggest that it is hugely damaging to our reputation abroad. The UK has a reputation of being a safe haven for people fleeing persecution and for people in distress. We have a reputation as a compassionate country that deals with victims of abuse, trafficking and slavery justly, fairly and properly, but there have been too many occasions when this Government have shown a cruel, uncaring streak which I would not expect from a Government of the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, can take up the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and provide the Committee with the reassurance for which it is asking. At a minimum, we need to hear from the Government that they will put in place legislation that ensures that no matter what else happens as a result of Brexit, victims will be no worse off and will have no fewer rights than they have at present. In many areas they need to have more rights and to be treated with more compassion.
We also need to have on the record from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the effect as he sees it of paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 on the position of victims of trafficking and their current protections. I support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for at least a commitment from the Government not to use these powers to erode the rights and protections of victims.
I have in the past supported, and will continue to do so until he is successful, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in his entirely correct campaign to speak up for the victims of modern slavery and afford them the same protections in England and Wales that legislation in both Northern Ireland and Scotland provides. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, should be congratulated for taking the equivalent legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly. It offers more protections that I, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and other Members of this House want to see applied to England and Wales.
I support the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for Private Members’ Bills to come back on the business agenda, and for me the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, should be top of the pile. It is a matter of great regret that the Government have not been prepared to support the noble Lord’s Bill. It is passed by this House and then crashes on the rocks in the other place, not even getting to the point of being discussed. That is a matter of much regret. The Government could in future agree to support the Bill and give it government time or, even better, announce maybe today or later that they will table a government amendment to appropriate legislation to ensure that the protections victims have in Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of further care from the state will now be afforded to them in England in Wales.
Other than that, the Modern Slavery Act is a very good Act. Lots of good work was done by the former Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, to get it; she made a personal commitment to do that. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley served on the joint Bill committee to look at the legislation—I know lots of good work went on—but there is one area of further protections that the law is missing, and we should do more in that regard. For that reason, I very much support the call of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to this debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, paying tribute to my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich for not just his important contribution to the debate this evening but his long-standing interest and valiant work in the field of tackling modern slavery. As he knows, the Government are firmly committed to tackling this appalling crime, ensuring that victims are provided with the support they need to begin to rebuild their lives and that those responsible for these crimes are prosecuted.
In October last year the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to continue my right honourable friend Theresa May’s world-leading work in tackling modern slavery, which I am pleased the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has paid tribute to this evening. As a result of that work, we are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before.
As your Lordships have heard, in 2015 the Government introduced the landmark Modern Slavery Act, which gave law enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, including maximum life sentences for perpetrators and enhanced protection for victims—but as my noble friend Lord Randall said, there is always more we can do. As my noble friend Lord McColl put it, we should seek to have the very best provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, we should show the way here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is absolutely right that we see the tactics of the criminals evolve over time and we have to make sure we keep pace.
That is why the Government are currently undertaking a programme to transform how we identify and support victims of modern slavery, emphasising our continued commitment to having a world-leading system as we leave the European Union. As part of this, we are looking carefully at the legal framework in this area.
As I hope my noble friend Lord McColl will recognise, the system of identification and support for victims of modern slavery and the legal framework around it go far beyond the scope of the Bill we are debating. Indeed, the most commonly represented nationality among those referred to the national referral mechanism in 2019 was British. It is important to see this as distinct from an immigration issue alone.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I want to respond to a couple of points. The Modern Slavery Act, which has been mentioned, is a very good piece of legislation, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree to talk to his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others in the Home Office, because the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has a real point here. Good though it is, the Act is not as good as the legislation that the assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland have put on the statute book. This point has been raised persistently. For some reason, the Government, while willing to talk about it, are not willing to act. That is regrettable, because in other ways it is very good legislation. It would be good for our country if all our legislation was comparable. The protection of victims is deficient compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to make that commitment to speak not just to my noble friend but also to the relevant Minister, Victoria Atkins, who I know is looking carefully at the legal framework here and will want to be sure that she has taken note of the contributions made this evening. I will pass them on to her and have that discussion.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to the Minister himself. It is very encouraging. I think the gist of it is that victim support rights specifically within the directive will definitely be part of retained EU law. I am thankful for that, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 2: Irish citizens: entitlement to enter or remain without leave
Amendment 8
Baroness Hamwee
“(6) The Secretary of State may not conclude that the deportation of an Irish citizen is conducive to the public good under section 3(5)(a) unless he or she concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires deportation.(7) No person of any nationality is liable for deportation under section 3(5)(b) on the ground that they belong to the family of an Irish citizen who is or has been ordered to be deported, unless subsection (3)(a) is satisfied in respect of that Irish citizen.(8) An Irish citizen may not be deported or excluded from the United Kingdom if—(a) the Irish citizen was born in Northern Ireland; and(b) at the time of the Irish citizen’s birth, at least one of his or her parents was—(i) a British citizen; or(ii) an Irish citizen; or(iii) a British citizen and an Irish citizen; or(iv) otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment protects the threshold for deportation of Irish citizens and ensures that no-one born in Northern Ireland may be deported.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 8 concerns protections against deportation for Irish citizens. It might seem a little counterintuitive to noble Lords that it is necessary to provide protection at all because it is inherent, as it were, given our relationship with Ireland, the common travel area and so on.
Since 2007, the Government’s policy position has been to deport Irish citizens only where a court has recommended it in sentencing or where the Secretary of State concludes, due to exceptional circumstances, that the public interest requires it. That reflects the special status that Irish citizens have, as I have mentioned, with close historical community and political ties, as well as the common travel area.
However, this is a matter of executive policy not protected by any level of legislation. It currently permits the deportation of Irish citizens in a range of circumstances, circumscribed by EU law relating to free movement. The protections of EU law come to an end in less than four months, so there will be no law to stop a future Government reversing the position. Domestic law would allow them to do so. However, that is completely separate from the UK’s membership of the EU. There is not a democratic basis on which to remove these protections when free movement comes to an end.
The Government have expressed no intention to change the policy position, so it would be good to take the opportunity to incorporate the greater protective status for Irish citizens into law. The position is particularly confusing, given that the Government have taken steps to remove Irish citizens from the automatic deportation regime. They could easily have done so for the rest of the regime and not just when an individual is sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment. The legal position is not corrected by the Bill, and in fact Clause 2(2) weakens the protection because it does not put in place a replacement for the safety net that EU law has provided.
The Good Friday agreement envisages that Irish citizens from Northern Ireland should not, as a matter of law, be able to be excluded or deported from the UK, but that is not currently reflected in UK immigration law. Because British citizens cannot be excluded or deported from the UK there is a risk that, when an Irish citizen from Northern Ireland is threatened with deportation, they will have to assert British citizenship in order to continue to live in Northern Ireland. That goes against both the spirit and the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which allows all people of Northern Ireland to remain in the territory whether they identify as Irish, British or both.
Mentioning the Good Friday agreement reminds us of the importance of the involvement of the devolved Administrations—the different experiences, economies and needs in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. However, we also need to keep in our minds the Good Friday agreement and the opportunity that we have here to set what is executive policy into law.
Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the reciprocal rights of the common travel area. I obviously do not oppose the substance of this but we are very near the end of the transition period. The law being created by the Bill—or perhaps I might say the law being destroyed by the Bill—will happen in less than four months, and the protection of rights is a matter for now.
Late on Friday, the Government published a draft statutory instrument, which we will have a word about when we come to the next group. It was only when I looked at the fact sheet that I saw something positive about Irish citizens. The clearest part of the instrument relates to exclusions but I would like to be inclusive. Therefore, although I support the sentiments of Amendment 58, I really think it is a matter for now, and I hope that noble Lords can support Amendment 8, which I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her very clear introduction and explanation of the reasons for Amendment 8, to which I am delighted to attach my name. The noble Baroness set out very clearly the need for legal certainty and security for Irish citizens and people born in Northern Ireland.
Rather than repeating all these things again, I think it is worth very briefly addressing the whole issue of deportations. Of course, in this context, I cannot avoid mentioning the Windrush generation, the hostile environment and the fact that we have increasingly come to see people who have perhaps spent effectively all of their life in the UK, who have very close ties to the country and whose entire upbringing and experiences are in the UK facing deportation. That is utterly unacceptable in any circumstances but the situation with Irish citizens and the Common Travel Area involves two countries between which there has been continual, regular interchange and movement. A large number of people could potentially be affected by this situation, people who could see their lives torn apart. It is crucial that we build in these protections.
We have a great deal to do and it is already late so I will not go on too much longer, but I also want to mention briefly—having listened very closely to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the debate on the previous amendment, in which many expressed the sentiment that we should have world-leading protection in the UK for victims of trafficking and modern slavery—that I associate the Green group with those sentiments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I speak strongly in support of Amendment 8 as moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Like my noble friend, I understand Amendment 58 but, as she said, we need statutory underpinning rather than exploration of the situation because there is no one place where rights under the Common Travel Area are collected. They are still largely expressed in a bilateral convention and now a memorandum of understanding.
The Common Travel Area rights have been overlaid in recent decades by EU free movement rights, so it is entirely legitimate to worry about rights under the CTA when free movement is stripped away. My friend in the other place, Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party —I call him a friend because it is the Lib Dems’ sister party—said that there had been mixed and confusing signals about Irish citizens and the EU settlement scheme. Some have been told that they need not apply but they can, while Irish citizens from Northern Ireland are told that they should not apply. As he also said, on the face of it, Clause 2 goes some way towards giving reassurance and addressing anomalies. However, it spells out not rights but only ministerial powers, and it only applies to immigration issues—especially deportation —whereas the EU settlement scheme covers a much wider range, such as family reunion, equality of treatment, rights of the employed and self-employed, recognition of qualifications and voting. Stephen Farry recalled that only the right of voting for Irish citizens is explicit in UK law. Ideally, therefore, there should be a UK-Ireland treaty perhaps or, at least, an elaboration in statute of the rights of Irish citizens.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendments 8 and 58. On Amendment 58, I speak as a person who holds Irish nationality but lives in the United Kingdom. For me, the purpose of this amendment is to oblige Ministers to provide a report that draws on the scope of the common travel area-associated rights, cross referencing and contrasting these with the rights under the EU settled status scheme. This would allow Irish citizens to make informed decisions on securing their rights after the end of the transition period. As a result of an amendment in Committee in the other place, information was received on the issue of deportation and the Government confirmed that the one advantage to an Irish citizen of applying to the EU settlement scheme is the right to a family reunion. The Government had not made that clear beforehand.
Clause 2 will establish a stand-alone right for Irish citizens to enter and reside in the UK. However, under the Good Friday agreement citizenship provisions, the people of Northern Ireland have birth-right entitlements to be British or Irish, or both, and to equality of treatment regardless of that choice. In practice, the legal underpinning of equality of treatment for British and Irish citizens in Northern Ireland on matters such as entry, residence, work and social protection, and so on, has been provided almost entirely by EU free movement law. After Brexit, the people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens, including dual British-Irish citizens, will retain EU citizenship, but the only route to retain access to such EU free movement rights is through the EU settled status scheme. This is the domestic route for EU citizens and their family members in the UK prior to Brexit to retain EU rights and benefits under part 2 of the withdrawal agreement, which are usually retained for life.
I understand that the Government’s position is that Irish citizens do not need to apply for the EU settled status scheme, but may wish to do so. The reasoning behind the Government’s position that Irish citizens do not need to apply for settled status is that Irish citizens can still rely on the associated reciprocal rights of the UK-Ireland common travel area. However, at the time of the referendum, reciprocal rights of the CTA barely existed at all in UK law across key areas and thus a non-binding memorandum of understanding has been entered into since. With the exception of social security, CTA provision remains vague. In the words of the Human Rights Commission report, it is “written in sand”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, already referred to, and it
“can be characterised by loose administrative arrangements or provisions that can be altered at any time.”
While the clock ticks on the closing of the opportunity to apply to retain EU free movement rights under this settled status scheme, it is not possible for Irish citizens at present to make an informed choice because it is unclear ultimately what the associated CTA rights will cover and whether they will be enshrined in a legally binding manner.
The Home Office also initially debarred all people of Northern Ireland from applying for settled status, further to a policy position adopted in 2012 to treat all persons born in Northern Ireland as British. The decision was adopted to impede the exercise of EU rights by Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to be joined by non-EU family members. That position was challenged by the Emma and Jake DeSouza case, and the Home Office recently announced a policy change which will allow certain amendments in that area. It will also allow open access to relevant persons from Northern Ireland through the settlement scheme. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to oblige Ministers to provide a report that draws out the scope of the CTA associated rights, cross referencing and contrasting them with the rights under the EU settlement scheme.
In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that the opinion of both human rights commissions on the island of Ireland is that the rights of the common travel area are written in sand, what do the Government intend to do to enshrine those rights and ensure that they can be used to obtain legal redress? Secondly, in the absence of a report from the Government that contrasts the scope of the CTA rights with the rights provided for under settled status, do the Government accept that Irish citizens are left with little information to enable them to determine whether they wish to apply for settled status? I look forward to answers from the Minister in your Lordships’ House this evening.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group: Amendments 8 and 58. Amendment 58 is proposed by myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. The purpose of this amendment is clear and was ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, a moment ago.
We often discuss matters around Ireland and Irish citizens, and I am always conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who is first-generation Irish, usually speaks for the Government, and I, who am second-generation Irish, respond for the Opposition. In addition, if you look at the number of people connected to Ireland around the House or in the other place, it sets out the great contribution that Irish people have made to this country and the great links we have there, whether in the Republic, Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Those links have done wonders for both our countries, and we must always ensure that we underpin that so the strength grows. My own parents lived in the UK for many years and have now retired back in the Republic. Amendment 58 seeks to add clarity to the situation for citizens that could be affected, which is always important when it comes to people’s rights. People could lose their rights, so clarity is important.
The Bill as it stands ends EU free movement and establishes a stand-alone right for Irish citizens to enter and reside in the UK. As noble Lords have heard, under the Good Friday agreement citizen provisions people in Northern Ireland have a birth-right entitlement to be either British or Irish or both. Equality of treatment is regardless of that choice, which is a very important underpinning. Nothing must be allowed to unpick that. The Government’s position is that Irish citizens do not need to apply to the EU settled status scheme; they can rely on the associated reciprocal rights of the common travel area, but they can apply if they wish. We have heard talk about the common travel area’s rights being written in sand. It is fair to say that we need clarity here, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
The amendment seeks that, within 30 days of the Bill becoming an Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out in detail the rights of citizens under the common travel area, EU rights and benefits under the EU settlement scheme, and then delineate between the two so that we know exactly where we stand. This is necessary due to the inconsistency of the Government on a whole range of policy areas. Let us be clear: matters can be changed, clarified, replaced, restored, reversed, revisited, substituted, switched, U-turned and varied with such speed that, even when the Prime Minister was on his feet in the other place, the latest Government U-turn was under way. To expect people to rely on what the Government announce is not credible. We need this amendment on the face of the Bill, and we need the Secretary of State to produce the report.
Amendment 8, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to put the protections enjoyed by our citizens on the face of the Bill. If the Government are not prepared to accept that amendment, can the noble Baroness set out how the rights as expressed in Amendment 8 will be protected and guaranteed by the Government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says, I often speak as first-generation Irish and he speaks as second-generation Irish, so I think one could say that we have a personal interest in getting this right and reiterating those rights in the Bill. Both the UK and Irish Governments have committed to maintaining the common travel area, which I will now call the CTA. It is underpinned by deep-rooted, historical ties and, crucially, predates our membership of the European Union.
It has been agreed with the EU that the UK and Ireland can continue to make arrangements between themselves when it comes to the CTA. This means that we will continue to allow British and Irish citizens to travel freely between the UK and Ireland and reside in either jurisdiction, and commit to protecting a number of wider rights and privileges associated with the CTA. These include the ability to work, study and access healthcare and public services. Both Governments confirmed that position on 8 May last year, through signing a CTA memorandum of understanding, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The Government has included Clause 2 in the Bill to ensure that Irish citizens can enter and remain in the UK, without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from, except in a limited number of circumstances.
Amendment 58 also seeks to require the Government to publish details of the rights and benefits provided by the EU settlement scheme. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 protects the residence rights of EEA citizens and their family members for those individuals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period and for eligible family members seeking to join a relevant EEA citizen in the UK after that time. By applying for UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme, they can also continue to work, study and, where eligible, access benefits and services, such as free NHS treatment, as they do now.
While Irish citizens resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 can apply to the EU settlement scheme if they want, they do not need to. Their eligible family members can apply to the scheme, whether or not the Irish citizen has done so. However, Irish citizens resident in the UK by 31 December this year may wish to apply to the scheme to make it easier to prove their status in the UK in the event that they wish to bring eligible family members to the UK in the future.
The Government have therefore already made it clear that both the CTA and the EU settlement scheme provide Irish citizens with a number of rights following the end of free movement, and we will continue to emphasise that commitment. I hope that that gives the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, comfort enough not to move Amendment 58.
Turning to the question of deportation raised by either the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it is getting late—Amendment 8 seeks to make additional provision with regards to the deportation of Irish citizens and their family members. First, subsection (6) seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State may not conclude that the deportation of an Irish citizen is conducive to the public good, unless she concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires deportation.
Subsection (7) seeks to ensure that the family member of an Irish citizen can be deported only on the grounds that their family member is or has been deported, where the Secretary of State has concluded that the deportation of the Irish citizen is conducive to the public good and, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires their deportation.
I use this opportunity to reiterate our approach to deporting Irish citizens. While Clause 2 disapplies the right to enter and remain in the UK, without leave, for those Irish citizens who are subject to a deportation order, in light of the historical, community and political ties between the UK and Ireland, along with the existence of the CTA, Irish citizens are considered for deportation only where a court has recommended deportation or where the Secretary of State concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, deportation is in the public interest—much in the way that was pointed out by the noble Baroness.
The Government are firmly committed to maintaining this approach. Irish citizens were exempted from the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007 by the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid in February 2019, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out.
Under the Immigration Act 1971, the family member of an Irish citizen would not be considered for deportation on the grounds that their family member is or has been ordered to be deported, unless a deportation order was made in respect of that Irish citizen. The amendment also seeks to prevent the deportation or exclusion from the UK of an Irish citizen if they are among the “people of Northern Ireland” entitled to identify as Irish citizens by virtue of Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish agreement of 1998.
I make it absolutely clear that the Government are fully committed to upholding all parts of the Belfast agreement, including the identity provisions which allow the “people of Northern Ireland” to identify as Irish, British or both, as they may so choose, and the citizenship provisions which allow the “people of Northern Ireland” to hold both British and Irish citizenship. Recognising the citizenship provisions in the Belfast agreement, we would consider any case extremely carefully, and not seek to deport a “person of Northern Ireland” who is solely an Irish citizen. Exclusion decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis by Ministers. Exclusion of a person from the UK is normally used in circumstances involving national security, international crimes—including war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide—serious criminality or corruption and unacceptable behaviour. It is essential to the security of the UK that Ministers retain the power to exclude in such serious circumstances, although of course all cases are considered extremely carefully.
I hope that with these explanations, the noble Baroness can withdraw her Amendment 8.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister was unsure whether points were made by my noble friend Lady Ludford or by me. I cannot speak for my noble friend, whom I am very happy to be confused with, but speaking for myself, I cannot claim any Irish family connections, although I have a lot of friendships. Amendment 58, calling for a report, begs the question of what would happen if the report showed that the current position is inadequate, as I think it would. That is the thrust of Amendment 8, and why it is seeking to use the opportunity of the Bill to set the position in stone rather than sand.
The Minister’s response seemed to confirm the points that I had made. She talked about the common travel area memorandum, but it is only a memorandum. The Bill has the effect of weakening the legal protections. It does not reflect the spirit of the Belfast agreement.
I thought it was telling—and frankly embarrassing and even shaming—to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminding the House that the protection depends on EU law. She made the point that it is not possible to make an informed choice, which is also extremely telling because, as she said, the common travel area arrangements are written in sand. I had not thought of that when I tabled my amendment, but it is intended to ensure that those sands do not shift.
I do not disbelieve what the Minister has said, but she has talked about the Executive attitude, not the legal position. While of course I do not question her integrity, she will know as well as I do that Executives change, as do their views. I am sorry that we have not been able to make more progress on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or any other in the group, to a Division, should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision
Amendment 9
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s discretion and preclude her or him from making regulations which are not necessary.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, I shall speak also to Amendments 10, 11, 13, and 35 to 38, in my name and that of my noble friend, and to my objection that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.
In the debate on Amendment 3, we heard some precise and forensic criticism of the drafting of the Bill. I could almost say—but I will not—that we could just read across to this group all that was said in that debate. I will resist that temptation.
Clause 4 provoked the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to repeat the view of the Constitution Committee that skeleton Bills inhibit parliamentary scrutiny, that it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which their use is acceptable, and that the Government must provide a justification for them. The committee describes the Bill as leaving so much of the post-transition period regimes for immigration and for social security co-ordination—the subject of Clause 5— to be “provided for in regulations”. “By-passing Parliament”, the phrase used, must cause anyone with any interest in the governance of the UK to be really worried. I must say that people are worried about the governance of the UK whether they think about it in those terms or, as is currently the position, they do not under- stand what the Government are telling them to do.
There is a need for the provision of mechanics for ending free movement; this has not suddenly come upon us out of the blue. While of course I accept that this is a complex area, it means that there is all the more need to have got on with the detail and published it, even during the Parliament before last, so that we could have considered it. After all, the referendum was held four years ago last June, and Article 50 was triggered in March 2017.
The “breathtakingly wide” powers—I quote the Public Law Project—which it is proposed will be given to the Secretary of State, would give anyone pause. The Public Law Project says that its work on Brexit
“seeks to promote Parliamentary sovereignty.”
That is a point worth making in the context of this debate. The term “parliamentary sovereignty” may have a familiar ring in the context of Brexit.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 32 and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for his support. This amendment would ensure that the powers in Clause 4 were limited in line with the spirit of the Long Title, which addresses EU law, and would not allow the Secretary of State to change the rules regarding non-EEA or Swiss migrants under the cover of “connected purposes”.
I tabled this amendment for two reasons. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am concerned about the wide nature of the powers in the Bill—breath-takingly wide, in her words—and the excessive use of secondary legislation. Others have already made this point better than I can in earlier discussion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to concerns expressed today and to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It would be a great pleasure to hear from its chairman, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who is sitting next to me in a socially distanced manner.
Secondly, in discussion with our excellent clerks, it emerged that amendments to Clause 4 tabled in this House could relate only to EEA or Swiss citizens. Examples include Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, on immigration caps, Amendment 27 on the prior advertising of jobs in the domestic market—to which I have added my name—and Amendment 29 on the employment of asylum seekers in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
My reading of the paperwork on, for example, the points-based immigration system, and the discussion to date is that the Clause 4 power may be used to set down immigration rules or revisions which apply to third-country citizens as well. I must ask my noble friend the Minister for a clear answer on whether this is the intention or not. If that is the case, I am sure that she and the whole House would agree that we must be able to table amendments to the Bill that relate to third-country citizens as well, otherwise we will not be scrutinising the Bill properly.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I also very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as his committee has provided us with two excellent reports which have been of great assistance, particularly with regard to Clause 4.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee pinched one of my quotes, but I will use the other one from the Delegated Powers Committee report, which stated that
“we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”,
and by negative procedure regulations, unless it amended primary legislation. I think we can take from that that they do not think very much of Clause 4 and the schedule.
Even if there is some value in the fact that the first regulations are by “made affirmative” rather than negative procedure, those rights could be abolished by new regulations under Clause 4, when the negative procedure would apply. Therefore, any value there is in “made affirmative” over negative procedure could be removed by some deft sequencing of regulations. Everything points to the justification of having a test of necessity.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 is also problematic. It potentially disapplies any retained EU law in the context of immigration. This could lead to the repeal of legal protections far beyond the realms of free movement. It could dent the EU law retained by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because, even though provisions might have been partially saved by the Act, those provisions would not apply to the extent that
“they are inconsistent with or otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts or otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.
That is amazingly broad. We had some fun over the Brexit draft legislation with delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses and so on, but I have not seen anything quite to match this. The phrase
“functions in connection with immigration”
can relate to almost any aspect of immigration control within the UK. This is broadened even further when it is linked to the test of “capable of affecting”. It lacks any objective parameters by which to be able to ascertain the intended targets. Immigration practitioners trying to advise clients will be totally at sea. It undermines the rule of law if people do not know what the law is or could be in this area. They are going to be unable to make their behaviour fit the law.
A number of measures could be cited. Trafficking victims have already been discussed on an earlier group of amendments. Asylum seekers were protected under the reception conditions directive, which the UK opted into although it did not opt into all the asylum legislation. During the debate on an earlier group of amendments, my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the protection of victims of crime and the victims’ rights directive. These protections are potentially at risk as collateral damage from the ending of free movement. Even if the Government do not intend at this moment to repeal these provisions, they must explain why they could fall within the Bill and how they are going to introduce some rigour into the drafting of the Bill, such that this collateral damage does not happen.
With my support, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has put forward one solution in Amendment 11. All the amendments in this group are intended to provide the tightening up that is so sadly lacking from the drafting of the Bill as presented to us.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
It is my pleasure to follow the three noble Baroness who have spoken. In our earlier session I strongly disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, but in this case, I agree with her concerns and share her experience of apparent inequality. I sought to table a number of amendments to the Bill to deal more broadly not with just EU and EEA citizens, but I was told that they were outside the scope, yet it appears that the Government are being given open slather to address anything they like through the Bill.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 32, which is an important amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she indicated, this amendment bears directly on the anomaly that lies at the heart of the Bill. It purports to deal with aspects of our withdrawal from the EU, so one would expect it to deal with the consequences for citizens of the EU and the EEA only. However, in its report of 2 September the Constitution Committee stressed that this Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary to secondary legislation.
I expect the Government to argue that changes to Immigration Rules have long been dealt with by a process similar to that for statutory instruments, but to introduce an entirely new system in this way is a very different matter. Furthermore, in its report of 25 August, the Delegated Powers Committee, from which we will hear very shortly, pointed out that the “made affirmative” procedure that the Government have chosen will mean that the new regulations will come into force before they are debated in Parliament.
Finally, as I understand the position, the Home Office is working on a complete revision of the Immigration Rules which might run to several hundred pages. They could be put through Parliament with no serious examination before they come into force. I think the Minister mentioned something to this effect earlier. Will she clarify the position? Is this indeed what is likely to happen?
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As a member of the Delegated Powers Committee I strongly support all the points made in our report and, along with other noble Lords, I very much look forward to hearing from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I am aware that part 6A of the Immigration Rules sets out the points-based system which applies to migrants from the rest of the world. EEA citizens will move from a position of free movement to having to find their way through a thicket of literally hundreds of pages of rules and guidance currently applying to the rest of the world. Will the points-based system be adjusted for EEA citizens? If so, in what ways will the EEA rules diverge from the current system set up in part 6A? The framework should surely be in the Bill.
Clause 4 has potentially life-changing consequences for a large number of people—an issue raised by the Delegated Powers Committee report. Ministers are given the power to modify primary legislation or to modify retained EU legislation, which has a similar status to primary legislation, as noble Lords know. These provisions, together with the power for Ministers to introduce regulations on any subject in connection with Part I of the Bill, provide incredibly wide powers for Ministers.
I want to take just one example of an issue which needs to be dealt with in the Bill and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will raise a number of others. Tier 3 of the PBS which applies to unskilled workers has never been opened. We know that the UK is likely to face severe shortages of so-called unskilled workers in some sectors, most particularly health and social care but a number of others as well. Can the Minister press her colleagues to spell out in the Bill the key changes envisaged to the PBS, at least for the short to medium term, to keep the UK economy functioning adequately? Then, of course, Ministers could have the powers to introduce regulations to adjust the system over time. I fully recognise that there would be a need for that.
We all understand the need for Ministers to be able to introduce consequential amendments through secondary legislation, such as removing the references to free movement scattered across the statute book. Typically, however, most consequential amendments are put in the Bill and then regulations are used to tidy up the bits and pieces that were somehow missed during its passage.
We are invited by counsel to the Delegated Powers Committee to consider whether Ministers’ powers to make consequential amendments through regulations should be restricted by a test of necessity. Can the Minister convince the Committee that the wide powers to make consequential amendments to this Bill are in fact necessary? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s defence, if you like, of the breadth of those consequential amendments left to regulations. Why cannot most such amendments be included in the Bill before Report? I am sure colleagues would support a short delay before Report to allow that to be done.
Even more serious than the power to make unlimited consequential amendments is the power to make regulations in connection with Part I of the Bill, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I strongly support the amendment from the Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to deal with that issue. This would of course become redundant if Clause 4 were replaced with a string of substantive clauses.
Can the Minister provide an adequate justification for the broad discretion given to Ministers to levy fees or charges on anyone seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who until the end of the transition period would have had free movement rights under EU law? If not, then these matters must surely be in the Bill with provision for Ministers to adjust the fees or charges over time. As others have said, transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are surely known. Why are they not in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could explain that.
Finally, I had understood that Brexit was all about restoring the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This is just one of a series of Bills transferring powers from the EU not to the UK Parliament but to Ministers. We know that even where the affirmative procedure will be used, Parliament has no real power to influence the shape of those regulations. I hope the Minister will do all she can to achieve a more democratic outcome to this Bill, even at this late stage, by replacing Clause 4 with a series of clauses spelling out the Government’s policies, or at least the framework of those policies, to adjust the points-based system to meet the needs of the UK economy in the post-Brexit world.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
It is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, one of the most distinguished members of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am particularly grateful that she has not stolen all the sexiest bits of our report and has left me some original bits to quote, although a number of noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, also quoted extensively from it. Perhaps I should sit down and say, “I agree with everyone who has gone before me”, but since I have been here in the Palace for about eight hours, working upstairs, I feel I should earn my crust.
I am speaking on Clause 4 stand part only to draw attention to some of the key points of the Delegated Powers Committee report on the Bill. I am privileged to chair that committee but, in view of some of the highly critical reports we have made recently, my noble friends may be pleased to know that I will be standing down as chair. My term is up by Christmastime, so there may be a more emollient chairman in future.
Last week I spoke on the Delegated Powers Committee report on the medicines Bill and quoted extensively from it. Our report then was hard hitting and I make no apology that I was robust—I suppose I was not robust but scathing—in my condemnation of the delegated powers, which in my opinion were an affront to democracy. I said then that the Bill was “not unique”, just another in a long line of skeleton Bills with all the blank spaces to be filled in by delegated legislation—much of it negative, of course.
Today I will not be as vicious in my remarks, but I report in sorrow that this Bill also has some fundamentally excessive delegated powers. Clause 4(1) confers on the Secretary of State powers to make regulations containing
“such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision”
of Part 1 of the Bill, including Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation. The combination of the permissive concept of whatever the Minister thinks appropriate, as opposed to necessary, the words “in connection with” the Bill, the subject matter of Part 1, ending free movement, and the number of persons who will be affected make all this a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive.
With regard to those provisions, my Committee said:
“As we said in our earlier Report, we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations (assuming no amendment was made to primary legislation).”
As for the scrutiny of regulations, we are concerned that the first set of regulations would be made by the “made affirmative” procedure, avoiding legislative scrutiny before they come into effect, but subsequent ones would be draft affirmative—but only if they amended primary legislation. Everything else would be negative, even if the regulations amend or repeal what is known as retained direct principal EU legislation. By contrast, the approach in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is that the affirmative procedure is mandatory where regulations modify retained direct principal EU law.
We were also concerned that delegated legislation could alter fees and charges enacted in primary legislation. As mentioned by noble Baronesses earlier, it is usual for legislation to have a schedule at the end listing consequential amendments and a provision that regulations can tidy up any missing bits or loose ends with further consequentials, but in Clause 4 the bulk of the consequentials will be done by regulations afterwards.
So we concluded, overall, the following:
“We remain of the view, expressed in our earlier Report, that clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power and that the Bill should be amended so that: the words ‘or in connection with’ are removed from clause 4(1); consequential amendments are included in the Bill itself, but with a power to add others (subject to a test of necessity) by regulations (subject to the affirmative procedure if primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation is amended or repealed); transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are included on the face of the Bill; clause 4(5) (about fees and charges) is removed, unless the Government can provide full justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power; and clause 4(6), which provides for the first set of regulations under clause 4(1) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure, is removed from the Bill.”
Those were the principal conclusions that we reached.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the purpose, scope and extent of delegated powers conferred on Ministers by Parliament. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill and to the members of the committee who have spoken, including their chair, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
The report raises serious concerns about the inappropriateness of the delegation of powers to the Executive and proposes changes which I fully support and endorse. However, it is disappointing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, highlighted, the committee has over some considerable time produced such reports but then the next Bill has come along and the same issues have been identified.
During the Brexit campaign, we kept being told about taking back control and the sovereignty of our Parliament, but here lots of things are being passed on to Ministers and that does not quite seem to me to be taking back control. It is a bit like the pledge about the NHS on the side of the leave campaign bus that has quietly been forgotten about.
Amendments 9 and 10 seek to deal with the first two points raised by the committee by removing the word “appropriate” and inserting “necessary”, and removing the words “or in connection with”. They are amendments to which I have put my name and which I fully support.
Amendment 11 seeks to put on the face of the Bill what the power to make regulations is intended to do. I look forward to hearing the Government’s explanation if they are not prepared to accept this.
Amendment 13 again adds “only”, seeking to ensure the powers taken are used only for what they are intended to do. That seems sensible to me. I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also seeks to ensure that the Bill does only what the Government say they want it to do. Like other amendments in this group, that seems a very sensible and proportionate measure, and I hope the Government will support it.
Amendment 35, which I have signed, seeks to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and ensure that SIs under Clause 4(1) are affirmative. Amendments 36, 37 and 38 follow on from that. The clause takes considerable powers for the Executive, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords tonight. These powers are not justified, and I support those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rosser, who have opposed the clause standing part of the Bill.
Your Lordships need only look at some of the points raised by the committee to see why noble Lords have tabled their opposition to the clause standing part. In paragraph 19, the committee is “disturbed” that the Government would use words to grant and confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate. In paragraph 26, the committee argues that
“transitional arrangements to protect existing legal rights … should appear on the face of the Bill”.
In paragraph 28, its expressed view is that
“clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power”.
I hope that, in the response to the debate, we will see considerable movement from the Government and that they take on the comments from the committee, which I fully support.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think I get the committee’s views on the delegated powers in this Bill, and they are not pretty. However, I thank the committee for making them.
I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this group of amendments and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for speaking to Amendment 32. These amendments seek to limit the scope of the regulation-making power in Clause 4 and address the parliamentary procedure for the regulations. It is right that Parliament pays close attention to the provision of delegated powers. I have noted the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its latest report of 25 August.
I am pleased that we have been able to share draft illustrative regulations to be made under this power later this year, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill. The draft regulations—which I understand will not be subject to any significant change, to answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from tonight and the other day—will, I hope, provide some reassurance as to how the Government intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 4.
There are clear constraints on the use of the power in Clause 4. It can be used only to make regulations that amend primary or secondary legislation
“in consequence of, or in connection with”
Part 1 of the Bill on ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It cannot be used in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU more generally or to make wider immigration changes.
Amendment 9 seeks to limit the use of the power to making changes that are considered “necessary”, not “appropriate”. Amendment 10 seeks to limit the power to changes that are only a consequence of Part 1 of the Bill and not in connection with it. I invite noble Lords to consider the illustrative draft of the regulations and take comfort that this power is specifically to deliver the end of free movement; it is not to be used for general changes to the immigration system.
The regulations will make the statute book coherent on the repeal of free movement, align the treatment of EEA citizens arriving from next year with that of non-EEA citizens and implement our obligations to afford equal treatment to those within scope of the residence provisions of the withdrawal agreement—nothing more than that.
Furthermore, Amendment 10 prevents the Government making changes required to align the treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens in the immigration system, which would undermine the new global points-based system. We cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
The Government have made every effort to specify in the delegated powers memorandum the type of changes to legislation required as a result of ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens, and to make provision for them in draft regulations. However, Amendment 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from making appropriate provision and would unacceptably narrow the scope of the power. Amendment 13 would have the effect of restricting the scope of the power to the powers listed in Clause 4(3).
Amendment 32, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to confine changes to fees and charges to EEA and Swiss citizens. That is already the principal purpose of Clause 4(5). However, the amendment would then prevent us from applying the skills charge to non-EEA family members of EEA citizens and from exempting from the skills charge a non-EEA family member with rights of residence and equal treatment under the withdrawal agreement. It would amount to a breach of the UK’s commitments under those agreements, and for that reason alone we cannot accept the amendment.
It is the will of the British people that we bring free movement to an end. This means ending the bias in our immigration system that favours EEA citizens over the citizens of any other country, which is the primary purpose of the Bill. Limiting the Government’s ability to apply a skills charge to EEA citizens in the same way as they apply to non-EEA citizens would mean that certain elements of free movement had not been fully repealed by the Bill, and that EEA citizens still had an advantage in our immigration system. That is not an outcome that the Government can accept.
On Amendments 35, 36, 37 and 38, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken, the first set of regulations made under this power will be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure, whereby they must be approved by both Houses within 40 days of being made if they are to remain in force. The “made affirmative” procedure is needed in the likely event that there is a short window between Royal Assent to this Bill and the end of the transition period. For that reason, the affirmative procedure proposed by the noble Baroness does not work.
The people of the UK voted to leave the EU and take back control of our laws and our borders. It is therefore imperative that this House helps to deliver on that democratic mandate by ensuring that free movement is brought to an end by 31 December. It is important to ensure that regulations made under this power commence by then. Under the “made affirmative” procedure, both Houses will be asked to approve the regulations within 40 days of them being made for them to continue in force, so Parliament has scrutiny over the use of this power. If Parliament does not approve the regulations then they will cease to have effect, but subsection (10) preserves the effect of anything done under them before that point in order to ensure legal certainty. Using this power does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny—far from it—as the secondary legislation to be made under the power is subject to full parliamentary oversight using established procedures.
I think it is right that Parliament should set the scope of the power in Clause 4 in terms that are appropriate to the purpose of the Bill in ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It is also right that Parliament should retain appropriate oversight over the exercise of this power. However, the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU, and this parliamentary procedure is an essential part of delivering that. I hope the noble Baronesses and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe have been assured of the content of the draft regulations and the explanation of how the Government will use the delegated power. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Furthermore, some noble Lords have spoken to oppose that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I must emphasise the importance of this power for the effective implementation of the Bill. I trust that sight of the draft regulations provides further reassurance that the power does not give Ministers a blank cheque to make wide-ranging changes to immigration policies. The power can be used only to make provision as a consequence of or in connection with Part 1 of the Bill on the ending of free movement and protecting the status of Irish citizens, but without the power we cannot align immigration treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens, and cannot then build up our global points based system.
The regulations will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny using well-established procedures. Free movement must end on 31 December and the “made affirmative” procedure is needed to ensure regulations made under this power align the treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens who arrive in the country from 1 January 2021. It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU and this clause is an essential part of it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, expressed some frustration about the limitations arising from the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Green, referred to similar points on the report of the Constitution Committee. I have long taken the view that, when people with very differing views have the same criticism as I do, we must have a point.
I omitted to thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its chair, although my thanks must be implied by all the references I made to them. That I quoted from the report did not steal the thunder of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, at all. He cannot be surprised, because they were very good quotes. I said that I hoped for some excoriating speeches. I had him in mind, but he has moved on to sorrow. However, he did not disappoint.
When I started to read Clause 4, I picked up my pen and did not put it down, which was obvious from my raft of amendments, which almost amounted to an edit of the clause. The Minister says that she seeks to reassure us about how the Government intend to use the powers. As I so often say, I do not doubt the good intentions behind all this, but I ask her if she would be comfortable if—unlikely as it may seem—our positions were reversed. Would she take comfort if I produced a draft that was illustrative only? She said several times that the Government cannot accept the amendments. It really amounts to “will not” accept the amendments. As regards “made affirmative”, how realistic would it be for Parliament to block the instrument regarding the ending of free movement, after free movement had ended?
There is such an absence of detail on the workings of the policy. The six “consequential repeals” in Schedule 1 do not “scratch the surface”; that is not my analysis but that of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, given the huge amount of immigration legislation. It also says that “a solitary page”, paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 1, purporting
“to remove all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which derive from EU law … is lazy law-making. If people are going to have their rights removed, it is incumbent on Government to list precisely what those rights are and then specifically to remove them.”
It says that that would also enable
“parliamentarians to know precisely what they are voting for”.
To revert to the reference made at the beginning of today’s debate by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, Caligula might have been proud of Clause 4. This is not the time to pursue the matter, although I am clear that we have to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or any other in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 12
Baroness Hamwee
“(2A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to make provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement as defined by section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the power cannot be used inconsistently with the Withdrawal Agreement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I shall speak also to Amendments 18, 19 and 83.
There is nothing subversive in Amendment 12—there is no cunning plan. All the amendments in this group are intended to ensure consistency with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It does what it says on the tin. In the light of Clause 4, which spells out the power to make regulations which “among other things” may modify primary legislation, these amendments seem to us to be necessary.
I was about to refer to the British in Europe group as a campaign group, but it is far more than that: it represents its stakeholders and argues very powerfully for the interests of British citizens in Europe. As the group puts it, the withdrawal agreement is the vital underpinning of rights created in UK law for UK citizens living in the EU and for EU citizens living here. In various debates over the past few months, noble Lords have tended to focus on the latter, because living here means being subject to UK law. But British citizens in the EU are British and must not be prejudiced by anything that is not in accordance with an international treaty.
I say that without having heard much news since this morning because of being, as it were, in the Chamber, but the news this morning was very much about not following through—not complying with—an international treaty. After all, we should all be entitled to rely on an international treaty.
Immigration law is so complex that to allow an inconsistency to slip through unintentionally is a real danger. Amendment 12, therefore, provides in terms that the power to make regulations does not include a power to make a provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement.
Amendments 18 and 19 aim to bring the clause into line with the two pieces of legislation that I have mentioned. Section 7(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 provides that, if the Minister considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1) may be made so as to apply both to persons to whom the provision in question applies and—this is the relevant point—to persons to whom the provision does not apply but who may be granted leave to enter or remain in the UK by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules and who do not have such leave. Amendment 18 would replicate that.
Amendment 83 deals with Clause 5, and it may be appropriate to come back to it when we debate Clause 5. However, again, its purpose is to ensure that the power created by the clause can be used only in ways which are consistent with our country’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement. “Retained direct EU legislation” is the full gamut of EU legislation on social security co-ordination, and under the withdrawal agreement the UK is committed to applying this legislation to all those who come within the scope of Part 2. Among other things, the legislation covers the aggregation of social security contributions made in different countries, mutual healthcare arrangements, the payment of pensions and pension increases for pensioners living in different countries, and the regulation of other cross-border benefits.
In practical terms, the most important aspect for British citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement is the continued right for them to receive their pension and pension increases. Many noble Lords will recall debates regarding pensions and pension increases for people who have moved away from the UK, outside the EU, and whose pensions have been frozen. Other aspects are the continued right of pensioners to healthcare under the S1 scheme, which enables a pensioner residing in a country not responsible for their pension to receive healthcare in the country of residence at the expense of the country paying the pension contributions. This is a mutual arrangement that also applies to EU pensioners living in the UK. One aspect of this is the continuation of the scheme whereby those who have worked in the UK and one or more EU countries have their contributions aggregated, so that they do not fall foul of the national rules on minimum contribution periods.
One of the very big concerns of people who lose the right of free movement is the impact on their retention of rights and ability to move in the course of work as their careers develop and their jobs take them to different countries. Without this scheme, many people who have contributed for a full working life but have moved several times would end up without a pension at all. Again, we are faced with the possibility of a Government modifying—or worse, perhaps—these provisions by regulation alone.
All the points that have been made this afternoon and this evening about what could happen are relevant here. Social security legislation probably rivals immigration legislation in its complexity, so the point that was made earlier about unwitting breaches of the withdrawal agreement would apply as well. I assume that we will have similar answers to this amendment, but, although the points may be similar and parallel, they are no less important or worthy of being pressed and explored, as I am seeking to do with Amendment 83. However, at the moment, I will formally move Amendment 12.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Flight. Lord Flight? As he is not present, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who moved them clearly and explained the importance of what is being sought by introducing them.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, this seems timely, given some of the recent very troubling reports. Lately, the possibility has arisen that the Government are not satisfied with the withdrawal agreement in some way, having signed it recently in good faith, while working, hopefully, towards an agreed exit after the transition period at the end of this year. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there is no intention of trying to override the withdrawal agreement in any way and that our country will not be seen to be trying to renege on an international agreement, especially so soon after having signed it.
I hope that UK citizens living in the EU can be reassured that the measures in the Bill will not be affected deleteriously by future regulations that might change what they thought was already enshrined in this international agreement and that pensions, pension increases, other benefits and health care will be protected, as was intended and implied in the withdrawal agreement. I also hope that the measures in the Bill will remain consistent with the withdrawal agreement and that no powers under the Bill will be used to make provisions inconsistent with that agreement.
I know these are probing amendments and I hope that the reassurances or necessary changes can be made to satisfy the House. I support the intention of these amendments and look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments, led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is about ensuring that the Government cannot legislate by regulation, contrary to the withdrawal agreement. This is a prescient set of amendments, tabled when it might not have been thought that there was a particular danger of that happening. However, the pronouncements and press reports since last night—there is some backtracking going on, however, which we will debate in the Chamber tomorrow—raise serious fears about the Government’s reliability and integrity in respecting the withdrawal agreement, and, indeed, any other treaty commitments. It raises the question of whether they can be trusted.
We will be debating separately the question of the Government’s refusal to give settled status applicants a physical document, not just a digital code. I will raise a brief query here: whether a digital code alone would satisfy the requirement in Article 18 of the withdrawal agreement for
“a document evidencing such status which may be in a digital form.”
Those latter words were added at the UK’s insistence, as we understand it, but it still talks about a document evidencing status. I wonder whether a digital code is a document.
Not least as a feature of the settled status scheme which has been flagged up by the3million, which does excellent work and has provided some fantastic briefing—I shall use this occasion to thank that organisation along with the organisation, British in Europe—non EU-national family members get a physical document in the form of a biometric residence permit. Since Article 12 of the withdrawal agreement requires the Government not to discriminate on the grounds of nationality, it is odd that EU citizens do not get a physical document but those in the family who are not EU citizens have a biometric residence permit. That is rather strange.
In the context of group 1, I raised comprehensive sickness insurance. The Minister said that the Government would use their discretion in deciding whether the absence of CSI in the past would bar a person from getting UK citizenship. I know that this will come up again in a later group. However, it is important to note that the UK is regarded by the European Commission as being in breach of EU law by insisting on the term “comprehensive sickness insurance” as it is in the 2004 citizens’ rights and freedom of movement directive. The Commission insists, as indeed MEPs did at the time, that this means only that relevant persons should have access to whatever the health system is locally, so the Government’s insistence that they should pay for private health insurance is, as I understand it, the subject of ongoing infringement proceedings.
In 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May promised EU citizens that the CSI—I prefer to call it private health insurance because that is what we are talking about—for those who had been economically inactive would be dropped as a requirement for settled status under the new system. However, what is happening now is that those people applying for citizenship are at risk of having their applications refused because in the past they did not have private health insurance, even though they had been told that they did not need it for their settled status application. When they apply for citizenship, they are told that retroactively they will be barred if they did not have private health insurance in the past. This feels like moving the goalposts, playing cat and mouse and so on, and the Government will not make any friends by this. The Minister referred to a power of discretion, but I do not believe that any details have been made known about how that would be applied, so that leaves people in the dark and in a state of anxiety.
I should mention also that Article 10 of the withdrawal agreement states that those covered by the citizens’ rights provisions of the agreement include
“Union citizens who exercised their right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law”.
Union law—that is, EU law—means that the ability to use the NHS qualifies as “comprehensive sickness insurance”; that is the view of the European Commission, which as I say is following infringement proceedings. If the Government persist with this, I fear that they will come up against problems under the withdrawal agreement and there is a risk that they would be seen to be acting in bad faith. The amendments in this group therefore insist that the Government must abide by the withdrawal agreement in making regulations under both Clause 4 and Clause 5, and that should include doing away with the retrospective demand. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on that point.
A great deal of justified concern has also been expressed about children either in or leaving care. I do not have time to talk about this now because it will come up again at least in part in a later group, but it is a matter of great concern. Local authorities, even with the best will in the world, have found over the past six months with the challenge of Covid that they have not had or have not applied the resources to assist children who ought to be applying under the settlement scheme. They are finding it very difficult to get the evidence together, so I hope that the Government can give some reassurance about the assistance that they will be given. We will also talk later about the dangers of another Windrush.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 12 and 83 provide that regulations under Clauses 4 and 5 respectively cannot make a provision that is inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. Amendments 18 and 19 alter the language of Clause 4 to bring it in line with the 2018 and 2020 withdrawal Acts. The wording of the Bill does not appear to preclude the concerns which these amendments seek to address. Indeed, Clause 4(1) states that
“The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of this Part”,
namely Part 1 of the Bill.
Clause 5 deals with the power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination, and again appears not to provide for the limitations sought in Amendment 83. Presumably it is not the Government’s intention to nullify or weaken the terms or protections of the withdrawal agreement, or the terms or protections of the withdrawal Acts, by regulations that avoid the full and proper parliamentary scrutiny and challenge that is achieved only in respect of primary legislation. That should become clearer from the Government’s response, which will be interesting in the light of media reports today of their allegedly negative attitude to keeping to the terms of the withdrawal agreement. Whether there is any significance to the wording in Clause 4(4) being different from the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 will also become clear.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this group of amendments, which concern the scope of the delegated regulation-making power under Clause 4 and, in the case of one of the amendments, Clause 5. As I have said, it is right that Parliament pays close attention to the provision of delegated powers, and to assist we have shared draft illustrative regulations to be made under Clauses 4 and 5, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill.
Amendments 12 and 83 prevent the Government from using the powers in Clauses 4 and 5 to make regulations which are inconsistent with the EU withdrawal agreement. We already have a legal obligation to comply with that agreement, which also has direct effect in domestic law in accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. These amendments are unnecessary and would call into question why they are not included in every other item of legislation across the statue book.
I turn to Amendments 18 and 19. Clause 4(4) allows the regulation-making power to make provision for those who are not exercising free movement rights at the end of the transition period. This group may nevertheless be eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme and are therefore still affected by the repeal of free movement. Clause 4 does not allow changes to the statute book for migrants from the rest of the world, who are not affected by the repeal of free movement. The suggested amendments are unnecessary and would add confusion and hinder our ability to make appropriate provision for those affected by that repeal.
It is right that Parliament should set the scope of the power in Clause 4 in terms appropriate to the purposes of this Bill in ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It is also right that Parliament should retain the appropriate oversight over the exercise of that power. The Government’s intention here is simply to ensure absolute clarity of purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned some issues that I have already addressed, namely comprehensive sickness insurance and the form versus the digital form. Article 18(1) explicitly provides that a document evidencing status may be in digital form. She also talked about children and the EU settlement scheme, specifically children whose parents—or indeed institutions in which they live—may not have signed them up. We will provide for reasonable excuses; I believe that we will come to that later in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, with her knowledge of pension provisions, for contributing to this debate. My noble friend said that I must have been prescient in tabling this amendment. I think it was more about a continuing, underlying, and rather generalised sense of anxiety—not about resiling from the withdrawal agreement, which had not struck me as a possibility until a few hours ago.
The Minister has given us some reassurance; I hope that I have heard correctly over the airwaves about the legal obligation to comply with the withdrawal agreement. I suppose that this does not mean there will not be an attempt to change that legal obligation in some way. Anyway, that is not for tonight and certainly not for after 10.15 pm. Probably the best I can do at this moment is to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12; I do so now.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this might be a convenient place to pause in our proceedings.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 9th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
This is day two in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision
Amendment 14
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the need for supplementary in addition to incidental provision.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 15, 16 and 17. These amendments take us back to the very wide provisions in Clause 4, on which we spent a good deal of time on Monday, when we debated the problems of a skeleton Bill and the reports of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Constitution Committee. From those respective committees, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Pannick, applied their different but devastating critiques. My noble friend Lord Beith asked the pertinent question about what instructions had been given to the drafters of these provisions. After all, responsibility to give instructions lies with Ministers.
Had the Minister accepted the earlier amendments to Clause 4, particularly those changing “appropriate” to “necessary” and deleting the phrase “in connection with”, some of the ground would have been taken from under my feet. However, she did not and it was not; nor was the insertion of the term “only” in subsection (3)—that is, “may only make provision”—accepted.
Subsection (3) purports to explain subsection (1). The power to make regulations includes powers as listed in paragraphs (a) and (b). It does not limit those powers but just gives examples, and all my amendments seek to omit words from this clause. The first concerns the term “supplementary”. Why is it necessary to make “supplementary” provision as well as provision that is “incidental” and “in consequence of”?
The second amendment would omit the term “transitory”. I would be interested to know what is meant by the term in this context. It must mean something different from “transitional” because it sits alongside that term. It is a narrative word that I would have expected to read in a piece of fiction rather than in legislation.
Amendment 16 would take out paragraph (b), which gives the power
“to make different provision for different purposes.”
I am very familiar with this phrase; it may mean bringing provisions in at different times or for different jurisdictions and so on. However, my antennae were well up by the time I got to Clause 4(3)(b), and I would be grateful if the Minister would share with the House the different purposes that may be required, particularly in a Bill so urgent that it needs to come into effect very quickly. I can see that it may be important to bring some provisions in as soon as the Bill becomes an Act and others—particularly with regard to the settled status scheme—at a later date. However, it would be helpful to have her comments on this.
Amendment 17 would leave out subsection (4) as a whole. The amendments to this subsection had already been dismissed and one begins to wonder whether it is necessary at all, but opposing this provision will be a good summary of our concern about what are, to our eyes, its many flaws. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 15. Clause 4 gives the Government substantial powers to make decisions about the future regulation of immigration without clarity about what these might be and what justifies such a wide power. Of course, we recognise that there needs to be an ability to do some tidying up of associated legislation when a Bill is passed, but the consequential amendments are normally set out in a schedule with a tidying-up clause that picks up anything that has fallen through the gaps. This does not seem to be the case in this Bill.
In August, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that this clause would
“confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”.
The committee was very clear that transitional arrangements to protect the legal rights of EEA citizens should appear in the Bill.
Last week, the Select Committee on the Constitution also made strongly worded recommendations on the Bill. It agreed with the Delegated Powers Committee’s concerns about Clause 4. Other noble Lords have already raised questions about phrases in this regulatory power. Amendment 15 is an attempt to understand why the Government need a power that makes transitory provisions, provisions that are not permanent. I hope the Minister will set out examples of what transitory provisions the Government consider might be needed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 14, 15 and 16 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, seek to bring more clarity to the powers that the Government are taking to make regulations, and that, for me, is a very good thing. As we have heard, words such as “supplementary” and “transition” and the phrase
“to make different provisions for different purposes”
are very unclear, wide-ranging and open to interpretation. These probing amendments today will give the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the opportunity to add some clarity to the situation and set out for the record the intention and the scope of the powers that the Government are seeking from Parliament. As for Amendment 17, which would remove Clause 4(4), again an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government need the new power would be very welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made some very good points and made them very clearly. As she asked when referring to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, what instructions were given to the parliamentary draftspersons? We need to understand that because clarity is important when you are deciding on legislation. Without it you get yourself into all sorts of problems: courts can get involved and there can be all sorts of other difficulties. What we have been hearing from the other end of the Corridor—certainly the comments from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—about where we are going to be on certain things gives us particular worry. That is why clarity is so important. I look forward to the Minister putting the matter right for us.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for speaking to the amendments in this short debate. I agree that clarity is absolutely necessary when scrutinising the scope and extent of any Bill, as your Lordships do. Amendments 14, 15 and 16 would restrict the scope of the power by removing what are standard provisions in regulating powers concerning transitory and supplementary provisions. Because both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked what they mean, I shall go through them.
The current illustrative draft instrument does not contain a transitory provision, but it is standard legal drafting to include scope for such a provision should it be identified as necessary. Examples of supplementary provisions can be found where we are retaining some of the references to regulations transposing EU law in benefits legislation. Supplementary provisions update the references to reflect amendments to those regulations, so references to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 become references to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, et cetera. I hope that clarifies the provision on “transitory” and “supplementary”.
I come to Amendment 17. As I explained in response to Amendment 18 and 19, Clause 4(4) allows the regulation-making power to make provision for those who are not exercising free movement rights at the end of the transition period but who are eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme and are therefore still affected by the repeal of free movement. The regulation-making power in Clause 4 is restricted to matters that are as a consequence of or in connection with the ending of free movement. Subsection (4) needs to be read in conjunction with subsection (1). It does not allow changes to the statute book for migrants from the rest of the world, who are not affected by the repeal of free movement. Amendment 17 would hinder our ability to make appropriate provision for all those affected by that appeal.
I hope that with those incredibly clear clarifications, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have not received any requests to speak after the Minister, so I call—oh, it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, thinks he has given notice.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I did email; I do not know where it has gone. Oh sorry, I did not email Question Diary.
I thank the Minister for explaining how certain words have been used in previous legislation, but it would be helpful if she could write to me and place a copy in the Library of the House with some examples, just so that we are absolutely clear. I know she was able to give an example now, but that would be very helpful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I gave an example of “supplementary”; I did not give any examples of “transitory”. I will write a list and send it to noble Lords.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I should be particularly interested to see examples of what “transitory” is. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, was also concerned about this. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, used the phrase “open to interpretation” and that is exactly the problem, because it allows activist lawyers to come and question. We are really on the side of the Government here, because the clearer the legislation, the easier it will be for them to enforce it, but there we go: that is not my business really, is it?
The Minister said that these are standard provisions. I had a very quick look at the internal market Bill shortly before this session started, because I had picked up that there are some issues in this territory—sorry, no pun intended. I could not find them, but it seems to me that the standard provisions get longer and longer. People get worried about whether a word is absolutely precisely on the point, and more words—adjectives, mostly—get added.
If the House agrees—we may come back to this at the next stage—that “appropriate” and “in connection with” are not appropriate for legislation because they are not clear enough and are too wide, as the rest of the clause comes under those overarching words, we will have got rid of the rest of the problem. But that is not for now and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I think there is a technical problem with that which I hope we can resolve in the next few minutes.
Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 21.
Amendment 20
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the power for regulations under this clause to make changes to fees and charges currently provided for in other primary legislation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 20 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would remove Clause 4(5) from the Bill, as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, unless a full justification for its inclusion can be provided with an explanation of how the Government intend to use it.
I shall not go over the arguments again, but this is another part of Clause 4 where serious concerns have been raised about the powers the Government are seeking to take for themselves, and an explanation would be appreciated as to why it is needed. This is the sort of issue that we may want to bring back on Report and to divide the House if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Government.
Amendment 21 probes why the power is necessary. Maybe it is to reduce fees and charges and, if so, the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, provides the necessary clarity. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has explained, Amendment 21 is complementary to Amendment 20 in that it seeks to persuade the Government to explain how they would use this power. In the absence of that, it is hard to justify it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has expressed great concern about this clause and the breadth of the discretion it would confer on Ministers to levy fees or charges. In this Bill, we are talking about people who, before Brexit, would have had free movement rights under EU law and would not have had to pay these kinds of charges. It is, therefore, beholden on the Government to provide some proper and explicit justification, as the committee suggested, for this inclusion and to explain how it would be used.
In preparing for this debate, I recalled that Section 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives the power to implement the withdrawal agreement by regulations, expressly excludes the power to impose fees. I seem to remember—although sometimes the last few years are a bit of a blur—that we had quite a dust-up about that provision. Of course, if other amendments to limit the Clause 4 delegation of powers— specifically Amendment 11—were to pass, then Clause 4(5) would drop because Clause 4 powers would exclude fees in that case.
There is, obviously, a great deal of concern about this subject, because the current fees impose costs on people far in excess of reimbursement to the Treasury. In some cases, they force people to become outside any permission to remain because they cannot afford the fees for themselves and their families. When the Minister replied to questions at Second Reading, she said that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, “asked whether the visa costs would be brought in line with other countries. These immigration and citizenship fees are set at a level that helps provide the resources necessary to operate our border, immigration and citizenship system. In fairness to UK taxpayers, it is only right that those who directly benefit from our immigration system contribute to its funding.”
Of course, that is right if it means reimbursing the administrative costs that cause the fees, but anything much over that starts to get into the realm of making a profit. Some might see that as a good idea, but, of course, it is problematic when we are going to be—and this is the Government’s vision—competing internationally for skilled people. The British Heart Foundation makes the point that the up-front cost of obtaining a five-year UK global talent visa is £2,608, considerably more than 11 other leading scientific nations. The total average up-front cost for a tier 2 skilled worker visa, taking the cost for the researcher and employer together, is £8,419, 540% higher than the average cost in other leading scientific nations, which is £1,316. I confess that I have not made these calculations myself, but I have no reason to think that they are not accurate.
In the current context of families struggling for work and their incomes in the Covid-19 pandemic, this is even more of a problem. We would like to hear from the Minister the justification that the Delegated Powers Committee has suggested. If it really is only to have the power to reduce fees, that would perhaps be a reasonable point for the Government to make, but in the absence of that reassurance, it is concerning that the Government would have a free hand to raise fees which are already, by international comparisons, pretty high.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) (V)
My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I also agree with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said. Essentially, as it appears in the Bill, this looks like a power-grab by the Government in a situation that is already iniquitous and utterly unreasonable. The cost of that to the UK —the denial of the skills, knowledge and ability of people who might go somewhere else because our fees are just too high—was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, very clearly. I somewhat disagreed with her, however, when she suggested that it might be reasonable for the Government to cover the actual real cost through fees, and I will particularly focus on children.
In December 2019, the High Court ruled that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in charging £1,012 for children to register their right to British citizenship. This was a judicial claim brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens on behalf of two children known as O, age 3 and A, age 12. They were British but could not access their citizenship because they had been priced out. The court found that the Home Office had taken no account of the best interests of the children in setting the fee. It highlighted a mass of evidence showing that the fee prevented many children from registering for British citizenship, thus leaving them,
“alienated, excluded, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”
We are already in an iniquitous situation. The Government have chosen to appeal that ruling, so it is still before the courts. However, we certainly do not want a situation where the Government are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that such scrutiny will be applied, otherwise an utterly unreasonable situation that is bound to affect many more people will become even worse.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Lord Randall, we can see you, but we cannot hear you.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise—I was waiting for someone to unmute me.
I wanted to speak in this short debate, and I shall not speak for very long, because I want the clarification that noble Lords have already asked for. Presumably, this applies just to the European Union, or EEA and Swiss citizens. I have just discovered that the withdrawal agreement says that no charges will be made. Is it likely that if other countries impose charges on us, we might do it reciprocally? That is all I want to ask, and I await the response with interest.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, some very compelling speeches have already been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about a power grab: maybe it is just a cash grab. The Home Office seems to have managed to modify fees and charges in the past very successfully—subject, of course, to the outstanding appeal which she mentioned. Is it the case that the Home Office could not charge any fees at all to those who fall within the scope of the Bill without this power? In other words, is this limited to the ending of free movement, and the other EU-derived rights, and the position of Irish citizens?
As I recall, and I may be wrong, originally, a fee was proposed for applications to the EU settled status scheme. That was dropped. I thought that that was because of the outcry, but I wonder whether in fact the Home Office thought it might be challenged on the basis that a charge was ultra vires.
What is envisaged? Is it that these three groups of citizens will be in exactly the same position as non-EEA citizens as regards these charges? Yesterday’s events and the UK’s attitude to the Belfast agreement adds to my worry about how we will treat our friends from Ireland after the Bill comes into effect.
My limitation to a reduction in fees, in Amendment 21, is of course to probe the need for a power.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we have a technical problem with emailing the Table. I propose that the Committee adjourns for 15 minutes, in the hope that we can sort out the problem. If it is necessary to adjourn again, we will do that. The Committee will resume just after 3.15 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the email problem has not been resolved entirely, but we do have a short- term solution. Members, whether in the Chamber or participating remotely, who wish to speak after the Minister on this amendment or indeed subsequent ones, can use the alternative email address, relating to the Grand Committee, that is in the guidance notes that govern today’s session. If they send their request to the Grand Committee email address, that will find its way to the Table here and they should be included in the requests to speak after the Minister. Let us hope that works. We were about to hear from the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. If the new email system does not work—although I am not presuming that it will not work— I am very happy, retrospectively, to write to noble Lords who were going to speak, did not manage to, and therefore did not have their supplementary questions or requests for clarification answered.
These amendments obviously concern the use of Clause 4 powers to make changes in relation to fees and charges. Regulations made under this power may modify legislation relating to the imposition of immigration fees and charges only where they relate to a person’s immigration status and where that is as a consequence of, or connected with, the provision in Part 1 of the Bill. That confirms the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It enables the application of fees and charges to EEA citizens, who are currently exempt from them by virtue of free movement law, such as the immigration skills charge paid by employers.
The effect of Amendments 20 and 21 would be to prevent the Government aligning the treatment of EEA citizens with non-EEA citizens from January of next year. It is not our intention to use the power to increase fees. Fee levels will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the existing fees orders and regulations.
To briefly touch on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we do not make an overall profit on fees. While they may be different in different countries, they go towards the operation of the border.
It is the will of the British people that we bring free movement to an end. This means ending the bias in our immigration system that favours EEA citizens over the citizens of any other country, which is the primary purpose of this Bill. Limiting the Government’s ability to apply a skills charge to EEA citizens as they apply to non-EEA citizens will mean that certain elements of free movement will not have been fully repealed by this Bill and that EEA citizens will still have an advantage in our immigration system. This is not an outcome that the Government can accept. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we have not received any requests to speak after the Minister. Therefore, I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to reply.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I am sure it has not escaped the Minister’s attention that there is some concern in the House about Clause 4, not only from the Delegated Powers Committee but from every speech we have heard so far, I think, apart from the Minister’s. It will carry on in further criticism that Members will have later. I am sure the Minister understands that and will take it back. I hope that there will be some progress when we get back to these issues contained in Clause 4 on Report. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Grand Committee address on the guidance notes during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 22
Baroness Hamwee
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that any EEA or Swiss national, and any adult dependant of any EEA or Swiss national, who has applied for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment (without limitation as to the type of employment) if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 22 is the first in a group that also includes Amendments 24, 29 and 31, all relating to asylum seekers’ right to work. On the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on a very different amendment, talked about the purposes of work. I noted them down as being to earn money, for self-actualisation and as a matter of reputation. These all apply not just to you and me but to asylum seekers.
All the amendments in this group are variations on a theme. Our Amendment 22 would give an asylum seeker the right to work after three months if there has been no decision on his or her case. It will not escape noble Lords that the “if there has been no decision” is an important part of this.
The amendments are expressed to relate to EEA and Swiss nationals, to bring them within the scope of the Bill, but it is not beyond the scope of one’s imagination to think that there may be people seeking asylum in the UK from EU countries—Poland and Hungary might spring to mind—so it is not irrelevant. This is not just straining to debate a matter that I know has concerned many noble Lords for a long time.
The Minister may tell us that we will soon see a Bill about asylum, which the Home Office is currently reviewing. That is, it is reviewing the issue of asylum rather than a particular Bill. The Committee will be glad of any news not just about the Bill but about the consultation that the Home Office is undertaking with stakeholders about these issues. There are many stakeholders.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has moved to the position from which he will respond—at least it looks that way; I am looking at him on a rather small screen—and I hope he will be able to give some assurances about consultation with stakeholders with regard to the changes in our asylum provisions.
The great majority of asylum seekers are keen to work. Persistence is probably part of the make-up of many of them by definition, their having managed to get to this country. They want to pay tax and to contribute to their new society. They are often very skilled; that will be the subject of the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 31.
It is very harsh not only to provide such a low daily allowance—I know the noble Lord would be required to disagree with that—but to take a long time in determining claims. In a way, that is the real issue. We picked three months because that gives time for an individual to settle. An asylum seeker may need longer to become comfortable with the English language if he is not already an English speaker, though I am constantly impressed by people’s facility with English. It puts me to shame.
There is also the issue of preventing working. I referred to self-actualisation and reputation, the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. We all know the value of work to each of us as individuals: the sense of self-worth and of achievement with a job well done, or at least attempted. We know what it does for our well-being and for good mental health, and how important it is to be able to support one’s family.
I know the Committee will be interested in the right reverend Prelate’s proposal for the displaced talent visa, which recognises the skills that refugees bring with them, but Amendment 31 is not an alternative to the other amendments in this group. It is about a visa and about refugees, not asylum seekers whose status is not yet recognised. It is imaginative, and the Government may consider it something to be pursued. I am sure the right reverend Prelate would be the first to agree that his amendment should not be a sop to distract us from the other issues to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that asylum seekers from the EEA and Switzerland will be granted permission to take a job from six months of their application for asylum if a decision at first instance has not yet been taken at that point. It is fairly obvious that I support the three-month amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which is a little more radical than this one, and hope the Government may accept it.
The Minister will be aware that people often wait months, if not years, for a decision. These individuals, having escaped fear of torture or death, are left to live on a pittance of £5.66 per day. As I considered what to say today, I found myself thinking that, of course, six months in this situation is far too long. What are we as a nation doing impoverishing people in our community? Frankly, £5.66 is a disgrace.
The plea for the right to work after six months is endorsed by no fewer than 200 non-profit organisations. This is a very modest and widely supported proposal. Even Sajid Javid recognised in 2019 that it is time for reform. The coalition of these 200 organisations wants the six-month reform combined with the ending of the restriction on asylum seekers from applying for jobs not on the incredibly narrow and restrictive list of highly skilled professions on the Government’s shortage occupations list. I strongly support the abolition of this restriction, which was introduced only in 2010. That is telling; we seemed to manage pretty well before that.
Now, in effect, asylum seekers are rarely enabled to work. Does the Minister really believe that this is morally right and economically sensible? As Sajid Javid recognised, reform should no longer be delayed. Reform would enable asylum seekers to begin to integrate, to support themselves and live with dignity, to support their children to lead healthy, productive lives and, very importantly, to avoid the very real risk of exploitation and modern slavery.
We would all benefit too. The coalition of 200 organisations calculates that taxpayers would save £97.8 million if asylum seekers were enabled to work from six months. In 2019 it polled over 1,000 businesses for their view on whether asylum seekers should have the right to work. Some 67% of those employers agreed that they should, and a similar number believed it would ease the UK’s skills shortages. There is also huge public support for the right to work after six months. The Government would really have a great political benefit if they would only accept this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register, in receiving support from the RAMP project on immigration policy, and as a trustee of Reset.
I shall speak to Amendment 29 and Amendment 31. They are different in substance: Amendment 29 and others in this group relate to asylum seekers, while Amendment 31 relates to refugees currently living elsewhere. However, they both address the question of work.
In the Hebrew Bible, there is a story about a widow named Ruth, who travels with her mother-in-law to a foreign land, the family having been displaced by famine. On arrival, she gets to work, picking grain with the landowners’ permission, and she enjoys his protection and generosity. She receives not a handout but the freedom to work in the fields—her dignity is upheld.
The freedom to work, for those able to do so, is an important part of our humanity. It is how we support ourselves and our families, how we contribute to the common good and how we share, through taxation, the financial burdens of our common life. Yet for those who have come to this country fleeing persecution or conflict and are stuck too long in the administrative purgatory of the Home Office’s processes, the Government deny this freedom.
Many people seeking asylum want to work. They have skills that the UK needs, and are highly motivated to provide for themselves and their families. Instead of allowing them to do so, currently the Government force their reliance on minimal taxpayer-funded benefits.
Employment helps with smooth integration into the UK, allowing people to improve their English, acquire new skills and build relationships in the community. Work restores dignity while reducing reliance on public funds. I endorse all that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said in speaking to Amendment 29.
Amendment 29 does not argue for an immediate right to work, as Canada, for example, allows. Lifting the ban on working after six months—the point at which the Home Office should have determined their case, but too often has not—is a reasonable compromise. I might prefer three months, as proposed in Amendment 22, but I see six months as a reasonable compromise. I am not alone in thinking this: British Future found that 71% of the public support the right to work after six months.
I note that both Amendment 29 and Amendment 31 focus on the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals, because those rights are before us in the Bill. While the Spanish protocol might appear to obviate the need for Amendment 29, we have learned this year that the future is hardly secure and predictable. Moreover, in both cases, the underlying principle demands that we take these steps for the benefit of some now, and to move towards restoring the dignity of all those seeking the UK’s protection by allowing them to contribute through work.
I thank my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Alton for supporting me on Amendment 31. The UN estimates that there are 79.5 million forcibly displaced people globally, who are desperate to rebuild their lives. Refugee resettlement schemes are vital, and ours must restart urgently. However, we must think creatively about ways to help the many forcibly displaced people, in need of international protection, to rebuild their lives somewhere safe.
In places like Lebanon, people fleeing the Syrian conflict are not permitted to work legally. They are dependent on handouts; their lives are on hold. Many of these people have God-given talents which are going to waste. Meanwhile, employers in the UK face critical skills shortages. Ending free movement for EEA and Swiss nationals will only make it more challenging for them to recruit people with the skills they require. Is it beyond our imagination to connect the two, for the benefit of all?
The Home Secretary introduced this Bill to the other place, saying that she wanted a system
“allowing us to attract the very best talent from right around the globe.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/20; col. 398.]
Displaced people, including refugees, have skills, talents and motivations, and dream of building a new life in a new land. What if we saw such people as a gift as well as a responsibility? To do that, I urge the Government to look at what this amendment seeks to achieve for skilled forcibly displaced people. I acknowledge and thank the Minister for her help so far, pursuing conversations with her colleagues to that end.
Amendment 31, conforming to the Bill’s scope, addresses the potential situation of displaced people who are EEA or Swiss nationals. Yet, even in doing so, it addresses the need for a displaced talent visa in the new Immigration Rules, to level up access globally to labour market mobility for all those who should be able to apply for skilled jobs at UK companies. It would remove barriers, such as the need for specific documentation or proof of their English language ability which cannot be accessed because of their situation in being displaced from home.
To be clear, this is not a new humanitarian route; instead, it is about enabling fair access to work visas for skilled forcibly displaced people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this is not an alternative to the asylum amendments. This is a completely different point. This approach has been successfully piloted in Australia and Canada, and would complement, not compete with, the vital routes of humanitarian resettlement and community sponsorship.
In his letter to them, St Paul reminded the church in Thessaloniki of a common saying: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Far from undercutting support for providing for the vulnerable and unemployed —as has occasionally been suggested—St Paul was urging that those in the community free and able to work should do so, for the good of all.
I find myself reflecting on this saying as I think about how we might help those fleeing persecution and conflict to access employment, that they might use their God-given talents and skills to support their families and rebuild their lives with dignity for the benefit of all, and that they might be seen as a gift to us. I would like to move Amendment 31.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It may be helpful to the Committee if I remind noble Lords that we are debating a group of amendments in which Amendment 22 is the lead. It is of course possible to speak to the other amendments in the group, but at this stage it is not possible to move them individually.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the ban on working before a whole year has passed, and then only in professions such as classical ballet dancer and geophysicist, is bad on all counts. I am aware that we have a trained classical ballet dancer in the Chamber and she is a very valued Member, but she would probably agree that it takes rather a long time to train as such. We are not asking for a radical policy like Sweden’s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us allows asylum seekers to work after one day, or like Portugal’s, where the period is seven days, but, if you like, a middle way of three months or even six months. Six months is, if I recall correctly, the threshold in EU asylum law—I think it is the reception conditions directive—but the UK Government declined to opt into that provision.
It is detrimental to the well-being, dignity and self-respect of those seeking asylum to be refused the opportunity to work and to be kept in poverty on £5.66 a day. The longer that they are out of work, the more that their skills and motivation deteriorate. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I dealt with various individuals whose physical and mental health, sometimes after years of waiting, not just for 12 months but for three, four or five years for determination of their asylum claim—maybe the Government will tell me that the situation is much better now, but I am not sure that it is—had of course deteriorated; they had shrivelled as people and were unable to provide for their families. Their status, whether in their family or in their community, was completely undermined as their skills and motivation deteriorated.
Working boosts the chances of social and economic integration. Being banned from working also feeds into the prejudice that asylum seekers are “scroungers”, which not only is not true but is galling and aggravating when in fact they are prevented from working by government fiat, policy or law, which a lot of the public do not understand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has quoted, they would contribute to the Exchequer. Rather than taking from the taxpayer, they would be able to contribute if they were allowed to.
So, frankly, it is win-win. No wonder two-thirds of businesses support people seeking asylum having permission to work and 71% of the public, in the study by British Future, support the right to work. One would have thought that this was a bit of a no-brainer, and I look forward to the Minister explaining to us why it is impossible for the Government to change their policy.
I believe that there was an announcement in December 2018 by the Home Office that it would be launching a review into the merits of restoring the right to work to people seeking asylum. I do not know whether there is any news on how that review is getting on and when it might come to a conclusion.
Lastly, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about a work visa for displaced people. Refugees, displaced people and people who for humanitarian reasons are unable to stay in their home country have many skills that are going unused. Banning people seeking asylum from working is a moral question as well as an economic and social one. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: the idea that this would operate as a pole of attraction for people is unsubstantiated, and in any case that is hugely outweighed by the benefits of allowing asylum seekers to keep going and keep up their physical and mental health. If they do not succeed in their asylum claim then they have to leave, but in the meantime they will have been able to support themselves, keep up their skills and maybe, wherever they have to go or return to, have a better view of this country than they might otherwise have.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to advise the Committee that we seem to be back to normal with the emailing of the clerk, so Members who wish to speak after the Minister should use what they thought was the correct route at the beginning.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendments 24 and 31. I see these amendments as being not just in the interests of asylum seekers and refugees, although we have already heard strong arguments for why they are so, but also in the country’s economic and social interests and in the interests of overall social integration, which is supposedly a government policy goal.
A recent paper from the Institute of Labor Economics throws some light on the issues raised by Amendment 24 and others, using cross-European data for a period of nearly 30 years. It concluded that
“imposing temporary employment bans on asylum seekers has large negative consequences for their subsequent labour market integration − an effect that may remain sizable for up to 10 years”.
The authors recommend that
“host country governments should carefully weigh the (alleged) benefits of such bans against their longer term costs for both refugees and the host country economy.”
They found the sooner the access to the labour market, the better, and that when access is allowed it is not helpful to restrict it according to job type or employment sector in the way that our ludicrous shortage occupation list, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, does.
The paper also found that the existence of a ban has no impact on the numbers seeking asylum, which is one of the arguments that Ministers have used to justify it. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not come out with that argument, because there is no evidence for it. If he is going to do so, could he please tell us what the evidence is?
Nearly a year ago, I had an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the economic benefits of lifting the ban. As well as the survey of business leaders mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a group of business leaders wrote to the Financial Times to make the case, and the FT quoted the CBI chief economist, who said that
“despite being keen to earn a living and participate in the society where they live, many of those displaced are prevented from using their skills to contribute to the economy.”
In a letter to me, the Minister questioned how many asylum seekers would in fact be skilled, and suggested that the priority should be speeding up decision-making and then supporting granted refugees into employment more quickly. No one would dispute the need to speed up decision-making and support refugees into employment but, nearly a year on from that exchange, the Immigration Minister acknowledged to the House of Commons committee that the asylum decision-making timeframe remains a concern. This is not an either/or situation. Worse, at present it seems to be neither: we have neither speeded up decision-making nor do we have the right to work. I accept that the assumptions about the proportion of asylum seekers who are skilled may be optimistic, as the Minister said, but that does not invalidate the case, not least because many of those deemed to be unskilled may in fact have very real skills to contribute, including to the care sector, which we heard about on Monday.
This May, the Lift the Ban campaign carried out a skills audit of people seeking asylum. Nearly half of those audited reported previous occupations that would fall into the Government’s definition of “critical workers”, with one in seven having worked in health or social care. Have the Government carried out such a skills audit on which to base their position?
In Amendment 31, which I was very pleased to be able to support, we are talking about a group of displaced refugees who would be recognised as skilled under any definition. The right reverend Prelate has already made a strong case for what I believe is a very helpful and, as he put it, creative idea that is well worth exploring. I hope the Government will explore it. I understand that there have been pilots to see how it might work. It worked rather well in other countries but unfortunately has floundered in this country because the Immigration Rules have meant that it is not practical or scalable. If nothing else, I hope there might be a way of seeing whether we can have a proper pilot in this country.
All I will add to the case already made so well by the right reverend Prelate is to emphasise a point that has already been made in a sense: we do not see this as a substitute for fulfilling our obligation to provide a safe haven to asylum seekers and refugees or for positive reforms to the asylum system, including the more general right to work after at most six months that we have been talking about.
The Government have dragged their heels over the right to work issue, as we have already heard, for nearly two years, yet suddenly it is all speed ahead with what we are told will be the new asylum Bill, designed not to help asylum seekers, as it would seem from what the media has said about it, but to make it harder for them to come here. Suddenly it has become an urgent matter, whereas there has been no urgency at all to do something for asylum seekers here.
If the Government want to dispel the fears about this forthcoming Bill—that it is all about how we keep asylum seekers out and nothing to do with how we make life better for them when they are here—I hope at the very least they will commit today to finish their review of the right to work and include it in this forthcoming Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it was my pleasure to attach my name to Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I express my support for all the amendments in this group, including, as has been said, the very creative Amendment 31 in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
I am following five eloquent and powerful speeches, so I do not feel the need to add a great deal. Those speeches, collectively and individually, have utterly put paid to any suggestion that the UK is generous to people who come to our shores fleeing war or repression and desperately in need of sanctuary. As other speakers have made clear, we are an international outlier in our restrictions on work, to which these amendments refer. I am sure the Minister will recall that she very kindly took the time to hear from me about the circumstances of the asylum seekers in Urban House in Wakefield and the conditions in which people are living.
We all know that the hostile environment of the Home Office is very often chaotic. People are trapped, often for years, living in inadequate privatised housing with the desperately limited sum of £37.75 a week to try to get by on and denied the opportunity—which so many of them are desperate to take—to work. I cite a young woman I spoke to some years ago who made a huge impact on me, so eloquent was she about the situation she found herself in. She was, you might say, an extreme case, but sadly a not at all uncommon one. She had come to Britain as a young woman of 18 or 19, having been a political activist in Zimbabwe— I have no doubt that she was a victim of torture. Some 10 years later, we have still not given her status. She was studying for a degree through funding and support from a voluntary organisation, but she told me what her situation was like:
“I feel like I’m in a cage. I can see the door, and people keep walking back and forth in front of that door with a key in their hand, but they never stick the key in the lock and let me out.”
Leaving people in that situation is torture. We are talking about people who are often already victims of torture. Any of these amendments would be a significant improvement. The three-month amendment is obviously the best one. The current situation cannot continue; it is damaging to all British society as well as to individuals. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support all these amendments very happily. I appreciate that the Bill is concerned with EEA and Swiss people, but there is a point of principle which goes wider than the limited scope of the Bill. Some of the arguments we are using apply to that wider point of principle. The first three, Amendments 22, 24 and 29, are all similar, except that they vary on the length of period necessary before permission to work is granted and/or whether one needs to apply separately and additionally to the Secretary of State or whether the right to work is automatic.
We hear the arguments about pull factors. I think every time I have been involved in debates on immigration, asylum seekers or refugees, I have heard the phrase “pull factor” used to rebut any argument used. It is a stock response from the Government and I am not convinced that it is all that powerful an argument. Sometimes it does not apply at all. I have on occasions met people desperate to work. I was in south Wales not quite a year ago and met some asylum seekers. They had two requests: first, could they be helped to learn English because, secondly, they wanted to apply for work. Work was the key thing for them.
There is another group of people who are victims of lacking the right to work: children who come here and reach the age of 18 without having had their status confirmed. There is a later amendment which will give me the chance to develop this argument further. Such people are then in a very vulnerable position. Not only do they not have a full right to stay in this country but, as I discovered from some social workers who begged me to say that they have got these young people, they are not allowed to work and are stuck in complete limbo. I am sure we can all produce other examples of people we have met who are desperate to have the right to work. I think that, statistically, 61% of all asylum seekers have waited over six months to get their status determined. That is a higher proportion than any since records began. Reference has already been made to the Home Office review, allegedly started in 2018; I hope we can learn more about what has happened to it.
I will mention briefly some of the benefits of people being allowed to work, many of which have been referred to already. Above all, there is self-respect. We want people in this country to have a sense of their own worth and self-respect. To deny that to our fellow human beings is pretty appalling. It is a matter of integrity that people should be allowed to work. It is a way out of poverty. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of having people here who work rather than eking their existence out of virtually no benefits—even if they were on larger benefits, public opinion would still support the right to work. We are dragging well behind comparable countries. If there is a pull factor, it is those countries that will attract people rather than this one. Above all, people want to contribute to society. Talk to any asylum seeker and they will say that they want to contribute to this country and our society.
These amendments are really important. They add to the dignity of our fellow human beings. I hope that the Government will see their way to being supportive of them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I speak against the backdrop of a story I read over the weekend in the Universe newspaper. It concerned a Ugandan refugee, Mercy Baguma, who in August was left to die in a Glasgow flat. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that the account left her “consumed with sadness and anger”. A representative of the Positive Action in Housing charity said that Ms Baguma’s one year-old son was found crying beside his mother’s body, weakened from several days of starvation. I know that my support for Amendments 29 and 31 would not have saved her life, and I know, too, that if these amendments are passed, they will not help everyone who is a refugee or seeking asylum. However, we must do what we can to help whoever we can whenever we can; that is surely our job and I do not think anyone in the Chamber would disagree with that.
I will speak in favour of Amendment 29 on work rights, tabled by my noble friend Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I support also Amendment 31 on the displaced talent visa, tabled by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and to which I am a signatory. It addresses the widely held view that, whatever our differences about the nature of migration and the humanitarian duty, as some of us see it—and I do—to respond to people forcibly displaced from their homes and countries, this country will always have a need of skilled labour, and that where sponsorship is available from an employer, this win-win situation should at least be provided for by the creation of a new visa. The Government have said that they intend that this legislation and the new immigration system to be set out in subsequent Immigration Rules will attract the “brightest and the best” from overseas to work here.
The United Nations estimates that there are over 70 million forcibly displaced people in the world. While we clearly cannot help them all, an amendment such as this would enable us to help some of them. Many people displaced by conflict or persecution have valuable professional skills in areas such as medicine and engineering, but they are stuck in refugee camps like the one I visited a few months ago in northern Iraq, and I know that my noble friend Lord Hylton, who is in his place, has visited camps in Syria. These people have been displaced and are unable to use their skills to support their families and rebuild their lives. At the same time, for this country to fulfil the Prime Minister’s ambition to be “Global Britain”, we require an immigration system that is open, fair and allows those with much-needed skills to come here with their families to work and to build a future with us. It is easy to make slogans about attracting the brightest and the best, but how can we ensure that those with skills whose lives have been blown off course by conflict or persecution can still access labour market mobility?
Through its work in Jordan and Lebanon especially, Talent Beyond Boundaries has found that there are particular barriers under the current UK tier 2 regime that make it difficult for a displaced Syrian in Jordan, for example, to have the same opportunity to come to the UK to work as someone with the same skills from Australia, India or the United States. They are required to provide the identity documents specified by the Home Office when these can be provided only by a hostile regime. We all know that that would be an impossibility. Amendment 31 therefore urges the Government to create a displaced talent visa specifically to address such barriers and pave the way to eventually put in place a global scheme.
Events in this pandemic year have once again underlined the necessity to deal with the fragile and unsustainable nature of the world in which we live. In considering what a new immigration system for the UK should look like, we have a duty to construct models that take account of the complexities caused by conflict and persecution and to devise an immigration system that genuinely enables those who want to offer us their skills to do so, and to do much more to tackle the root causes that lead to 37,000 people being forced to flee their homes every day due to conflict or persecution, joining 70 million others. None of this should close our eyes to the importance of constructing, along with other nations, a humane and fair system for resettling refugees and others who need a place of sanctuary.
Turning to Amendment 29, I begin by saying that it is substantively different from the displaced talent visa being proposed in Amendment 31, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. It and others in the group address the right of asylum seekers already in the UK to work after a certain period while they are waiting for their cases to be decided. In contrast, the displaced talent visa facilitates the arrival of forcibly displaced persons through labour market mobility; that is, they will have a sponsoring employer and a job offer already in place, and they are not seeking humanitarian protection as UNHCR-defined refugees. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said that the Government should not offer the same argument in response to these very different amendments. When he comes to reply, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will differentiate between them.
The displaced talent visa is concerned with widening access to labour market mobility, not substituting for humanitarian resettlement or as an alternative to enabling access to asylum for those who require it. Where there are similarities between the amendments, they involve the freedom to work to support yourself and your family, and the dignity, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, of being allowed to do so, as well as providing benefits to the UK through meeting labour shortages, tax revenue, avoiding reliance on public funds and the better integration of people into the community. Research has shown that bans on working result in poorer integration outcomes because work helps people to learn English and meet other people.
Amendment 29 returns to an issue I have repeatedly raised with Ministers and in your Lordships’ House: the right to work. Indeed, it was the subject of a meeting some years ago that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I attended with the then Minister, Brandon Lewis. I hope that the Minister will see this as a precedent for reforming the current work-banning arrangements. It would be good to know what stage the review we were told about at Second Reading, which was begun in 2018, has reached, and when we might see the outcome.
As the Minister has been told, the Lift the Ban coalition, which supports the amendment, is made up of over 240 organisations and individuals across the country calling for the restoration of the right to work for people seeking asylum and their adult dependants, if they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for six months. That broad coalition includes the CBI, the Adam Smith Institute, the TUC, UNISON and the Church of England, and is supported by grass-roots organisations, national charities, think tanks, faith groups and businesses, demonstrating wide- spread support for this common-sense proposal.
I am a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside. Through its wonderful work, and that of groups in Lancashire with whom my wife volunteers as an English language teacher, as well as organisations such as Refugee Action, I have heard first-hand accounts of asylum seekers who, having been effectively prohibited from working, must subsist, as my noble friend Lady Meacher told us earlier on the derisory sum of £5.56 per day in asylum support. I repeat: £5.56 per day. Imagine for a moment trying to make ends meet on that and the effect on your human dignity and self-respect, especially when you are then denied the fundamental right to work. This is a right enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 23 insists:
“We all have the right to employment, to be free to choose our work, and to be paid a fair salary that allows us to live and support our family.”
We have heard about the benefits to the economy of allowing people to work. We were told about the survey showing that businesses overwhelmingly support this call. In denying the right to work, we damage people personally, we impede social integration, we deny the value of the work ethic, we entrench poverty and we emasculate self-sufficiency. The contribution that work makes to social integration is spelled out in terms in the Government’s own immigration White Paper, and I applaud that.
I end by saying this. The coalition has drawn my attention to the story of one young Afghan woman denied the right to work. She says, “I want to work because it gives me the feeling of being someone. I want to work because I don’t want to look back after five or 10 years and realise that I did little except sit in a room and wait for a decision on my asylum claim. I could have been doing something positive for people’s health by putting my knowledge and expertise into practice.” Those words and the story of Mercy Baguma, which I referred to at the outset of my remarks, should stir us into taking action in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to meet representatives of the Lift the Ban coalition and consider these amendments carefully between now and Report so that it will not be necessary to call a Division.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
We have heard some excellent speeches so far, and I find that I cannot disagree with anything that has been said. Although many identified victims of modern slavery are also asylum seekers—and those numbers may be swelled by EU citizens after freedom of movement has ended—these amendments, which I support, relate to potential asylum seekers from EEA countries or Switzerland. Of course, they will be in scope of the Bill, but it does not cover those from other countries. I guess that they will be the overriding majority, and while I would welcome the relaxation of the regulations regarding paid work for asylum seekers, I am afraid that it would be invidious to discriminate between non-EEA and EEA countries.
I am aware that, just over 100 years ago, a large number of Belgian citizens arrived in this country as a result of the conflict in their own country during the First World War. I have seen historical documents that show how well they were received. For a relatively brief time, they made their home here, and many worked here. Indeed, the presence of so many Belgians became the norm, so much so that no one batted an eyelid when Agatha Christie created Monsieur Poirot, a Belgian detective, as one of her heroes.
As I understand it, the rules regarding paid work for asylum seekers were strengthened back in 2010. I can only guess why it was decided to implement them, but I suspect that the huge backlog of cases awaiting decision made the Home Office nervous that if an asylum seeker worked, they would inevitably become an integrated part of the local community, making ties and making friends with fellow workers. As cases took so long—regrettably they still do, to which I can attest from my previous experience as a constituency MP—there would inevitably be more complications if a negative decision was received and removal was initiated.
I understand that some will say that to allow those applying for asylum to work will act as a pull. However, I am not sure whether there are any figures or statistics to back that up. In fact, regularising work for these people would be beneficial, as we have heard. I also know that Her Majesty’s Government are currently renewing the regulations. I sincerely hope that this country will have the courage to fully utilise the undoubted skills of these people, which I suggest would be a huge economic benefit in many ways. In the meantime, I believe that we should be encouraging more asylum seekers to be able to undertake voluntary work, and if noble Lords will indulge me a short while, I will give an example of what can be achieved.
Through my work with the Human Trafficking Foundation—and with its indefatigable chairman, Anthony Steen, a long-serving and dedicated Member of the House of Commons—I have become involved with a scheme that is just getting started after Covid-19 somewhat delayed it getting off the ground. Action Asylum by the Task Force Trust is offering opportunities to asylum seekers to make life better by volunteering alongside local people, so that the community is made better with their help, particularly in environmental matters. Pioneering projects are advanced in Merseyside, where there are currently over 3,000 asylum seekers. One example is of Iranians, Sudanese and Syrians growing vegetables alongside local people on an allotments project. Another project has brought together a dozen or so local cyclists and invited asylum seekers to join them on a community cycle ride. Working in conjunction with the Marine Conservation Society, asylum seekers will undertake a beach clean shortly on two beaches, at Southport and Hoylake, all of course properly socially distanced and within Covid-19 rules. It is not just to clear the detritus on the beach after high tides but to collate the data on what they find. This follows a pilot earlier in the year. There is a huge opportunity, with many NGOs looking to take part.
I have seen at first hand the benefits of such schemes, not only for asylum seekers and their families but for the local people, who understand that these people are individuals. As we have heard, they are not scroungers; they want to work. In view of the fact that there are currently 40,000 asylum seekers in the UK, it is a drop in the ocean, but it could be an example of a nationwide operation involving the Home Office, where asylum seekers waiting for permissions and papers to come through could do something useful in the country in which they wish to settle, to relieve boredom and loneliness and to help with mental health issues, which is a great problem. When you see how keen they are to do work, you cannot but be convinced that we should change our rules for all asylum seekers.
I thank noble Lords for their patience. I am unashamedly passionate about this cause and I support the amendments that have been spoken to. However, the first matter we should address is that of processing these claims within the shortest practicable time, while allowing all asylum seekers to take up meaningful work after a shorter period—perhaps three or six months. It would be a mutually beneficial measure for those people and for this country.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, ran for so long to such great effect. Sadly, it is still needed more than ever. A number of Members of your Lordships’ House are generous in their support for the Refugee Council, and I hope that I would not be out of order if I said that I would be happy to hear from anyone who wanted to join them.
I will speak in support of Amendment 29 in particular, and also of the other amendments in this group. The case for Amendment 29 was so powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that there is very little for me to add. It seems that the rule which we are trying to soften here, which stops asylum seekers from working, is—to put it politely—short-sighted. It does not match the national economic interest.
The citing by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of the list of supporters of a reform of this kind, including the Adam Smith Institute, was striking. However, the evidence is that public opinion is on the side of those proposing these amendments—quite strongly so. Probably public opinion is not really concerned about the economic case, which is overwhelming; it is probably more concerned with the humanitarian effect. Not to allow people to work condemns them and their dependants to a precarious existence on the fringes of our society, which is a bit shaming. As the time taken to process their cases lengthens, so anomaly turns to inhumanity.
I am therefore strongly in favour of these three amendments, particularly Amendment 29, and I do not think we have heard any arguments in this debate against them. The degree of mitigation of the plight of these people which is offered by these amendments is very modest. Of course three months’ time limit would be better than six months, but six months is a lot better than eternity. I hope that the Government will recognise the feeling in the House today, and produce an amendment reflecting it on Report.
I crave the indulgence of the Committee to add one more point, which I admit hangs only rather tenuously on the four amendments we are debating. At lunchtime, the BBC reported on an appalling fire today in a refugee camp on Lesbos. Thousands of people there now have no roof over their head, including over 400 unaccompanied children, the BBC reported. The FCO, with its acquisition of DfID, has just acquired a remarkable capability and expertise in handling emergency help in the event of natural disasters and disasters like that one. I hope that it will spring into action. But I hope that the Home Office will spring into action too. We are talking about 400 unaccompanied children with no roof over their head, and we know that some of them will be seeking to join relatives in this country. In these exceptional circumstances it would surely be appropriate for the Home Office, as an exception to its normal practice, to seek to identify those children and to permit their admission.
Our international reputation has taken a bit of a knock this week, as a result of the introduction of a Bill in the other place. A speedy humanitarian response by the United Kingdom to the humanitarian disaster on Lesbos would do something to assist the recuperation of our reputation.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall focus on Amendment 31, spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is an important amendment that brings a sensible and balanced approach to immigration in the commercial sector, to build up our economy—not just hospitals and care homes, but businesses, which also need to employ skilled and semi-skilled people. The amendment will help those fleeing conflict and persecution in their own country to build their lives in the UK.
Employers and businesses are interested and keen to take part in schemes to support such workers. I declare an interest: after running a fashion company in the UK for over 40 years and employing over 300 staff, before the pandemic, I know that the majority of businesses require all sorts of people, such as accountants, HR people, salespeople and cleaners, as well as warehouse staff.
I support the amendment because it has the foresight to do something positive for displaced people at a time in their life when they often have no one to turn to, and no means of supporting themselves and their family. This country has a long history of helping displaced people, and the humanitarian kindness it has shown countless refugees over the years is well known. Through this amendment we will do something truly remarkable—helping people in need while enhancing this country through the skilled workers who wish to make it their home. We will maintain our world-class image by helping refugees and displaced persons in their time of greatest need, while also filling skills gaps in this country.
However, the existing and future tier 2 general framework creates structural barriers, preventing applications from skilled refugees and other forcibly displaced people, due to issues such as stringent restrictions and the demand for documentary evidence. Fragomen, a leading immigration law firm in the City which conducted a survey of 500 corporates with operations in the United Kingdom of various sizes and in various sectors, found that 73% of respondents said that they would consider skilled displaced people with the required skills and experience, or would actively pursue the opportunity to employ displaced people. This level of demand is likely to grow, as businesses become more aware of the opportunity to hire displaced talent.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 31. Three tests must be met when a democracy considers the development of a robust immigration system that serves both its own citizens and those seeking to make the UK their new home. First, does the system serve the demands of business and the economy? Next, does it provide equity for those applying to work here, so that it is their skill set, not their passport, that determine eligibility? Finally, does it provide genuine asylum for vulnerable and displaced people, not only expressing Britain’s humanitarian commitments but reflecting the values of the British people?
The amendment, through the introduction of the tier 2 displaced talent visa stream, responds to all three of those questions affirmatively. In connection with the first test—the business test—the end of free movement will, as this House knows, impact on the availability of EEA and Swiss nationals, leading to a contraction in the number of skilled workers available to UK employers. This means that, after focusing on the development of UK workers, employers may still need to look overseas for suitable talent, where shortages exist.
This is particularly true of, say, the health and education sectors. It is estimated that the care sector requires 520,000 additional workers before 2035, just to support the UK’s ageing population. For the past decade, approximately one in six of the 1.5 million care workers in England have been non-UK nationals. Furthermore, previous recruitment drives have done little to alleviate the sector’s chronic labour shortages. Despite a 20% increase in advertised care roles in the first quarter of 2020, applications decreased by nearly 20%. This is just one example of the many sectors that would greatly benefit from the creation of a new displaced talent visa.
The second test is the equity test. The Government have been right to champion a points-based immigration agenda, with a focus on equity for applicants, by seeking out people’s skills set not their passport. But there must also be a recognition that there are significant structural barriers facing displaced people, which prevent them participating in that level playing field. These include, as we have heard, the payment of substantial government fees, charges, difficulties in securing official travel documents, and an inability to evidence English language competence.
According to Talent Beyond Boundaries, it can take over six months for a displaced person to access an English language test when applying for asylum from Lebanon. It has a ready-to-use programme with an extensive talent catalogue, and a model that has already been successful in Canada and Australia. It manages this talent catalogue of nearly 21,000 skilled forcibly displaced people living in Lebanon and Jordan, many of whom have fled the conflict in Syria. The registrants represent more than 150 occupations, most of which are included in the UK’s skills shortage list. A large proportion of registered candidates already fit the UK’s targeted profile of being the “best and brightest”.
That brings us to our third test—the humanitarian test. The amendment is not intended to replace our UN commitments to refugee settlement, but rather to answer the call of employers who are willing to support vulnerable people, while closing their own labour and skills gaps. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, in a survey of 500 corporates of varying size and sector conducted by Fragomen, 73% said that they would either seriously consider, or actively pursue, the opportunity to employ displaced people. The British people are instinctively responsive to those who are vulnerable but want to work hard to give their families a better future, and to contribute to the building of the nation that offers them safety. They want to be responsive.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It seems that the amendments in this group are similar in that they all relate to the right or ability to work. Amendment 24, to which my name is attached, requires that asylum seekers and their adult dependants be allowed to apply to the Secretary of State for the right to work if their application has not had a decision since six months of it being made. The reason the amendment only refers to EEA and Swiss nationals, not to those from other parts of the world as well, is to keep the amendment within the scope of the Bill.
Those seeking asylum in the UK can only apply for the right to work, whether as an employee or self-employed, once they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year, provided that the delay is not considered to have been caused by the applicants themselves. Adult dependants of people seeking asylum are not allowed to apply for permission to work at all, something which impacts women, in particular. Even then, there is a further significant hurdle for those seeking asylum, because employment is restricted to a limited list of skilled occupations on a government shortage occupation list—limited despite a change in skill levels that will mean the small numbers granted the right to work are more than likely to be unable to do so. It is not clear what the usefulness is of the shortage occupation list.
The reality is that those awaiting a decision on their asylum claim, as has been said, have to live on £5.66 per day to support themselves and, where applicable, their families and, as a result, are at serious risk of exploitation, including exploitative labour. No other European country has such a restrictive waiting period. The EU reception conditions directive of 2013, to which we did not opt in, set the maximum period for the right to work at, I think, nine months after an individual has lodged an asylum claim. Some three quarters of European countries, though, have a waiting period of six months or less, and many other countries do not place any restrictions on the type of employment that someone can take up.
When a person applies for asylum in the UK, the Home Office aims to make a decision on the case within six months, provided it is not classified as “non-straightforward”. In recent years, the number of people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for more than six months—both main applicants and dependants—has grown considerably, to cover some 60% of all those waiting. This is the highest level, I believe, since public records began, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said.
It has been argued that opening up the labour market to people in the asylum system to a greater extent would only encourage more people to try to get to the UK and seek asylum simply as a means of getting to work in this country. But there is little or no evidence of such a link. Other factors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, such as the ability to speak the language of the host country or the presence of relatives or friends in the host country, are the significant ones. Surveys have also suggested nearly three quarters of those arriving in the UK were not aware, prior to arriving, that they would not be allowed to work.
On Monday, we discussed the high numbers of vacancies in the care sector, but that is not the only sector where there are vacancies and skills shortages. Many of those seeking asylum in this country are well qualified with skills we need. A survey earlier this year showed that one in seven of those seeking asylum had worked in health or social care and that 45% of respondents’ previous occupations would have defined them as “critical workers” during the Covid-19 pandemic. As has already been said, easing the restrictions on the ability of those claiming asylum to work would not only reduce the cost to public funds of the minimal support payments but bring in extra money from the resultant income tax and national insurance contributions.
As I understand it, the Home Office began a review of the right to work policy in 2018, following the then Immigration Minister noting that there was “much merit in the arguments for reform”. What is the position with that review one year and nine months later? Has it been finalised? If so, what were the conclusions? It should not take one year and nine months to complete a review if that is the position.
Taking into account support rates of just under £40 a week and National Audit Office estimates that accommodation costs £560 per month, the approximate cost of supporting one person waiting for a decision on their asylum claim is just under £9,000 per annum. Even if such a person, once allowed to work, needed some accommodation support, the Government would still save a minimum of over £2,000 per annum for each person in employment and no longer requiring subsistence cash support.
The Government have normally argued that work is a route out of poverty. Apparently, though, that principle does not apply to those awaiting the outcome of their asylum claim, nearly all of whom, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, want to work and support themselves and their families and offer their often much-needed skills to this country. Why do we leave them, then, in a potential or actual state of poverty, feeling a sense of hopelessness and despair for often lengthy periods of time?
There are long delays in processing asylum applications and appeals. The ban on asylum workers working provides little incentive for the Home Office to speed up the progress of these cases, and with 45% of appeals succeeding, we are delaying giving the chance to work to people who will ultimately obtain it. It is time for a change of approach, and that is what I trust we will hear from the Government in their response—a change of approach that hopefully would also indicate that we were moving away from the hostile environment through our actions, not just our words.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was withdrawn from the speakers’ list in error and is ready to speak now, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
Thank you very much. I am sorry there was some misunderstanding earlier.
I shall be brief, but I take a slightly different approach to many other noble Lords. Much of the discussion so far seems to have assumed that all or most asylum seekers are genuine, when in fact a significant proportion are not. If public support is to be maintained, the system must clearly and effectively make that distinction. The focus should be on getting quicker decisions rather than quicker access to work.
The problem with the first three of these amendments is that they could encourage asylum seekers, and, perhaps, their representatives, to draw out the process of consideration even further, so they can start to settle in Britain without their cases having been decided. We could be faced with many thousands of asylum seekers whose cases have ground to a halt but who would be perfectly ready to work in the lower-paid parts of the economy, often in competition with British workers and at a time of rising unemployment. Over time—and this is the longer-term problem—this could undermine public support for genuine asylum seekers, who deserve our protection.
More generally, we can see from the current events in the channel that Britain is becoming the country of choice, including for those who are already in a safe European country with a well-functioning asylum system. Surely they cannot be described as “fleeing persecution”. Nor would it seem that they regard conditions for asylum seekers in Britain to be unduly difficult. Unless we can reduce the incentives to get into Britain illegally, these pressures on our borders will continue and probably increase.
Finally, I understand and sympathise with the motives of the authors of Amendment 31, but we already face intense pressure from many parts of the world where, sadly, there are large numbers of forcibly displaced people, many with skills. We should surely focus our efforts on those who are in the most difficulty by taking refugees recommended by the UNHCR, which examines each case. I remind the Committee that since 2015 almost 20,000 refugees have been directly resettled from outside Europe. That surely is the right way to help those in real need, and of course I support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a powerful and moving debate. I begin by mentioning the tragic case of Mercy Baguma, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Like him, I was greatly distressed when I heard about her case. Indeed, the news came through when I was visiting my family for the first time since this pandemic began, and that really underlined for me how lucky we are if we can take for granted the prosperity and stability of a family home. Naturally, an investigation was launched immediately to understand what had happened in Ms Baguma’s case.
That investigation is ongoing, so I hope that the noble Lord will understand if I cannot comment on the specifics at this stage. However, I hope that I can reassure him and other noble Lords that the Government take the well-being of all those in our care extremely seriously. People who are worried about becoming destitute can apply for support, including financial support and accommodation. We are working with others, including, in the case of Ms Baguma, Police Scotland and the procurator fiscal to understand what went wrong, but also to ensure that people are aware of and can access the support they need to avoid that sort of tragedy.
I will respond, first, to Amendments 22, 24 and 29 on asylum seekers’ right to work. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, respectively for their contributions on this issue. All their amendments concern the right to work of EEA or Swiss asylum seekers and their adult dependants in the UK. The noble Lords differ slightly in what they propose, so it might be helpful if I briefly recapitulate the differences between each amendment. If I paraphrase them inaccurately, I am sure that they will correct me, either through the—I hope—now resuscitated email address or through other means. Like my noble friend the Minister, I am very happy to write to any noble Lords who, by being unable to get through, are unable to indicate that they wish to ask further questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is proposing that asylum seekers who are EEA or Swiss citizens, and their adult dependants, should be allowed to apply for permission to take up employment if a decision on their asylum claim has not been made within three months of it being lodged. She is also proposing that, if granted, these citizens should be allowed unrestricted access to the labour market—that is, that they should be able to apply for any job, not just those on the shortage occupation list.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is proposing that the same group should be allowed to apply for permission to take up employment within six months of their claim being lodged, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, proposes that the same group should automatically be granted permission to take up employment if a decision on their asylum claim has not been made within six months of it being lodged.
As noble Lords will be aware, and as many have mentioned, our current policy allows people seeking asylum to seek permission to work in the United Kingdom if, through no fault of their own, their claim has been outstanding for 12 months. At present, those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee and is fully compliant with the rules laid out in the reception conditions directive 2003. This policy is primarily designed to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others who are lawfully resident here, including of course people who have already been granted refugee status, who are given full access to the labour market once granted. We believe that this is a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the existing 12-month wait before someone can apply to work—and then only in shortage occupations—as being to protect the resident workforce. Yet a House of Commons Library document published in January this year shows 100,000 vacancies in the social care sector, and rising. Can the Minister justify his statement that it is necessary in order to protect the resident workforce?
The Minister also said it was very unlikely that there would be refugees from an EU country. Is he not aware of the situation in Poland, where they are declaring LGBT-free zones in cities and provinces, with the Government ramping-up hate speech against LGBT people and the Law and Justice party leader saying that LGBT people are a
“threat to Polish identity, to our nation, to its existence and thus to the Polish state”?
Finally, the Minister talked about the pull factor of allowing refugees to work. A number of noble Lords said that there was no evidence of a pull factor. Indeed, the Minister was asked to provide evidence if he was going to deploy that argument. Perhaps he can comply with that request and provide the evidence to support his assertion.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will deal with the third question first. I am afraid the evidence will flow from the review that I mentioned in my response, which will of course come to your Lordships’ House once it is done, taking into account the additional work of the Migration Advisory Committee and the review of the report by the Lift the Ban coalition.
On restricting the right to work to the shortage occupation list, as I said in my reply, it is right to restrict access to work to British citizens and others lawfully resident, including those already granted asylum. We do that under the reception conditions directive of 2003. The shortage occupation list is based on expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. I thought we had a useful debate yesterday on social care. If there are shortages in that sector, that is something that the Migration Advisory Committee is well placed to advise on and to dispassionately provide advice to government. The list can be updated accordingly.
Finally, on the point about Poland and LGBT rights, I do not want to reopen debates from the referendum, but I remember being told quite powerfully when I was campaigning to leave that it was the EU that somehow had created or guaranteed rights for LGBT people across Europe. I thought that was wrong then and I am surprised to hear the noble Lord raising it today. Poland is a prosperous, developed country. It is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. If the EU is good at doing the job that campaigners said it was during the referendum, it will enforce those rights. Unless that changes, we do not see a reason to change our assessment of EU member states such as Poland.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I want to come back to the question of evidence—I was the one who asked for it. I thought the Minister was about to give it because he referred to my question; however, he then started talking about those coming in boats across the channel—what is the connection? We do not have the right to work, so why is that evidence in favour of the Government’s justification? Would he accept the widespread consensus that the best way to reduce the pull factor of the channel would be to increase the legal routes enabling asylum seekers to come to this country? Could I also respond to the point the Minister just made, that we will have to wait for evidence until this review is completed? The review has been going nearly two years. The Minister knew we would raise this question during the debate; I would have expected the Government to have some evidence in support of the case they are making now, rather than having to wait any longer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry if I clumsily inserted the response to the question from the noble Baroness in my speech. We are understandably waiting for the review to finish its work; I do not want to pre-judge it. The one year and nine months it has taken has included a change of Administration, a general election and this pandemic. More pertinently, we are waiting for the Migration Advisory Committee, which is independent of government, to do its work and its assessment, so it can be taken into account as well. Campaign groups, such as the coalition that has been mentioned, have updated their arguments. We want to take those into account, so I do not want to anticipate our responses there. The point about the channel is that whatever the numbers and whatever the proportion, no one—whether genuinely fleeing persecution or seeking to migrate illegally into the UK for economic reasons—should be making that perilous journey. We do not want to create any incentives in the system in any place that encourage people to take that hazardous risk.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for the warmth of his response, particularly at the end. Given the support from all sides of the House we have heard in the debate, and from business—business is saying there are still questions and is not convinced it does not need a new visa—I wonder if the Minister would meet me, perhaps some other Lords who supported the amendment and Talent Beyond Boundaries, to explore this—preferably before Report stage—to check whether I want to bring it back on Report.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have had some useful discussions with the right reverend Prelate already and we would be very happy to continue those, particularly with my noble friend the Minister and our noble friend the immigration Minister in the other place, who would be well placed to engage in detail on the topics he raised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I begin with the so-called displaced talent visa—asylum seekers embody displaced talent in many cases but, as the right reverend Prelate says, refugees often demonstrate great talent. He referred to employment contributing to social cohesion; that is evidenced in the personal experience of people—friendships grow, which reduces the fear of others, the fear of strangers. When people see the benefits of immigration the contribution to social cohesion is very considerable. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the importance of this to women. I should have made that point, and I am glad he reminded the Committee of it; he is absolutely right. The suggestion was hinted at that we might want to discriminate between members of the EEA and others; of course, that is not the case. We are constrained by the scope of the Bill in these amendments.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Paddick used the opportunity to remind the Committee of the problems in Poland. The fact that it is a member of the EU does not excuse them from what has been happening, which he explained to the Committee. It is important not to hold back from criticising one’s friends and one’s partners. This is a very real issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned voluntary work. Again I am glad that he reminded the Committee of that because it is too often regarded as work rather than volunteering and reduces the possibilities of asylum seekers whose claims have not been determined to undertake activity which so often they are keen to do. It also means that a number of charities have to be extremely careful about the opportunities that they can offer because they are aware that what they must offer is volunteering and not voluntary work.
We have rightly been reminded of the importance of not seeing people reduced to getting into the black economy or becoming vulnerable to slavery, given the cash that is available to them, which I acknowledge is in addition to other support; many of us are not comfortable with that support, although it has recently been increased by the princely sum of 26p a day.
I am with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in the call for a response to the fire on Lesbos. We are in a position to respond to it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, but only to the extent that the process needs to be speeded up. He will not be surprised that otherwise I take a very different view. That goes to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. One incentive to getting into Britain by very dangerous means is to join one’s family. The narrative that we hear too often is that most refugees in France try to cross the channel to the UK. That is not the case. Safe and legal routes would sort this problem out.
The Minister referred several times to the Migration Advisory Committee having been instructed to assist with the review being undertaken by the Home Office. Can he tell the Committee when it was instructed and what the likely timing of this review will be? Whatever the reasons for its delay, can we look forward to when we might receive it?
Along with my comments about crossing the channel, I should have said that to talk about unfounded claims is rather close to talking about illegal asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not illegal until their claim has been determined. The strength of feeling on this is very evident, but I have no option at this moment but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 23. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division, should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 23
Lord Flight
“(5A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of—(a) the Withdrawal Agreement,(b) the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or(c) the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members.(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members of UK citizens which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as on the day on which this Act comes into force.(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—“close family members” means—(a) children (including adopted children), and(b) other close family members where that relation subsisted on or before 31 January 2020 and has continued to subsist;“Withdrawal Agreement”, “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I must first apologise: I was supposed to introduce Amendment 12 on Monday evening, but I got stuck and impossibly delayed and did not get here in time.
The purpose of Amendment 23 is to preserve the rights of UK nationals living in the EEA, Switzerland and the EU who intend to return to live in the UK in future and bring with them, or to be joined by, non-British family members on the same terms they have at present. Unless the Bill is thus amended, British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while the UK was a member will lose their right to return to their country of birth with a non-British partner or children unless they can meet financial conditions beyond the reach of many. If they need to return to look after elderly parents, thousands will now have to choose between returning alone, leaving their family behind or abandoning their parents to stay with their non-British family in the EEA. Nobody should have to face such a choice, and it is not necessary that they do so.
The problem is that the Government are using the end of free movement to make these British citizens meet, for the first time, the minimum income requirement for family reunion. The MIR has been roundly criticised both because the level is so high—40% of UK workers would not be able to meet it—and because of the Catch-22 rule that the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only if they have been working in the UK for six months. How do they get into the UK if they cannot satisfy the MIR?
The MIR itself is harsh, but what makes it doubly unfair, when applying it to this group of British citizens, is that the change is, in effect, retrospective. When they left their homes in the UK to move to work in the EU or the EEA, they were safe in the knowledge that if they established a family while abroad, they would be able to bring them back to the UK. The British parents they left behind in the UK had the same expectation. There have been noticeable reports of widespread anxiety, among both the young and old, regarding what will happen if the parents need their children to care for them.
The British Government’s approach also leads to the perverse result of discrimination against their own citizens. While British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA before the end of 2020 face these restrictions, EU citizens who moved, or move, to the UK before the end of 2020 will not. They will have the right, under the withdrawal agreement, to bring existing family members here for life as well as keeping their existing right to return to their country of birth with families they have made in the UK.
I noticed, in other comments, a degree of concern about Clauses 4 and 5. I ask the Government to look into the points I have raised, which, if I am correct, could be resolved without too much difficulty.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is my pleasure to support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight—who just presented an excellent introduction to it—and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
I also refer noble Lords to my Amendment 79, which addresses some of the same issues, although it is particularly addressed to children and was inspired by an issue that I have worked on many times over the years, known in shorthand as “Skype families”, whereby people are able to maintain family relationships only by Skype—perhaps we should call them “Zoom families” these days—over long periods for all of the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just outlined.
We have seen many people trapped in this situation. In particular, I recall a gentleman who contacted me and was frantically trying to find anyone who could help him in a situation similar to the one described by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. His family origins were in south Wales, but he had been teaching English in Thailand for a number of years and was seeking to come back to care for his aged parents—care that would, of course, potentially save the British state considerable amounts of money as well as ensure family reunion—but he would not be able to bring his Thai wife and children with him.
We are now in a situation where many more people are likely to be caught in this trap. We know that there has been a huge exchange of people across the continent, and families have been created. One thing that I have found when working on this issue over the years is that, when many of the people who have found themselves caught in this situation talk to me, they say that they have talked to other British people—friends, neighbours and work colleagues—who say that this surely cannot be right and that surely a British person can live in their own country with their foreign spouse or partner and/or their children. They are British; that must be a right—this is what people believe. Indeed, I have encountered members of the public who, when they went to their MP for assistance, found that this was initially the impression that elected Members of Parliament had.
I believe that we should have a rule for everybody: a British person should be able to live in their own country with a foreign spouse or partner and their children, independent of any income situation at all. As referred to previously in this debate, the Public Bill Office tells us that, within the scope of the Bill, we are allowed to refer only to EU and EEA people, so that is what this amendment, like Amendment 79, does.
However, I will not talk at great length because this is an issue about which I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House attending this debate—and I hope the Minister as well—are well aware. However, I will finally reflect that I am sure that the Conservative Party would claim to be a party of, and in support of, the family. Why would it want, through immigration law, forcibly to separate families, spouses and children, forcing people into impossible choices over caring for elderly loved ones, being with their children, living as a family and having a family life?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and thank Brexpats—Hear Our Voice for the excellent “British in Europe” briefing. I will be brief because there is a straightforward argument here.
This is a simple matter of humanity. We are talking about British citizens living in Europe, who, like the rest of us, had no inkling up to four years ago of the significantly changed circumstances in which they would find themselves. Many have raised families in EEA countries with the reasonable expectation that their and their families’ mobility around Europe—including the UK—would not be affected in the future. Of course, Brexit has changed that.
We need to help our fellow British citizens and ensure that those who wish or need to do so can return to the UK with their families without deadlines being put on that return or any other conditions, such as the MIR, needing to be met. Indeed, as it stands, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, we are discriminating against our own citizens if EU citizens who moved to the UK before the end of 2020 can, according to the withdrawal agreement, bring family members here for life and return to their own countries with their families. This is a clear discrepancy.
I cannot see any good reason why this amendment should not be accepted. I hope this is a matter that has just been overlooked. I will listen with interest to the Government's response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, some years ago I chaired some work on the minimum income requirement affecting British people who, as has been said, never thought that they would be affected by their own country’s immigration laws.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned someone from south Wales. I encountered someone from south Wales, David, whose second wife was a teacher from Canada—I do not think that you can get more respectable than being a teacher from Canada. By his first marriage he had a disabled daughter. Had he been able to bring his wife to the UK to share the care of his daughter, that, among other things, would have saved the state a lot of money. Instead, he had to limit the amount of work and the kind of work that he did and so did not meet the minimum income requirement. She was appallingly treated. I do not believe people in British society would support this, were they to know about it. Many do not until they are brought up against it personally. I have long thought that the answer to all this will be found only when a son or daughter of a Cabinet Minister finds himself or herself in this situation.
The focus at that time was largely on spouse visas and what can be taken into account in calculating incomes. That has been changed somewhat, but the issue remains. The rules about leave to enter for an individual’s parents are so harsh that they really amount to saying, “You need to be so much in need of care and support that you probably would not be fit to travel.”
The reality of this is striking home, as noble Lords have said. One of my noble friends received a letter, which she passed on to me at the weekend, from a UK citizen who has found herself in this situation. I shall read some short extracts: “As someone who married a non-UK EU national in the UK but then moved to his country to live as his parents were already elderly, never was it in my worst nightmares that I would not be able to do the same and I might be forced to choose between caring for him and caring for my mother. When I left, returning was always an option, as I work remotely, to be able to return to care for my parents. My parents are now on the brink of their eighth decade. My mother has lung issues. My father has prostate cancer. It is inevitable that I will want and need to return at some point. What child does not want to care for their parents themselves?”
She goes on: “I and many of the more than 1 million UK citizens living in the EU will not have that right. If we do not return before the end of 2022, our fate will become income-dependent. How is it conceivable that the British Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens? Surely, the family is as sacrosanct in the UK as in the rest of Europe.” I am pleased, from our Benches, to support this amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a family interest in the issue raised by the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, the wording in the Bill means that British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while we were a member will lose their right to return to this country—their country of birth—with a non-British partner or children unless they can satisfy financial conditions that many may well find difficult or impossible to meet. Amendment 23, to which I am a signatory, seeks to address this situation.
I do not wish to repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, in moving this amendment. I agree with everything that he said. I hope that as well as responding to the arguments that he made, the Minister will also comment on his point that the change is, in effect, retrospective, since it is our country and our Government who are changing the rules that apply to our citizens on this issue. When they made their personal decisions to move to the EU or EEA, the rules, as they currently apply, may well have been a factor in making that decision; it is our Government who are now apparently seeking to change those rules.
No doubt the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will also comment on a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. He said that it appears that the new UK rules that will apply to British citizens in the situation that we are talking about will be much tougher in their terms than those that apply to EU citizens with settled status in respect of their ability to bring their dependants to join them in the UK. No doubt the Minister will confirm, in the Government’s reply, whether that is the case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Lord Flight, for his Amendment 23, which refers to a specific cohort of people relating to what is known as the Surinder Singh route for family immigration. It would require the Government to make provision in regulations made under Clause 4 for lifetime rights for UK nationals resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied, or to be joined, by their close family members. These family members would thereby continue indefinitely to bypass the Immigration Rules that would otherwise apply to family members of UK nationals.
The Surinder Singh route, so-called after the relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, refers to arrangements whereby family members of UK nationals who have resided in the EEA or Switzerland with those UK nationals while they exercised their treaty rights are able to return with them to the UK under EU free-movement law. Surinder Singh family members are not protected by the withdrawal agreement but, as a matter of domestic policy, the Government have decided that UK nationals resident in the EEA or Switzerland under EU free-movement law by the end of the transition period will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. That is three years after the date when the UK was originally supposed to have left the EU. That says to me that it is not retrospective, but if my noble friend wishes to intervene after I sit down, I would be grateful if he would let me know whether I have satisfied that point.
The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after this date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Other family members, such as a spouse, where the relationship was formed after the UK left the EU, or other dependent relatives, have until the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 to return to the UK with a qualifying UK national on EU free-movement terms. If they return to the UK with the qualifying UK national by the relevant date, all these family members will then be eligible to apply for status to remain here under the EU settlement scheme. If they do not return to the UK with the qualifying UK national by the relevant date, they will need to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules then applicable to family members of UK nationals if they wish to come to the UK.
We hope this is a fair and balanced policy. It was developed after we listened to the concerns of UK nationals living in the EEA and Switzerland. The policy was announced on 4 April 2019, as I said, giving UK nationals almost three years to decide whether they wished to return to the UK by 29 March 2022 with their existing close family members and, if so, to make plans to do so.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She covered such a large amount of territory that I am not certain I have taken it all in, but it struck me that there was the possibility that EU citizens living here might be in a slightly better position than British citizens who have been living in the EU.
I well remember that when we were joining the EU, a number of British civil servants went across to work for the EU in the same way as they might otherwise have worked for the Civil Service here. I think it important, particularly for good relations going forward, that British citizens who have lived in the EU with spouses who are not British have a fair deal, one that is better than the deal of those who are not British citizens.
While withdrawing this amendment, I hope the Government will look at this in greater detail and see whether a slightly more generous package cannot be made available for British citizens.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise, but I have just received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I simply ask the Minister what she would advise a couple, one British and one an EU national, who both have elderly parents. She is suggesting that they should pick between them for future care by the end of 2022. Is this really a humane approach?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the slight discontinuity of speakers to the disbenefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Three years after we were supposed to leave the EU, and indeed some six years after this country voted to do so, we are giving people time. There are immigration rules in every country of the world, and we are trying to be as fair as possible. We have listened to the concerns of UK nationals living in both the EEA and Switzerland.
Lord Flight (Con)
I simply repeat my request that the Government might look at this territory in a little more detail and should arrange things such that British citizens have a slightly better deal to come and live here than non-British citizens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 25. I remind noble Lords again that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 25
Lord Rosser
“( ) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) after the end of the period of one year beginning with IP completion day.( ) In this section “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that the regulation making powers under this section expire within one year of the end of the transition period.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 25, to which my name is attached, would introduce a sunset clause limiting the use of delegated powers under Clause 4 to one year, beginning with the implementation period completion day at the end of the transition period.
Immigration involves fundamental rights on a regular basis: rights to liberty, respect for private family life, property rights, the right to non-discrimination, data protection rights and a prohibition on inhumane or inhuman and degrading treatment. Changes that could or would affect fundamental rights should be made by Parliament through primary legislation, not by Ministers through secondary legislation where there is no ability to amend or alter what is proposed.
As we have discussed already, the Lords Constitution Committee and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have both said that the provisions in the Bill
“include broad delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, for which there is little policy detail as to their intended use; insufficient safeguards and scrutiny processes in relation to”
how those powers are used. Other comments from one or both of these Lords committees are that
“The Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary into secondary legislation, weakening the parliamentary scrutiny that will be required for any future amendment or repeal”,
and that “A Henry VIII clause”, such as Clause 4,
“that is subject to such a permissive test as ‘appropriateness’, and which may be used to do anything ‘in connection with’ in relation to so broad and important an issue as free movement, is constitutionally unacceptable”
and undermines “fundamental elements”.
The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4 are only to address necessary technical legislative changes to primary legislation arising from the ending of free movement. The same powers in Clause 5, say the Government—those are the subject of a separate amendment later on—are there, first, to enable consequential amendments to be made to primary legislation and other retained EU law if areas of the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations, co-ordinating access to social security for individuals moving between EEA states, have to be repealed because they are not covered in a reciprocal agreement with the EU following the end of the transition period; and, secondly, if consequential technical amendments to legislation are needed arising from any new reciprocal agreement with the EU.
However, the trouble is that the actual terms of the Bill give the Government much greater powers than they say they need and are asking us to accept would be the situation. The Delegated Powers Committee said that Clause 4 presents
“a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive”,
and on Clause 5, it said:
“Parliament is being asked to scrutinise a clause so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton.”
If it the Government only want these very significant delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, for the reasons they have previously given, they will surely recognise the potential constitutional dangers of leaving powers which represent such a significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive permanently on the statute book. Accordingly, if the Government want to use these powers only for the reasons they have mentioned, they should have no difficulty agreeing to the sunset clause provided for in this amendment, which I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
We on these Benches are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for tabling this amendment, which I can describe as an insurance policy. I agree with everything he said about Clause 4 powers, which we have had a chance to discuss, but we have a hierarchy of aims, the top one being to persuade the Government that Clause 4 is really not fit for purpose, as our committees have helpfully advised us, and that they need to go away and think again about it. The second choice would be that they accept that the broad scope, the width, of the powers they intend to give themselves is far too vague and imprecise—“in connection with”, “affecting”, et cetera—and that they need serious discipline, rigour and tightening up. The advantage of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that if we fail in those ambitions, we would at least, I hope, have the fallback position of looking after a year at what improvements we could make.
This is not like the Covid regulations, where the Government are reacting to an emergency situation. That is the more normal scenario for a sunset clause, but, none the less, the clause has a huge impact and demonstrates that “taking back control” did not mean taking back control for Parliament, let alone the people, it meant taking back control for the Government. It was a clever slogan, but unfortunately it has been heavily misused, and Clause 4 sums up all the problems with the approach that has been followed in the past few years.
If we do not succeed in our other ambitions in relation to Clause 4, it is sensible to have this fallback position of a sunset clause so that at least we would have a specified review date when we could reconsider what use is being made of Clause 4.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for moving Amendment 25, with its purpose to sunset the regulation-making power in Clause 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, this part of the Bill has already received quite a lot of attention, and I am sure will continue to do so in this and subsequent stages. As we know, Clause 4 enables regulations to be made
“in consequence of, or in connection with,”
Part 1, which relates to the ending of free movement and clarifying the rights of Irish citizens. The amendment would set the end date for using the regulation-making power as one year after the end of the transition period—that is, 31 December 2021.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will be withdrawing the amendment. I listened with considerable interest to the Minister, and I am aware of what has been said previously. It almost seemed to me an invitation to come back with a sunset clause that would apply one month after the end of the transition period, because the Government are basically saying that they will get everything done within the next few months, after this Bill becomes an Act.
However, the Government’s view is that there might be things they miss which will need to be done. Therefore, they feel that they need to have this power on a much longer-term basis so that, if they do find things they have missed, they can still put them right without coming back for full parliamentary scrutiny.
The argument could be made the other way: a sunset clause which came into operation even earlier than the period of time I propose might give the Government the incentive to make sure that they jolly well did get things right first time, and did not have to use the argument that they missed something they should have put right under the terms of Clause 4.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not sense—from the nature of their stance on this issue—that the Government have too much confidence that they will use these powers within the few months that the Minister has indicated, and for the very technical purposes that they need them. If the Government did have that full confidence, they would not have any doubt, or any hesitation, about discussing whether there should be a sunset clause which was even earlier than I propose.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 26. I again remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 26
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Any regulations made under subsection (1) which make provision to permit EEA and Swiss nationals to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment must include a specified limit on the total number of such persons to be granted permission for that purpose each calendar year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to place an annual limit on the number of EEA and Swiss nationals that may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up employment when making regulations under Clause 4 (1).
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 26 is tabled in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who regrets that he cannot be present to speak to it.
This amendment is absolutely central to our future immigration regime. It calls for an annual limit on work permits that would be granted to EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. Like other amendments, it is confined to these nationals for technical reasons; that is, what the Bill purports to deal with. However, in practice, any such limits applied to EU workers would have to be extended in some form to the rest of the world. The amendment is central because, in the absence of a cap on work permits, the numbers granted could run very rapidly out of control
This is for three reasons. First, a very large number of UK jobs will be open to new or increased international competition. We estimate that the number is of the order of 7 million. Secondly, the number of potential applicants is huge. We made a careful estimate but one confined just to the 15 main countries outside the EU which have been producing work permit applications in the past. That produced—wait for it—nearly 600 million people who would qualify for a work permit, provided that they have the required level of English, although that level has not yet been specified. From the EU, a further 50 million or 60 million people would also technically meet the requirements. Of course, they are obviously not all going to come, but the point is that a large number of people are in the age group with the qualifications that are required. Thirdly, there would be a great incentive for employers to go for cheap, competent, non-unionised workers, as indeed we saw when east European workers were allowed to come to Britain with no transition period.
It is astonishing that the Government should continue on a path devised long before Covid-19 came over the horizon and to do so just as millions of our fellow citizens are facing the prospect of unemployment. I remind your Lordships that net migration was back at record levels when we went into lockdown. The Government say that the present cap on numbers will be “suspended”, but it could well take time to restore the cap, especially as they would face heavy pressure from business. Surely it would be much better to start with a cap and adjust it in the light of circumstances.
Finally, I note a most interesting and courageous speech by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, at Second Reading. He said that he does not believe that the proposed system will provide any control. He described it as a
“staging post in a very unstable situation with regard to immigration in the future.”—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2258.]
He is absolutely right and, as I say, he is also courageous. To put it in a nutshell, the Government are heading for a car crash on immigration, and they would be wise to act soon to avoid it. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, as well as in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is an honour to be associated with—and indeed, sandwiched in the Marshalled List between—two such experts in the field of immigration and demography. Their untiring, perceptive and long-term thinking was reflected in their startling contributions at Second Reading and which, as has been said, were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
This amendment calls for a limit on the total number of EU, EEA and Swiss migrants coming into the UK for employment in each calendar year. I believe that we should go further and apply a cap to all such immigration from all countries, perhaps with specific separate guest worker schemes for agriculture and health workers. There is clearly a serious risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just explained, of the numbers getting very large indeed if we do not control immigration more directly, and of course if we do not enforce the laws properly.
Effectively leaving the numbers of migrants to the whim and interests of employers, as now proposed, is unnecessarily risky. It would also make it impossible to plan properly for the additional houses, schools and health and transport facilities we would need. The new lower salary thresholds designed to help employers, combined with the apparent attraction of the UK as a place to live and work—as evidenced, sadly, in the channel every day—would result in ever greater numbers of arrivals, especially from third countries outside the EEA.
We need as many jobs as possible for those already in the UK, particularly with the chill winter we must expect following Covid-19, and a greater incentive for employers to train in the skills we need. We are a small island; we need to be careful about the numbers and nature of the people we welcome here. Otherwise we will feel the consequences, including at the ballot box. We have to get this right.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
This is rather awkward for me, because I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, both of whom I regard as friends. The noble Lord was a close colleague and a brilliant ambassador, and the noble Baroness was a highly successful public servant before she became a highly successful businesswoman. However, I find myself in total disagreement with what they are recommending.
I find the amendment unattractive for a number of reasons. I will stick to the economic and business reasons, except to say that in political terms this is definitely a little England amendment. If you go north of the border and look at Scotland, where the population is declining and only immigration makes it possible to hope to maintain present levels, the political arguments are completely different. I did not hear from either the noble Lord, Lord Green, or the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, any recognition that the points being made were specific to the economy of England.
I see three obvious effects of the imposition of an annual quota. First, it would be the Government, not the market, who would pick the number. I would have thought that the free-market instincts of the noble Baroness would bridle at the idea that the gentleman in Whitehall—or perhaps his algorithm—knows best. Moreover, it would not be the Business Department, alert to the concerns of business, that would set the number, but the Home Office, which is not famous for having its finger on the pulse of the economy.
The second effect would be to produce a short-term surge at the start of every year. I am looking at this from the point of view of international businesses with operations based here; they would need to bring in their essential workers quickly before the door clanged shut for the year. The surge would then be followed by a freeze, preventing them bringing in new staff to match new requirements. I spent some time on the board of a great Anglo-Dutch company, dual-based here and in the Netherlands. Amendment 26 would have been hugely damaging to the flexibility essential for our efficiency.
Hence the third effect: the long-term discouragement to our friends in Milan, Munich or Madrid to put or keep parts of their business in our country. It would be a further deterrent to their putting or keeping their operations here, on top of the complications of our being outside the single market—just what we do not need. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will, on reflection, decide not to press an amendment that is politically damaging in the context of the union and economically hugely damaging in the context of international business.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the proposal of an annual cap on the number of people allowed to settle in this country, initially from the EEA but eventually applying to all countries, I hope. It is strange that such a cap has not been included in previous plans to limit immigration.
Successive political leaders from Tony Blair onwards have promised what they describe as an Australian-style points-based system for controlling immigration, but what they have planned has not been an Australian-style system. For most of this century, and indeed earlier, Australia has had a system with an overall cap on the number of visas issued, while allocating those visas on the basis of the points awarded to would-be immigrants. Australia is a vast, underpopulated country that, after the threat of Japanese invasion, decided it needed to increase its population to ensure its security, but even it does not allow everyone who happens to qualify for a certain number of points to settle there with no cap on the numbers.
We are a small, crowded island. It beggars belief that we should introduce a system that would potentially allow almost unlimited numbers of people to come and work and settle here. The number of people coming here from outside the European Union is clearly out of control already. In the last financial year, nearly 90,000 new national insurance numbers were issued to people from India alone—just one country. That is nearly double the number in the previous year and three times the number in the years before that. Of course, it was matched by similar numbers from the rest of Asia combined, not to mention those coming from other continents.
So far as I know, no one knows why this sudden surge has occurred, what jobs these people are working in or where they live, but if we had an annual cap, at the very least such surges would be smoothed out over a number of years, during which we could establish what the driving force was, and, if we decided it was reasonable to continue to allow that number of people to come, to prepare—as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, said—for the numbers of houses and schools, et cetera, that we would have to build.
Whatever our personal views about the desirability of allowing large numbers of people to settle here, there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the British people would like to see strict limits put on those numbers. This is not a democratic House and your Lordships have made it clear in this debate that they have remarkably little sympathy for the democratic sentiments that the people constantly express. But this country is a democracy, and our laws should reflect the broad wishes of the British people. This amendment would go some way to achieving that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this is not a workable notion. I am not the world’s expert on the non-EU migration system. It is a world I am having to learn about, having known far more about EU free movement in the past. As I understand it, most aspects of non-EU migration to date—which is going to be changed by the points-based system—have, I think, been affected by caps within individual tiers. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. That has not, from some people’s point of view, been a great success. After all, for at least the last few years, annual non-EEA migration has been considerably higher than EU or EEA migration. I understand the aims of the authors of this amendment, but I am not sure how or why it would be expected to reduce numbers.
The amendment also offers us a very bureaucratic system rather than, as the Government intend, one that would respond in a flexible, streamlined fashion to the need for skills in our economy. After all, if you are an employer with a crucial post that cannot be filled—perhaps the geophysicist I mentioned earlier—it seems somewhat ridiculous that you would fail to recruit an expert that you could not find at home because you were the first one after the cap had been imposed.
It is not as if it is a free-for-all. As I understand it, the sponsor employer has to sponsor the call welcoming bids from would-be immigrants and has to pay the immigration surcharge and so on. It is not as if the numbers are not overseen by the system and by a number of individual needs and choices that are driven by the needs of the economy and the employer.
An overall cap would be unworkable and unhelpful to the economy and to employers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, there are areas of the United Kingdom—he mentioned Scotland—that have a need for a greater population. There is one thing worse than having an expanding population, and that is having a declining one, as Germany is finding out and Japan has found out. There will come a time, with declining birth rates in this country, when we will be wishing that we had more immigrants. Indeed, that partly motivated Chancellor Merkel in 2015.
All things considered, I cannot offer from these Benches support for this amendment. I acknowledge the sincerity with which it is proposed, but I honestly do not think it is wise or workable.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Government’s response to this amendment, and indeed to the next two, might reveal something about their intentions and objectives as far as the new points-based immigration system is concerned.
I feel there is a lack of consistency on behalf of the Government about how crowded or otherwise they believe this country actually is. When it comes to the planning White Paper, and the opposition there appears to be to it from within the ranks of the Government party, one of the responses you get is that it is only a very small percentage of this country that is being built on. Yet when it comes to an immigration system, one senses that the Government base it on the fact that this country is too crowded. There appears to be a contrast, depending on whether they are talking about the planning White Paper or the immigration system, in what their view is on how crowded or otherwise this country actually is at present.
I hope that when the Government reply we shall find out a bit more about their statement that their points-based immigration system will reduce migration. An answer on that might address some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. The Government have never told us the basis on which they reached that conclusion—in spite of the comments of my noble friend Lord Adonis, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, at Second Reading, which suggested that the contrary would be the case.
Over the past decade we have heard policy statements about reducing migration to below 100,000, but those statements—I will not go into whether they were sensible or otherwise—were followed by a rise in net migration, including, and not least, from outside the EU, where freedom of movement does not apply.
I hope that when the Minister responds to this amendment we will get a very clear statement from the Government as to exactly why and how they happen to believe that their new points-based immigration system will lead to a reduction in migration—if that, rightly or wrongly, is their policy objective. Such a clear statement is badly needed, and could be given right now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and pay my respect to the deep expertise that he brings to this subject. The House benefits from it every time he speaks. As he said, his amendment would reintroduce an annual limit on the number of people that might be granted permission to enter the UK to take up skilled employment. The existing cap, which the Government are committed to suspending, is set at 20,700 and is administered monthly to those seeking entry clearance as skilled workers.
Currently, applications are held till the end of each allocation month. If applications exceed available places in any month, priority is given to occupations on the shortage occupation list and PhD level occupations. Thereafter, priority is broadly determined by salary, with higher-paying jobs getting first preference. On the face of it, this sounds like a sensible measure to control and limit migration to the UK, and is consistent with the aim of prioritising the brightest and best to come to the UK. However, it adds to the burden on business, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, slows the process of recruiting a skilled migrant and creates uncertainty among employers. It also creates a situation in which a migrant might be perceived as of value one day and not the next, which is what inevitably happens when a cap binds.
We want the UK to be a great place to do business, and we want to reduce uncertainty for UK employers and businesses—which imposes costs and prevents forward planning—while ensuring that we do not put unnecessary obstacles in the path of those who want to operate and contribute, so that the UK’s economy continues to prosper. As noble Lords know, we also want to create a simple global immigration system that focuses on skills and talent and the contribution migrants can make to the UK, rather than on where they come from.
We should be imposing a cap only if we think it would genuinely offer extra protection to resident workers and can be implemented in a way that mitigates uncertainty for businesses and employers across the whole of the UK. The Government do not think that that is so. That view is based on the clear economic advice of the independent MAC, supported by evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the lucid and powerful support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dealt most effectively with the need for a cap. I am sorry to find myself in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. He is hugely respected in this House—rightly so—and including, if I may say so, by myself. That is not to say we agree on immigration.
The Minister explained very clearly how a cap would be administered. There is also something called the intra-company transfer, which would deal with large companies wanting to post senior staff.
On the issue of public opinion, 55% of the UK population want to see a reduction in immigration—that is about 30 million people—while 4% want to see an increase. The figures are similar for Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 27
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for the Resident Labour Market Test (as set out in the Immigration Rules Appendix A: attributes) to apply to job offers where a job offer forms part of the application of EEA and Swiss nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that job offers made to EEA and Swiss nationals which form part of an application for that person to enter the United Kingdom should first be advertised in the domestic labour market in accordance with the Resident Labour Market Test.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 27, which is also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who unfortunately cannot be present.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore the clumsily termed “resident labour market test” or, in plain English, to oblige employers to advertise a job first in the UK before recruiting on the international market. This labour market test has been in place for decades and for good reason—namely, to give British workers a fair opportunity to apply for jobs as they arise. Employers did not like this test, because they claimed it involved expense and delay. The Government appear to have caved in, despite the fact that the Migration Advisory Committee has long been critical of some employers for failing to invest in training UK recruits.
It is truly astonishing that, with unemployment heading for several million, there could be any suggestion this requirement be abolished. The public share this view. Opinion polling in May this year found that 77% of the public believe that the Government should ensure employers prioritise the hiring of UK workers rather than turning to more overseas recruitment. Only 8% want to make it easier to hire more people from abroad. I hope the Opposition Benches will take the same view and that the reasonable, indeed fully justified expectations, of British workers will be respected. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I want to see more housing, both to help existing UK citizens and to help legal migrants. As noble Lords will recall, I made this point in my Oral Question yesterday. I want arrangements prioritising migration of skilled and scarce workers, but which allow the nation to plan for their housing, GP surgeries, hospitals and schools, the pressure on which is making people angry. This includes Scotland, if you listen to the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
It is particularly extraordinary that we should be thinking of dropping the long-standing requirement that jobs should be advertised in the UK before overseas recruitment occurs. This will encourage employers—especially big employers—to recruit overseas, sometimes without even trying the home market. We already have the benefit of 3.7 million or so EU citizens who have applied for the EU settled status scheme. Due to corona- virus and digital change, employment on the high street and elsewhere is, sadly, falling.
While I do not rule out special arrangements for agriculture and for health workers, we need our jobs to go to the home team wherever possible, whether in engineering, restaurants or universities. That is particularly the case in the wake of Covid-19. Advertising at home first seems a small price for employers to pay. Frankly, I am puzzled that the trade unions are not strongly supporting this.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
I support this amendment, which seeks to restore the resident labour test. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, the MAC thought that the pressure from employers to get rid of this test was symptomatic of a reluctance even to train people in this country. To my mind, that anyone should want to get rid of it when we face mass unemployment beggars belief. I understand that it was removed because of pressure from employers, and that, as MAC said, is symptomatic of deeply ingrained attitudes among many British employers that they have no duty to train their workforce, let alone to recruit locally.
As I mentioned in the debates on Amendments 82 and 93, that failure to train is as prevalent in the public sector and the NHS as it is in the private sector. The prevailing attitude in too many British companies is that you should train your own employees only if you cannot recruit people with those skills from abroad. We need to reverse that order of priorities: train your own employees first, and only recruit abroad if for some reason it is impossible to find them locally.
When I served on the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union in the House of Commons, our first visit after the referendum was to Sunderland. We met the great and the good of the business community there: the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the chamber of commerce, the local councils and most of the large employers, though with the notable exception of Nissan. I asked them what their principal concern was about the impact of Brexit. They said, “It may restrict our ability to recruit skilled labour from abroad.”
I was reminded then of a previous visit to that part of the world when, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I had gone to see the Nissan plant, which had then been recently established. I had asked the management a rather stupid question: “Do you have any difficulty recruiting skilled workers for your plant?” They were too polite to point out how stupid the question was, but they replied that there were no skilled automobile workers in the north-east of England. They added, “So we train people ourselves. They are very eager to learn and they make excellent workers.”
Recounting that conversation to the employers hosting the Select Committee, I asked them what would have happened if the Japanese had taken the same approach as them. There would be 9,000 Poles working in Nissan’s plant and 9,000 Brits would be tossing hamburgers or on the dole. They looked somewhat shamefaced, as well they might because those British workers recruited locally are now the most productive workers in the whole worldwide Nissan network. We must—and this amendment takes a very small step in that direction— encourage most British firms to show the same faith in British workers as Nissan did a quarter of a century ago.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am all in favour of training for skills, whether through the education and further education system or by employers. However, to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has answered the question himself; there are good companies that train their workforce.
I have been very impressed by the publicity for apprenticeships recently. Historically, this country has not had as good a record as some other countries, such as Germany, in valuing craft, engineering and practical skills. The touchstone of aspiration has been a degree in PPE at Oxford; we know quite a few people in the Palace of Westminster who have the qualification of Eton and Oxford PPE. Speaking as a lowly LSE graduate, I have not had the same attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude has persisted for far too long.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I think reference was made earlier to the position of trade unions vis-à-vis this amendment. I certainly cannot speak on behalf of trade unions, but I say as an individual that I get the impression that trade unions will probably push more than anyone else to have a better trained workforce and for spending more money on training by employers. They have not always received the response they should have to those representations and that pressure.
As for the specific terms of this amendment, it has been said there has been a demise as far as the resident labour market test is concerned. I await with interest to hear whether Government agree with that, because that is what is being said, and if the Government accept that that is true, to ask why they think that has been the case and what they think the impact of that, if it is true, has been on the employment of British citizens. I will also be interested to hear from the Government’s reply whether the use or non-use of the resident labour market test will be used to reduce or increase migrations, since I think I understood from the noble Baroness’s reply to the previous amendment that it would be the Government’s intention to use the salary threshold and the immigration skills charge—presumably by increasing or raising the threshold or by increasing or lowering the immigration skills charge—to have an impact on the level of net migrations. I will be interested to find out, when we hear the Government’s response to this amendment, whether the use or otherwise of the resident labour market test will also be used by the Government to seek to control levels of migration.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for tabling this amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken to it. As noble Lords have said, this amendment would have the effect of reintroducing a resident labour market test for EEA citizens, otherwise known as the RLMT. The RLMT requires a job to be advertised in the UK for 28 days to establish whether there is anyone suitable in the domestic labour market before the job can be offered to an overseas migrant. Again, on the face of it this is a very sensible measure, but it would add to the burden on businesses and would considerably slow the process of recruiting a skilled migrant.
We want the UK to be a great place to do business and to ensure we do not impose unnecessary obstacles in the path of those who want to operate and contribute, ensuring that the UK’s economy continues to prosper. We also want to create a single, global immigration system, focusing on skills and talents and the contribution that migrants can make to the UK, rather than where they have come from. We should be imposing an RLMT only if we think it would genuinely offer protection to resident workers, and the Government do not think at this stage that that would be so. That is not just the Government’s opinion but is based on the clear economic advice of the MAC: of course, the MAC consults very widely with stakeholders before producing its recommendation.
I shall quote from a report published in September 2018 on the impact of EEA migration. The MAC said it was,
“sceptical about how effective the RLMT is”
in giving settled workers the first opportunity to fill jobs. It went on to say:
“We think it likely the bureaucratic costs of the RLMT outweigh any economic benefit”.
Finally, the MAC said:
“We therefore recommend the abolition of the RLMT”.
Equally pertinent is the MAC’s next paragraph:
“We do think it important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers. The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge and not the RLMT.”
The Government agree, which is why we are maintaining a firm requirement in the new points-based immigration system for migrants who are coming under the skilled worker route to be paid a salary that does not undercut domestic workers.
As outlined in the Government’s February policy statement, we have accepted the MAC’s recommendations on salary thresholds set out in its 28 January report on salary threshold and points-based systems. Building on this, the Government have set out additional detail on likely salary thresholds in the July Further Details document, so noble Lords can see exactly the approach we are taking and how we are ensuring that migrants cannot come in on the cheap. I remind noble Lords that, again on the MAC’s advice, we are retaining the immigration skills charge, which has to be paid by all employers of skilled migrant workers. The requirement to pay that charge, the proceeds of which contribute directly to the UK skills budget, helps ensure that employers are unlikely to employ a migrant when there is someone suitable to undertake the role within the domestic labour workforce. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, again spoke powerfully on the basis of her considerable experience at very senior levels in the private sector. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, had some most encouraging words on the basis of his ministerial experience. It did not seem to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, nor the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, exactly answered the question as to whether they are opposed to the abolition of this test.
The Minister gave a very good, technical answer based largely on the MAC, but the MAC are, of course, economists. They are not politicians and do not really care about how a British worker would feel if a job had gone to a foreigner and he had not even had a chance to apply. It is basically about fairness, as I said, and I hope the Government will be open to keeping a very close eye on this, in their own interests and those of public opinion, which is very strong, as I mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 28. Once again, I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 28
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Where regulations made under subsection (1) make provision for the minimum salary requirement for new entrants to be lower than the equivalent salary requirement for other migrants, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “new entrant” means an EEA or Swiss migrant who meets one of the following criteria—(a) the migrant is switching from the Student or Graduate to the Skilled Worker route;(b) the migrant is under the age of 26 on the date of their application; or(c) the migrant is working towards a recognised professional qualification or moving directly into a postdoctoral position.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require parliamentary approval of regulations which would make provision for the recruitment of new entrants to the labour market at pay rates below the general salary requirement under the new Points Based System.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 28 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who cannot be here. This is the third in a trio of amendments designed to draw the Committee’s attention to some rather key aspects of the points-based system, which is on its way but not yet in full detail.
The purpose of the amendment is to tackle what I submit is a totally absurd situation. Your Lordships will be aware that the new points-based system will reduce the required level of education from degree level to A-level. It will also reduce the general salary requirement from £30,000 to £25,000 a year. As I have already described in the context of Amendment 26, these changes will produce literally millions of potential candidates.
However, it gets worse. There is also to be a special scheme for what are described as “new entrants”—that is, those aged over 18 but under 26 when they first arrive in the UK. For such workers, the salary requirement will be only £20,480 a year—little more than the national living wage but still attractive to many in poorer countries, including even in some EU member states. What is more, this route will lead to settlement and eventual access to our full welfare state. There is surely bound to be a substantial take-up.
Ironically, this comes at the very time that the Government are launching their Kickstart programme—a £2 billion scheme announced last week that they claim will create thousands of new jobs for young people. The programme is being launched in September. In January, we will open our labour market to these new entrants. As a result, our young people, who have had enough difficulties to face already, will face unlimited competition from foreign workers with A-levels who might have years of work experience and who are prepared to work for not much more than the national living wage. Roughly 1.5 million British workers will be directly affected—those aged between 18 and 25 who do not have a qualification higher than A-level. So, first, there is the Kickstart in September and then, I regret to say, the kick in the teeth in January.
I also regret to say that this has all the makings of a policy shambles. The Government would be well advised to back off, and back off soon, for it is our own young workers who will pay the price. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley, have withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment with which I have much sympathy, especially now that I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. A salary of £20,480 seems quite low. It is surprising that we are offering a new entrant route, because I believe that allows employers to pay one-third less than the headline rate. I am far from clear whether this plan will apply to both EEA and third-country migrants, thus the importance of the response to my Amendment 32, which was debated earlier. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to clarify matters when she responds.
I am sure it is completely right to require parliamentary approval of such a scheme as Amendment 28 proposes, but I worry that Parliament is in fact going too far in permitting such a scheme under the powers in the Bill. If the new immigration arrangements post Brexit lead to a serious shortage of labour, then of course the Government can return to Parliament for more powers. I fear that we are bringing in too many changes at once and risk losing control of our borders and disadvantaging young people and the unemployed in this country. This new entrant route is one change that I think should be deferred for now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am not really clear how this is meant to work. Is there any intention on the part of the Government to allow the so-called new entrants to enjoy a lower minimum salary requirement than other migrants? It is clear that there is something that I have not fully understood on this. I assume that the authors of the amendment fear, anticipate or foresee such a development, but it may be that, as I admitted earlier, my knowledge of the points-based migration system is insufficient to allow me to fully grasp to what mischief this amendment is addressed. I am surprised it is assumed that this situation could arise.
That is rather a lame comment, so I look forward even more than usual to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why this amendment is—as I assume she is about to say—unnecessary or does not pass muster. It seems to me that it too possibly falls foul of the problem of being bureaucratic and inflexible. I think I should stop there and listen to the Minister’s expert explanation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I think I am in a very similar position to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in wanting to hear the Government’s reply.
I notice that the Government have been told that we are heading for a policy shambles, and I notice that the Minister has been told by those behind her that we are making too many changes. Obviously this is something that inevitably happens when we have a Bill with no proper scrutiny of what the Government can do.
Having made that comment, I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say and to whether she agrees that we are heading for a policy shambles and with the other concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Green, and all noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others, I will circulate the current rules for new entrants—rather than send everyone to sleep with the old rules and the new rules—so that they can compare and contrast.
The amendment seeks to put in place separate parliamentary approval for regulations allowing EEA and Swiss citizen new entrants to the labour market to be paid less than other skilled workers. Minimum salary requirements are a key part of our new skilled worker route. They serve three main purposes: first, as an indicator that a job for which a UK employer wishes to recruit a migrant worker is indeed a skilled job; secondly, to ensure that a migrant worker is paid a fair wage; and thirdly, to prevent employers using migrant workers as a source of cheap labour, undercutting wages for resident workers. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we must have confidence in setting the salary requirements for skilled workers at the right level, balancing the need to control immigration effectively and ensure that the UK’s economy continues to prosper, and not setting them so low that they do not achieve these objectives.
As I said ahead of outlining proposals for the UK’s points-based immigration system, the Government sought independent economic advice from the MAC. In its January 2020 report, A Points-Based System and Salary Thresholds for Immigration—which I am sure everyone has read—the MAC addressed the need for a range of salary thresholds and made recommendations for new entrants. The Government have accepted the recommendations in that report. Our salary requirements for skilled workers are based on national earnings data for UK workers. The MAC identified that new entrants—defined essentially as those at the start of their careers—typically earn around 30% less than experienced workers. Setting lower salary requirements for new entrants reflects this reality and means we avoid setting the requirements at an artificially high level. Reduced rates for new entrants have been part of the immigration system since 2013. While we intend to continue the new entrant salary rate, in future the new rules will set a more consistent 30% reduction across all occupations. As the MAC identified, the differences in the current system are very large for some occupations. New entrant quantity surveyors, for example, may be paid 69% less than more experienced migrant workers in the same profession.
The noble Lord is also right there should be parliamentary scrutiny of these requirements, but there is already a long-established procedure for this. The Government are required to set out their immigration policy in the Immigration Rules. This includes salary requirements, which can determine whether an immigration application succeeds or fails. Changes to the rules must be laid before Parliament under the procedure set out in Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Either House may disapprove the changes by negative resolution within 40 days of them being laid and the Secretary of State may make any changes that appear to her required in the circumstances. Any such changes will be laid before Parliament within a further 40 days.
I do not think that it is necessary or proportionate to introduce a separate procedure for salary requirements for new entrants. As I have said, lower salary requirements for new entrants are not new. Skilled workers in the existing immigration system are subject to minimum salary requirements and the current Immigration Rules already provide for lower salaries for new entrants. Furthermore, there seems no particular reason for the procedure for new entrant salaries to be different from the procedure for the general salary requirements, or indeed any other requirements for skilled workers, such as the need for a sponsoring employer, a job at the appropriate skill level and the ability to speak English to an accepted standard. The nature of our points-based system is that all these requirements are closely interlinked.
Additionally, our salary requirements, including those for new entrants, are based on UK earnings data. We intend to update them regularly in line with the latest available data, ensuring that migrant workers’ pay keeps pace with that of resident workers. The procedure set out in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 enables us to do so quickly and responsively, while maintaining an essential element of parliamentary scrutiny. Bringing forward draft regulations under an affirmative procedure would lessen this responsiveness.
We may also wish to amend the criteria used to identify new entrants in future. By way of example, we will be removing the option relating to university milk round recruitment to reflect the removal of the resident labour market test. We have also agreed the MAC’s recommendation to include options relating to those working towards professional qualifications or moving into post-doctoral positions. Similar changes may be needed from time to time, which this amendment would make more difficult by placing the new entrant criteria in the Bill.
As outlined in the February policy statement, the Government are committed to continuing to refine the system in the light of experience and will consider adding further flexibility. Specific parliamentary arrangements that risk splitting up interconnecting policies should not prevent this.
For the reasons I have set out, including that we will continue to lay before Parliament the full details of requirements—including those for new entrants—I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, that was a short but interesting debate—interesting because very few people in the Committee had much idea of what is proposed. The Minister loyally read out what she had been advised to say, but there are just one or two little points. One is that this was based firmly on MAC advice. As I have mentioned, the MAC is a very competent bunch of people, but they are all economists. There seems to be no political common sense engaged in examining its recommendations. What is more, they were made in January, before the Covid crisis struck us, and so was the February policy statement to which the Minister referred. All these things were cooked up before we faced the very serious crisis that we now face. I therefore hope that the Government will be light on their feet and not wait for this to run out of control before they take some action to lower what is bound to be a highly attractive route, which will be, without question, to the detriment of our own young people, who will not have the work experience of a 24 year-old from overseas. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 30
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that no fee is charged that may deter or prevent registration of an EEA or Swiss national as a British citizen.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is to probe the impact upon rights to British citizenship of measures relating to fees (currently £1012 for a child and £1206 for an adult to register a statutory right to British citizenship) that have been introduced or are to be introduced in connection with the ending of free movement.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 30 and to speak to Amendment 68. These probing amendments are about citizenship, and I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens—of which I am a patron—and Amnesty International UK for their help with them. I pay tribute to these organisations for all the work they have done to promote and protect children’s citizenship rights.
For technical reasons, the amendments relate solely to EEA and Swiss nationals, but the issues they raise echo concerns raised previously on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House, particularly with regard to children’s citizenship rights.
Children born in this country to parents settled here, or who have grown up here from a young age, are entitled to register as British citizens. A combination of factors, including exorbitant fees, lack of awareness of the need to register their right to citizenship and the difficulties faced by local authorities in assisting looked-after children to exercise the right, have resulted in thousands of children being denied that right to British citizenship.
One consequence of our leaving the EU is that many more children could be in this position. They are the children of EU nationals who were born or who have grown up in the UK from an early age; the Home Office appears to have ignored this group. In establishing the EUSS, it has done nothing to raise awareness of their citizenship rights or to encourage children and young people with these rights to exercise them. Instead, because the EUSS is free, there is a real danger that many of them will be encouraged to secure themselves immigration status and not confirm or register themselves as British citizens, which they may not realise is open to them and involves a fee of £1,012.
In a High Court judgment in December last year—mentioned in the debate on an earlier amendment—that fee was deemed unlawful, as it was set without having regard to the best interests of the child. That decision is being appealed, but its reasoning is highly pertinent. In particular, it underlined the importance of citizenship.
In response to a similar set of amendments in the Commons Committee stage, the Immigration Minister argued that any child looked after by their local authority can apply for limited and indefinite leave to remain without having to pay a fee, and that citizenship itself
“is not essential for any individual to work, live, study or access services in the UK.”
When he was urged not to pursue that line of argument by Stuart McDonald MP, he re-emphasised that citizenship
“is not something that people need in order to access services.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 16/6/20; cols. 208-09.]
Does the Conservative Party really believe in such a transactional view of the significance of citizenship? In contrast, in 1981, during the passage of the British Nationality Act, which conferred the right to register as a citizen, it was emphasised that this was in part to ensure that the children concerned should have
“as strong a sense of security as possible”.
Citizenship is about security, belonging, inclusion, integration and identity. Indeed, the High Court judgment cited the Secretary of State’s own guidance document, which states that:
“Becoming a British citizen is a significant life event. Apart from allowing a child to apply for a British citizen passport, British citizenship gives them the opportunity to participate more fully in the life of their local community as they grow up.”
As noted on the earlier amendment, the High Court judgment referred to a “mass of evidence” that the inability to exercise their right to register as citizens because of the fee causes many children born in the UK to
“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”
Is this really what the Government want? Do we want many more children to feel this way in future? This false equation of immigration status with citizenship was one factor in the Windrush scandal. Please do not let us repeat it.
Amendment 30 addresses the impact of the fee level on registration. In her Windrush Lessons Learned Review, Wendy Williams notes that
“there’s little evidence that the impact on people was effectively considered”
when fees were increased significantly. Amendment 68 specifies that the level should not exceed the administrative cost, which according to the Home Office is currently £372—£640 less than the fee charged. The Home Office’s argument that such a mark-up on the fee is justified because it provides a “benefit” and because the Home Office needs the money to run a sustainable immigration and citizenship system—repeated by the Minister at Second Reading—is specious because we are talking about a citizenship right bestowed by Parliament, not a discretionary immigration status.
Amendment 68 also excludes from the fee any child who has been looked after by a local authority—a particularly marginalised group of children. There is no logic to local authorities having to pay these fees on behalf of these children as it simply involves a transfer of resources from local to central government. I believe some other noble Lords might say more about this. It also requires the Secretary of State to take steps to raise awareness of the right to register as a British citizen but I will not say more about that now as it is the main focus of Amendment 67, which will be debated on a later day.
Because of the restrictions created by the Bill’s Long Title, these are simply probing amendments. However, as I am sure the Minister realises, the more general question of the barriers to registering the right to British citizenship, particularly the level of the fee, is one that we will return to in this House time and again. Given the Home Office’s welcome readiness to accept the recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, and the dangers of now repeating some of the flaws it revealed, will it now think again? As a first step, will the Minister, on behalf of the Home Office, undertake to look again at the level of the fee, which even Sajid Javid, when Home Secretary, admitted was “huge”? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has been terrier-like in her pursuit of these issues. I, like the whole House, am grateful to her for that and I too thank the organisations she mentioned.
The fees are to exercise a right, but a right is no use if you cannot exercise it. The fees are a deterrent. They are a deterrent if you think that you are in a sufficiently secure position and do not understand the distinction between immigration status and citizenship. They are a deterrent if you are told by the Government that you are in secure position through the European Union settled status scheme. They are obviously a deterrent if you cannot afford them. I will not be the only Member of the Committee who has heard distressing stories of families who have realised that they cannot afford to pay for the citizenship registration of all family members and have selected some. If there is a mother with four children—well, we can all do the maths.
The noble Baroness used words, which I have written down, that are about more than security; they are about a sense of belonging. Otherwise, over the years why would so many people have chosen to become citizens through a sometimes pretty laborious route, having to take tests about things that would probably be mysteries to many of us and culminating in citizenship ceremonies? I have been to one. The ceremony is an important part of the whole process—the recognition of that belonging.
Everyone understands that there are administrative costs to these things, but the current fees far exceed the costs. There is a surplus—I use that term rather than “profit”, because I understand that the Minister protests at the term “profit”—in the order of £600, as I understand it, and £800 in the case of adults, where the fees are something like £1,200. The Home Office talks about this surplus being justified because of the benefit, but I do not understand the logic of citizenship being a benefit if indefinite leave to remain is an equivalent, or at least sufficient to meet all the attributes of citizenship, as seems to be argued by the Home Office.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Windrush scandal, and I am sure the Home Office must be anxious not to get into a similar situation. It has said that all Wendy Williams’s recommendations are accepted. About three of those are about meaningful engagement with stakeholders and communities and the use of research. If the Home Office were to engage on this topic and undertake research, I think it would understand how very fully these issues play with the people affected. In any event, as has been said, citizenship is about rights—the right to citizenship of the children referred to—and we should not put blocks in the way of rights.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the excellent way in which she introduced these two amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 30, but I support Amendment 68 as well. I echo her words and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International UK for their helpful briefings.
I will not detain the Committee long, but I emphasise and urge my noble friend to consider that, as the two noble Baronesses said, this is about not a benefit but a statutory right to give someone the security of UK citizenship. If the cost of the administration is £372 according to the Home Office, it seems difficult to understand why three times that amount—a 200% mark- up—is applied to those trying to exercise their rights. It should not be a business transaction; that should not be any part of this equation.
During the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, it was said that Parliament intended that all children growing up in the UK with that connection
“should have as strong a sense of security as possible.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/81; col. 177.]
Charging more than £1,000 will clearly be prohibitive. As both noble Baronesses who have spoken said, the High Court found in 2019 that unaffordability meant that children who were born here—who feel British—feel alienated. Have we not learned from the Windrush generation that people should not be excluded from their citizenship rights? Indeed, on the question of Windrush, this could be a near exact repeat of what happened. In the 1980s, Parliament gave people the right to register as British citizens, but apparently they were discouraged from exercising that right. Just as it wrongly told the Windrush generation that immigration status was the same as having citizenship, I hope that today the Home Office will not repeat the mistaken claim that British people do not need British citizenship and are adequately provided for by applying for a different immigration status. These are lessons that were highlighted in the report of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review and I hope that we will take them seriously. I support these probing amendments and hope that my noble friend will be able to address them before Report.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also rise to speak in support of Amendment 30, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 68. By the end of this set of contributions, I think the Minister will feel that she is ensconced in an echo chamber from which she will find it hard to escape. She knows full well that the subject of citizenship fees has returned to haunt her, her colleagues and her predecessors, and will probably do the same to her successors. Why is this? The simple reason is that by any reasonable international comparisons, which are there to be looked at, our citizenship fees are punitively high and, for many, completely unaffordable.
At Second Reading, as others have mentioned, the Minister said:
“On the face of it, they seem high, particularly when we are talking about children, but application fees for border, immigration and citizenship services play a vital role in our ability to run a sustainable system … and substantially reduce the burden on UK taxpayers.”—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2296.]
Perhaps I may gently draw the Minister’s attention to page 68 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review. A former Home Office says:
“The basic resource for the management of the immigration system is wholly inadequate and always has been. And the fundamental reason for that is if you’re the minister and you go to the Chief Secretary and you say, ‘I want more money for the immigration service’, they say ‘you must be joking—you think the British public would support that?’”
I turn now to page 51 of the same review. This is from a member of the Home Office’s own staff:
“Staff from both Immigration Enforcement (IE) and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) told the review they did not feel they had received adequate training; they also mentioned that the Home Office gave applicants minimal help, often referring people to the Gov.uk website, which staff themselves said they struggled to understand or navigate.”
What is described in the review is a cause of shame and embarrassment. I hope sincerely that the lessons that the Home Secretary has publicly stated would be taken on board and acted on will be demonstrated in the way in which the Government try to navigate their way through some of the complexities and inevitable consequences, many of them unforeseen, of this Bill.
Amendment 30 asks that EEA and Swiss nationals, who of course are eligible to apply for settled status, are not encouraged to go for this as the cheaper, easy option, because in many cases they are eligible for, and may wish to apply for, citizenship. The high fees make settled status a more realistic option for many but it is not necessarily a course of action that will be in their best interests.
I draw the attention of the Minister and her officials to the detailed submission made in July of this year by the PRCBC and Amnesty International to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration for an inspection called “A Further Inspection of the EU Settlement Scheme”. The submission concludes by highlighting that:
“There is, therefore, a huge risk that many British children and young people of EEA/Swiss parentage will be wrongly led to not have their British citizenship confirmed or register for that citizenship to which they are entitled.”
I ask the Home Office, at the very least, to read that submission carefully and to digest its very detailed contents and case studies so that on Report we can have a discussion in which it is clear that the issue is better understood.
As reported on page 50 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review document, a former Minister commented on the
“total lack of proper administrative competence, basically”
that the scandal had highlighted. Can we not do better than this?
Amendment 68 is more specific about the position regarding fees for the registration of British citizenship, particularly for children in care looked after by a local authority. It also asks the Home Office to raise awareness of people’s right to register their citizenship. I ask the Home Office, when looking at the document submitted to the independent inspector, to look very specifically at the case of a young lady called Mercedes, who was brought up in care, and to see the enormous complications that resulted from her situation and, frankly, the rather inadequate way in which both local government and the Home Office dealt with her parlous situation.
Both amendments have in common a challenge to the Home Office and the Government to live up to their responsibilities and core principles and values, which were often so lamentably absent during the sorry Windrush saga. As I asked earlier, can we please not do better than this?
We shall study the Minister’s responses carefully and hope and expect that at least some of the concerns and questions raised will, at the very minimum, be acknowledged. We are very happy to work with her, if she so wishes, between now and Report if she sees any merit in some of the arguments that we are putting forward. If not, she knows that all of us will be back at Report.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 30 and 68, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Clearly, as prevented by Amendment 30, EEA and Swiss nationals should not be denied their British citizenship just because registration costs might have become too much for them to afford. Nor, of course, as protected against in Amendment 68, ought children looked after by a local authority to be caught up within the same anomaly.
However, although the corrective of Amendment 30, if accepted, might subsume that of Amendment 68, nevertheless the noble Baroness is quite right to spell out in its own right the threat to children looked after by local authorities, and the necessary remedy which she proposes within Amendment 68.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree and can accept these amendments.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
This draconian measure can only exacerbate that deterioration, which is why its use should be limited to 24 hours at most. I must admit that the Minister has confused me in her reply to the first group of amendments that were discussed by the Committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking to the same set of amendments as we are. We are speaking to Amendments 30 and 68. It might be convenient to move on to the next speaker and then return to the noble Lord. I apologise if he was speaking to this group, but perhaps we could hear him after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
We shall try to return to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support Amendments 30 and 68. I declare my interest as recorded in the register as receiving research support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. That project, RAMP, involves a diverse network of parliamentarians working together. There are four principals: myself and three from the other place, one each from the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. We work together to support constructive and practical changes to ensure that the UK has a migration system fit for a successful and integrated Britain. As noble Lords can imagine, with such a diverse group of parliamentarians we do not agree on everything, but we have consistently agreed that the charging of excessive fees for citizenship is simply unacceptable.
It is a straightforward principle that those to whom Parliament has granted a right to citizenship should not be barred from registering that right by its cost. Citizenship is not a product to be sold; it is a right. As they aspire to be outward-looking and global, this Government should be seeking to make it more straightforward for people to exercise their rights to register their status as citizens.
I wish to speak specifically about the issue of children who, although they fairly regard themselves as British, may not even realise that they are not in fact properly registered as British citizens. When they realise it, prohibitive and regressive fees of more than £1,000 can prevent them from then exercising their right to registration. We have already been reminded that last November the High Court found what it called a “mass of evidence” that a significant number of children in particular cannot afford the citizenship registration fee.
Amendment 68 would specifically require that no fee for someone to register as a British citizen is set above the administrative cost to the Home Office. We have heard the figures already so I will not repeat them. It is a surplus that is indefensible for those who have a clear right to British citizenship, and to use that as a cross-subsidy of the rest of the Home Office’s work leaves many of us deeply uncomfortable.
Some may regard the price as a good deal for British citizenship. I am afraid that for many affected, such a price is simply unaffordable. It is the poorest who will be most affected. Moreover, it is iniquitous to charge a high fee simply to register a status that is a person’s right. The role of the Home Office is simply to recognise the rights granted to these people by Parliament and get them registered as citizens.
I specifically draw attention to the situation of children in local authority care, and I pay tribute to the ongoing work of the Children’s Society on this issue. These are among some of the most vulnerable children among us and are already marginalised. There should simply be no fee for such a child to register their citizenship. Where children cannot afford even the administrative cost of registration, they should not be excluded from their citizenship rights.
We have already heard powerfully from others the parallels with the Windrush scandal, the shame of which still hangs over the Home Office. We really must avoid any repeat.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments. I hope she will agree with me that the Home Office has no business erecting barriers, financial or otherwise, that prevent people registering as British citizens, particularly children, when those people have been granted that right by this Parliament.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
We shall go back to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to add to what the other speakers have said so powerfully. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said that the Minister would find this somewhat like an echo chamber—and I confess that when I looked at these two amendments and thought about whether I would speak on them, I wondered whether I might be repeating myself. I remember speaking on many occasions since 23 June 2016, at various stages, about the rights of EU nationals and of individuals. In particular, I have contributed to debates on amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I pay tribute to her for the persistence with which she tables amendments to piece after piece of legislation, trying to hold this Government to account and remind them of the importance of doing the right thing.
These amendments are about the rights of citizens. We are not talking about people who are saying, “Maybe I would like to change my nationality; maybe I would like to become a British citizen.” We are talking about people being able to register their right as citizens. The Minister might not think that is terribly important. She might think, particularly about an EU national with settled status, “They don’t need to worry. Their rights will be so guaranteed in the United Kingdom—a country whose values of liberal democracy, human rights and the rule of law are second to none.” However, if a member of Her Majesty’s Government can say from the Dispatch Box in the other place that the Government are willing to go against international law in a “specific and limited” way associated with the withdrawal agreement, how can people possibly have certainty about the rights of EU nationals with settled status? People need guarantees; they need certainty. Perhaps the Minister will understand why we feel it is so important to raise these issues and probe them again—because the Government do not necessarily always act in the best interests of the people they are meant to serve, or of the most vulnerable.
Children in care certainly should not have to pay a fee, which will undoubtedly be unaffordable. Nor should anybody be expected to pay a fee of more than £1,000—three times the cost of processing the right to register their citizenship. If this country really wants to go global and demonstrate its values, surely one way to do that is to ensure that the rights of the most vulnerable are secured—and one way of doing that is to make sure that we are not effectively profiteering from the costs of registering citizenship.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister for the way in which, as has just been pointed out, she has consistently fought on these issues through Bill after Bill, and debate after debate. She has a firmness of resolve that is to be envied. I am also particularly glad that we heard the right reverend Prelate speak in this debate. He spoke with his usual incisive analysis, and, much more importantly, with his usual decency and humanity, which seem to underline his whole approach to public affairs.
In this debate, we are not just talking about citizens who should be enabled to establish their rights. We are talking about vulnerable, individual people. We are talking about children. We hear a great deal from this Government about our desire to be an independent nation, standing on our own and demonstrating to the world what life should be about. What kind of Britain are we trying to portray? As an older man, I find it almost inconceivable that difficulties such as the price of registration should be used as a means of deterring a number of applicants. I also find it deeply sad that the nation that we should be in—where we are compassionate, where we are almost consumed with concern for the vulnerable, where we want them to establish their rights—is replaced by an impersonal policy of this kind. I find it incredible that we even have to look at a situation like this. It is not a Britain of which we can be proud. It is a Britain that must be raising doubts, all over the world, among all those who have fought and struggled for human rights, decency and civilised values. These are not decent civilised values that we are hearing here, and we need to ensure that this is put right.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to be part of the infantry supporting the arguments and the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as we have done on previous occasions. It is a tragedy that we even have to revisit this issue, because it ought to have been resolved by now. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, well enough to know that she cannot be happy that this has not been resolved, not least because of the High Court judgment that we witnessed in December. It is not worthy of this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, was pointing to, there is a sort of shabbiness of generating income through fees above the administrative cost of the registration system. The sheer inappropriateness of applying this charge to children—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, to children even in the care of local authorities—is something we surely have to rectify.
The noble Baroness will recall the exchanges we had via correspondence and Parliamentary Questions following the High Court ruling on 19 December. I listened to what my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool said about these issues coming around: I provided a witness statement to the court based on my participation in the proceedings on the British Nationality Act 1981, when I was a young Member of another place. In my witness statement, I cited the stated intention of Parliament in 1981: that children who were born here and grew up here but were without parents would be entitled to be registered as British citizens. I told the court that I had no doubt that it was Parliament’s intention that this should be done via a straightforward and accessible process. There was no discussion at the time about a revenue generator or profitability or any of the other phrases people want to use. I am sure that the Government did not set out to say, “We want to make a profit”, but this is way above the amount necessary to be spent to process these applications. Whatever we call it, it does not seem right to me that this surplus should be placed on these vulnerable people. I am not alone in thinking that this is a disproportionate amount of money. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, concluded her remarks by reminding us that it was the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid himself who said that this was a “huge amount of money”.
It my witness statement, I also referred to our duties under the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, in 1981 it was of course against a backdrop of riots in Toxteth in Liverpool and Brixton. The main focus of our debate was expressed in a statement by the Minister of the day, who said that we had to encourage a greater sense of having a stake in society and promote British identity and citizenship, especially as some children were losing the automatic right to citizenship as a result of the 1981 Act. This entitlement was not to be made dependent on a child satisfying the Secretary of State that they met the relevant conditions of the Act. This is a point eloquently made, and insisted upon, in a statement to your Lordships’ House on 6 October 1981 —it can be found at col. 36 in Hansard—by the then Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
In December last, on the day of the High Court ruling by Mr Justice Jay, I tabled two Questions to the noble Baroness. One was on
“what assessment they have made of the ruling of the High Court on 19 December in the case brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that there is a ‘mass of evidence’ that the fee charged to children registering for British citizenship prevents many such children from registering British citizenship, leaving them feeling ‘alienated, excluded, ‘second-best’, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.’”
The second Question was on
“when they intend to remove the fee charged by the Home Office to register children as British citizens; and whether they intend to refund those who paid such fees before the High Court ruling on 19 December.”
The noble Baroness replied to me, as she always courteously and efficiently does, and I was grateful for that. On 7 January, she said:
“The judgment was handed down on 19 December, and we are carefully considering its implications, and next steps.”
I know your Lordships’ House will want to hear this evening what care has gone into that process, where we are up to and what the next steps will be. Today, she has the chance to outline those steps.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Jay said that:
“British citizenship is a status aspired to and cherished by many, conferring benefits on the holder which are both tangible and intangible.”
Mr Justice Jay confirmed the details which we in our debate have laid before the Committee of the rising costs of these fees: children entitled to be registered under the British Nationality Act 1981 must pay a fee of £1,012—with a higher amount of £1,206 for adults—together with £80 for the citizenship ceremony. He confirmed the Secretary of State’s admission that
“only £372 of that fee is attributed to the administrative cost of processing the application; the remainder effectively cross-subsidises other functions in connection with immigration and nationality.”
In his judgment, Mr Justice Jay said that:
“The evidence before me is that for a substantial number of children a fee of £1,012 is simply unaffordable.”
He cited earlier judgments that
“the fact of belonging to a country fundamentally affects the manner of exercise of a child’s family and private life, during childhood and well beyond.”
He quoted with approval the Secretary of State’s own guidance documents. At paragraph 20, Mr Justice Jay stated what noble Lords have repeated in your Lordships’ House today:
“there is a mass of evidence supporting the proposition that a significant number of children, and no doubt the majority growing up in households on low or middle incomes, could only pay the fee by those acting on their behalf being required to make unreasonable sacrifices.”
Mr Justice Jay also found a mass of evidence to support our arguments that children who are unable to attain such citizenship
“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, ‘second-best’, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”
The judgment reminded the Government that they have a paramount duty to consider a child’s best interests. Evidence was laid before the High Court demonstrating that a disproportionality in this policy, inevitably hitting the poorest and most disadvantaged, needs to be addressed. Put simply, it is discriminatory and unfair. In his conclusion, he said:
“My conclusion that the Secretary of State has violated the section means that the 2018 Regulations are unlawful in that respect to the extent that they set the fee for registration applications brought by children at £1,012.”
Basic are the human rights at stake here. Being mindful of the Windrush scandal, which has been referred to, and the arguments about inclusivity, integration and the promotion of British citizenship, we must surely support amendments that rectify this arrangement and fly in the face of all these things. We must reassert the principles enshrined in legislation enacted by the Conservative Government of the day in 1981, and hope that the Home Office will not only carefully consider the implications of Mr Justice Jay’s judgment but use the opportunities of this Bill to rectify the injustices that undoubtedly exist.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow powerful speeches from across the House, not least the one I immediately follow, from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and of course that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I join the tributes to her and her record of campaigning, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Other noble Lords have driven in the same direction: the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, others on the screen, and of course my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Hamwee—everybody, to be honest—made the very reasonable request that the Government reconsider their policies on the fees for citizenship. The terms “shabby”, “punitive”, “revenue generator” and “indefensible cross-subsidy”—I think that was from the right reverend Prelate—have all been used.
It seems extremely odd to be discouraging potential citizens. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, this is being put in a sort of transactional context, but it is more than that. I have only once had the honour of being asked to preside at a citizenship ceremony—when I was an MEP, I was out of the country a lot of the time, so the opportunity arose only once. It really was an honour and a privilege to see all those eager faces looking back at me. Those people wanted to become British citizens, for all the reasons that have been expressed in this debate: to have their status recognised; to have a stake in our society; not to feel an outsider; and to feel that they truly belonged in Britain.
The contrast between the current situation and the language recalled tonight from the debates on the British Nationality Act 1981—which of course was also passed under a Conservative Government—is considerable. We should be encouraging people to become citizens, even if they are dual citizens, which I am glad to say is generally permitted—it is perfectly reasonable for people to choose which cricket team they wish to cheer without feeling that they are not loyal to the country. It seems incomprehensible that we would not want people, particularly those who have been in the country a long time, to move into the full role of citizens. That is good for our existing society, as well as for them. We want more people to feel that they have a stake, that they belong and that they are fully recognised, not fewer people.
Then, of course, there is the special concern about vulnerable children, especially those in care, for whom it is even more unreasonable to charge more than £1,000 for them to become citizens. The danger of a new Windrush scandal has been raised tonight, and we will have a further debate on that at the end of our discussions in Committee. After the experience of the appalling treatment that the Windrush victims suffered, and the Williams review and the Government’s pledge to implement its recommendations, it does not seem very wise to knowingly run the risk that we could be creating more people who are not properly recognised and integrated and who risk all sorts of horrible things happening to them.
From the non-partisan nature of this discussion, it is evident that this proposal has such wide support across the Committee, so I implore the Government to think seriously about whether the cost-benefit ratio of charging what, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, may be three times the actual administrative cost—a 200% mark-up—is truly worth it in view of the wider cost of potentially either excluding people from citizenship or, even worse, having a new Windrush generation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will be very brief, since I would only be repeating what has already been said, but I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett on her determination on this and, indeed, other related issues. EEA and Swiss nationals will shortly be joining the queue of those having to pay visa fees or fees when seeking a right to British citizenship. As we know, the Home Office currently makes a very substantial surplus in relation to this kind of applications following the major cuts in the department’s budget over the last decade. We believe that visa fees should not exceed the cost price.
Amendment 30 provides that regulations under Clause 4
“must ensure that no fee is charged that may deter or prevent registration of an EEA or Swiss national as a British citizen.”
Amendment 68 provides that no person who has lost their free movement rights under this Bill may be charged a fee for registering for British citizenship over the cost of processing their application.
Reference has been made to the British Nationality Act 1981, which contained provisions in respect of payment of fees relating to a child with an entitlement to register for British citizenship. For children with a parent who had free movement rights, Amendment 68 seeks to protect this position by providing that, if they are in care, they may not be charged any fee to register—if they are eligible—for British citizenship and that, otherwise, they may not be charged fees that they or their parent, guardian or carer cannot afford.
I simply conclude by expressing support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Lister. I share the concerns that she expressed about the seemingly very casual attitude to citizenship shown by the Government in the debate in the Commons on this issue. I hope we hear a more understanding response from the Government tonight.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so passionately in this debate, but I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. If nothing else, she is utterly consistent. I was going to describe her focus as laser-like but I think terrier-like is probably a good additional description.
I will address the court judgment first for the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been given leave to appeal on that, and we expect a judgment in the autumn. Therefore, the noble Lord will totally understand that I actually cannot even speak about this.
However, putting that aside, I will address the concept of citizenship fees being profit making. The overall income from citizenship fees is £2.09 billion; the cost of BICS, the borders, immigration and citizenship system, is £3.18 billion, so it does not even meet its cost overall. Far from making a profit, it still subsidises the overall cost of BICS. I might add that the principle of charging above cost has been in place for more than a decade: that clearly includes all three main political parties represented here in your Lordships’ House. A consultation was run at the end of 2013 on charging principles, which are included in the Immigration Act 2014. We have continued to apply these charging principles, agreed by Parliament, in any proposed fee changes. That said, the Government’s intention is that EEA and non-EEA citizens will be treated the same under the future immigration system. This means that under the new system, the intent is that existing fees, waivers and exceptions will be applied equally.
The issue of fees charged to EEA citizens has been discussed here and of course, as noble Lords have said, in the other place during the passage of the Bill. Throughout, the Government have been clear that decisions regarding future fees payable or funding of the system should be taken in the round and outside of the passage of the Bill, but I totally understand—I would probably have done the same had I been the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—that this is a good opportunity to discuss it. A legislative structure for application fees, with long-standing appropriate checks and balances is already in place. Any changes by way of amendments to the Bill would obviously undermine the existing legal framework, with its purpose of providing the ability to set fees and exceptions in secondary legislation. It would also reduce clarity in the fees structure by creating an alternative statutory mechanism for controlling fees.
Amendment 30 would have the effect of creating a two-tier system and would not deliver the required funding to the system, or indeed deliver the policy intent of FBIS, the future borders and immigration system.
Turning to Amendment 68, this is clearly an important matter and one which has been discussed during the passage of the Bill in the other place. The aim of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for British citizenship applications to the cost of processing the application for anybody who has enjoyed free movement rights, alongside the wider context of charging fees to register as a British citizen. As I have already noted, imposing any amendments to fees as part of the Bill would cut across the existing statutory framework for fees and would risk undermining the funding and coherence of the current and future system, but I think the noble Baroness knows that; we are simply having a discussion about her feelings and the feelings of others on the level of the fees.
Subsection (2) seeks to prevent the Secretary of State charging a fee to register as a British citizen to the child of a person who has exercised free movement rights if the child is in receipt of local authority assistance. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know that local authority assistance is a broad term that could include those accessing a range of financial and practical support measures offered by local authorities, including citizenship fees. The Government offer fee exemptions that allow access to limited and indefinite leave to remain to be obtained free of charge for those who are looked after by a local authority. The ability to obtain citizenship may therefore be delayed, but not removed entirely.
Subsection (3) seeks to remove fees to register as a British citizen for children of those who have exercised free movement rights, where the child, child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford the associated fees. This raises similar points to those in subsection (1) and Amendment 30, and I refer to my responses on those points with regards to maintaining a sustainable current and future immigration system and there already being suitable legislative structures in place.
Implementing subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to make persons who have exercised free movement rights aware of their rights to obtain British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981. The Government have made it clear, when explaining the rights afforded by settled status obtained via the EU settlement scheme, that this may include a right to apply for British citizenship, providing that eligibility requirements are met. The information about becoming a British citizen is available on GOV.UK and we are committed to ensuring that information of this nature is fully accessible for all.
I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The Minister talked about the service being far from making a profit, yet we have heard from the Government on previous occasions about the surplus that is achieved from individual payments and fees. Will she write to noble Lords after today’s debate explaining in only as little detail as is required what the finances of this service are in order to square those two statements?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I could go through them tonight, but I think the Committee is probably getting quite weary, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, so I will write and explain.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who added their names to this amendment or who spoke from across the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about being a member of the infantry. With infantry like this, who needs generals? We have had such powerful, passionate, well-informed speeches from across the Committee. I think they all came from the heart, and that is what made them so powerful. It is clear that everybody feels very strongly about this, particularly when talking about the implications for children.
The right reverend Prelate used the word “iniquitous”, which is unusually strong, given his measured approach. This is iniquitous and we should take note when someone such as the right reverend Prelate uses that word. It is a tragedy that we are having to come back to argue this again. The Windrush scandal is hanging over it all like a spectre. It is important that we do not repeat that shameful episode in our country’s history.
I thank the Minister. I am relieved that she did not try to argue that citizenship is not important—I think she realised that she was on hiding to nothing if she tried to do that. Apart from that, however, I am disappointed that there is no sign of any give in the Government’s position.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but somebody else wants to ask a question. I shall let them ask the question and then come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to let her finish. I am really sorry about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has made a late request to ask a question and I think we should let her ask it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I thank noble Lords and apologise for my lateness; I am having a very bad day with technology. I tried to send the email about 30 minutes ago.
I join other noble Lords in being very disappointed given the powerful and wide-ranging contributions from all sides of the Committee, both spiritual and temporal. In asking my question, I think I need to declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wonder whether the Minister can offer us one concession tonight or whether she will go away and think about making this concession. I refer to Amendment 68 and to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause which refers to children in the care of a local authority. I do not need to tell noble Lords that local authority funding is extremely stretched and extremely fragile and that there are huge demands on children’s services. As a responsible institutional parent, a local authority would surely want to secure citizenship for a child in its care, but that would be taking money away from other services, so will the Minister consider at least thinking about ensuring that if there is no waiving of fees, local authorities are recompensed for the cost of those fees?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness has just demonstrated that it is really beneficial to be here throughout the whole of the debate, because I covered that aspect on local authorities in my speech. If she reads Hansard, it will clarify the matter for her, and if she would like to come back to me again, I would be very happy to respond.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was saying that I found the Minister’s response disappointing. Yet again, when she talked about the cost of the immigration and citizenship service, she seemed to be conflating immigration and citizenship. Part of the point that we are making is that they are different and that it is irrelevant what the overall cost of the immigration and borders system is, because these fees should not be paying for that system. They should simply be paying for the cost of registering a right of citizenship that already exists. That was disappointing, and she might want to look again at that.
The Minister said that EEA and non-EEA people would be treated the same in future. That is not very reassuring because we have been going on for years about how badly the non-EEA people are treated in this area. She talked about a two-tier system not delivering the required fund or policy intent, and I was not sure what she meant by “policy intent”. As she is going to be writing a letter to us anyway, perhaps she could clarify that.
I was also very puzzled—this might be partly what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was referring to—that subsection (2) of the amendment does not refer to local authority assistance. That was an original amendment that was put down in the Commons. The Minister in the Commons pointed out that this was a very vague term, so we deliberately put in this amendment the words
“looked after by a local authority.”
I do not quite know whether the Minister was speaking to an amendment that was laid in the Commons rather than the amendment that is before her now. We are talking very specifically about looked-after children, not any child who gets any kind of assistance from a local authority. Perhaps she could clarify that when she writes her letter.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who talked about the importance of doing the right thing. That is why we are all still here, in this echo chamber, and we will continue to be here until the Government do the right thing. The only dispute I have with the notion of an echo chamber is that echoes tend to fade away. This echo is not going to fade away: it is going to get stronger. The more the Government try to resist it, the more we will be coming back. It might not be part of this Bill, because clearly the amendment is not going to pass, but there will be ample opportunities and we will not let this go. We will, of course, wait to see what will happen in the appeal, but I hope the Government will remember the importance of doing the right thing, because the Government are now doing the wrong thing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We come now to the group consisting of Amendment 33. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate—hopefully sooner rather than later. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 33
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may not limit or remove the right to vote in local government elections of persons who lose rights under section 1 unless the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a draft of the proposed regulations and an assessment of their effect on the right to vote, at least three months before a statutory instrument containing the regulations is to be made.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to allow Parliament the opportunity to consider proposals for restricting the right to vote in local elections of EU citizens.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) (V)
My Lords, currently EU citizens—not citizens of Switzerland or the wider EFTA—may stand and vote in local elections. This is a right under UK law. You would think that they would feel secure for the future in this, knowing that an Act of Parliament would be required if the right were to be withdrawn, coupled with the promise made by the Vote Leave campaign that EU citizens would be treated no less favourably than at present. However, under Clause 4, which we have debated almost into the ground, there could be secondary legislation to amend the primary legislation.
Over the summer, my noble friend Lord Tyler asked a Written Question about the local elections that were postponed from May 2020 to May 2021. When I say “local”, I include police and crime commissioners and the Greater London Authority. The noble Lord, Lord True—the Cabinet Office Minister—confirmed that the right would apply next May; this regards England because the franchise for local elections is devolved. That is logical because the elections should have been last May. In any event, they will take place during a period when applications to the EU settled status scheme are still open.
I understand that the Government are dealing with local voting rights on a country-by-country basis, regarding this as a reciprocal matter. My list may be out of date, but I believe that they have signed bilateral voting rights agreements with Spain, Portugal, Luxemburg and Poland. Scotland and Wales have already passed the necessary legislation for beyond 2021.
The right to vote and stand is important. It is a matter of social cohesion. I will not be the only Member of the House who has had a conversation about this on the doorstep during election campaigns—at all levels of elections—where I have encountered citizens of various countries. Sometimes, I have urged them to campaign and assured them they can vote in a local election; on other occasions, I have listened to their complaints that they cannot vote. Nor will I be the only Member who has stood on a doorstep and talked about the importance of voting as a member of one’s community to have views represented on how services are run, to exercise the right as a taxpayer and service user, and to show one’s priorities for policy and spending. Today, we have talked a good deal about belonging. The right to vote and the right to stand are both issues of belonging. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support this amendment and to put on record my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is an indefatigable defender of democracy and its character. Elections are crucial to our system in terms of accountability and the representation of people. It is vital that if any changes are considered in this area, there is proper scrutiny by and accountability to Parliament. For no other reason, I find this amendment one that we should all take very seriously.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, not least in his admiration for my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has indeed undertaken a marathon on this Bill today. By contrast, mine will be a quick sprint. We are anxious to ensure with this amendment that we can get some urgent clarification on an extremely important issue relating to citizenship. There are obvious echoes from the previous debate.
I doubt that any Members here need reminding of the considerable contribution that EU citizens make to the life of this country: to its essential services, its economy and so many local communities, not least in the health services. If I needed any such reminder, I had it most forcibly this afternoon when I paid a visit to the dentist. Many of them, especially if they have worked and lived in the United Kingdom for some time, have made a considerable tax contribution—local as well as national—as my noble friend said. It is a well-respected principle, not least in this House, that there is no taxation without representation.
The Minister may be able to give us an updated figure of those EU citizens who are now regarded as resident here on at least a semi-permanent basis. Those figures are very relevant to this amendment, as they are to a number of other parts of this Bill. I recall that, of all the cities in the world, London has the largest number of French citizens, exceeded only by Paris. These EU friends are employed throughout the UK in some crucial roles. Some are more obvious than others; for example, although most of those who work in agriculture and horticulture are temporary residents, some are employed full time and for longer periods, for example specialist advisers for viniculture in this country. On the day that “Back British Farming” is the slogan that the NFU wishes us to sign up to to demonstrate our commitment to that industry, I should give that a deserved mention.
The significance of the contribution of all these groups caused me to table the Question to which my noble friend referred. I need to reiterate the Answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord True, on behalf of the Government because it contains some important detail that is relevant to this debate:
“The May local elections were postponed until 2021 due to Covid-19. In that context, the UK Government can confirm that resident EU citizens will remain able to vote and stand in the rescheduled May 2021 local elections in England (including London Assembly elections) and the May 2021 Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales. Those elected to office will be able to serve their full term and this will also apply to those elected before 2021. The franchise for local elections are devolved in Scotland and Wales. The UK Government has been clear that the issue of local voting rights of EU citizens living in the UK needs to be considered alongside the rights and interests of British expats living abroad. The Government has signed bilateral voting rights agreements with Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg in 2019, and with Poland in May 2020. We continue to work on further bilateral voting rights agreements with other EU member states.”
As my noble friend said, there may be an update tonight from the Minister; that was from 10 July, and there may have been some more successful developments since.
It will be obvious to all in your Lordships’ House that there are two significant limitations to that assurance. First, it is limited to May 2021. After that, there is no guarantee that the principle will be maintained for any future local elections for the majority of these residents. Secondly, the Brexit negotiators have succeeded in achieving only four bilateral agreements—with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland—so much larger numbers originally from France, Germany and Italy, for example, are, as far as we know, excluded. What is being done to get agreements with the remaining 23 member states? I also hope that the Minister will be able to spell out what exactly was agreed with these four Governments.
I turn to the other point in this reply: the mention of the very relevant rights and interests of British expats living abroad. I suspect other Members have heard of the distressing concerns, anxieties and frustrations of our fellow British citizens currently living in the EU. I have had a very full report from a survey of many hundreds of these in France—a detailed report of the current dilemmas they face, not least in relation to healthcare and its costs. Surely the time has come—in their interests, as well as the interests of those to whom this amendment directly relates—for the Government to revert to our traditional attitude in this country. For once, could they not take the lead? Can they not now commit to bringing before Parliament certainty of continuing these civil rights? A more generous and realistic approach to these civic rights here would be likely to stimulate an equally humane and civilised response there. I repeat what my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham said in the previous debate: they surely should do the right thing. I hope the Minister will be able to expand on the very limited information given to me previously and therefore respond positively to our amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 33 provides that regulations under Clause 4
“may not limit or remove the right to vote in local government elections”
for EU nationals who have lost free movement rights under this Bill
“unless the Secretary of State has laid … a draft of the … regulations and an assessment of their effect … at least three months before … the regulations”
are officially made. Parliament would thus have the opportunity to consider proposals for restricting the right of EU citizens to vote in local elections. Local voting rights are not covered by the withdrawal agreement as they are not an EU competence but a sovereign matter. There is thus an uncertainty about the future voting and candidacy rights in local government elections for many EU citizens as the Government have not gone down the road of giving a firm commitment that all settled EU citizens in this country will continue to have the right to vote in local elections.
All non-citizen residents from Ireland and the Commonwealth can vote in all elections and referendums. This is reciprocal in the case of Ireland, but most Commonwealth countries, including Cyprus and Malta, do not grant resident UK citizens the right to vote. EU citizens from the other 24 member states currently have a partial franchise that allows them to vote and stand as candidates in local government elections. This is guaranteed in UK law and the Government would need to take active steps to remove this right. There is disparity within the UK at present: Scotland and Wales grant voting rights to all migrants, while England and Northern Ireland do not.
As has been said, the Government have been seeking bilateral agreements on local election voting rights with EU member states, with agreements concluded with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland. As I understand it, UK nationals will also be able to continue to vote, and in some cases stand, in local elections in EU member states where domestic legislation allows this. We are in favour of EU nationals living in the UK having full voting rights in future elections. They are our neighbours, friends, families, important parts of our communities and vital to our economy and healthcare service. We should value them. The Government should protect the local election voting rights that EU citizens living in this country currently have and seek to extend them so that they become full voting rights.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for moving Amendment 33 and the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Tyler and Lord Rosser, for their contributions to this short but important debate. While I understand the sentiment that underpins the noble Baroness’s amendment and some of the speeches we have heard, I do not think it necessary to add this to the Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already shared the draft illustrative regulations proposed under Clause 4(1). As I hope and am sure noble Lords will have seen, they do not include any provisions relating to the voting rights of EU citizens; nor has there been any immediate change to the entitlement of EU citizens resident here to vote in local elections. Indeed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said—in an Answer to a Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and answered by my noble friend Lord True, the Government recently confirmed that EU citizens resident in England
“will remain able to vote”
in the elections in England next May. That includes not only elections to a number of local authorities at every level but elections for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly and combined authority mayors in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, the Tees Valley, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the West of England and West Yorkshire, as well as for the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales on the same day. It also applies to the right of EU citizens to stand in those elections, and anyone elected
“will be able to serve their full term”.
I hope that removes the uncertainty the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned, in the short term at least. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to EU citizens who have served their local community in public office, whatever party or affiliation they have done that under.
I am afraid I have no update for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, beyond the Answer by my noble friend Lord True, which he read out in full. As that pointed out, we have taken positive steps in our relationship with EU member states and signed bilateral voting agreements with Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg in 2019; the one signed with Poland in May this year remains the most recent.
This is really a debate more about parliamentary scrutiny. On that issue, which the noble Baroness’s amendment considers and which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also mentioned, the Bill as drafted makes clear that any primary legislation amended by regulations provided for by Clause 4 would be subject to the affirmative procedure and would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I have no doubt that in the course of any such debates, noble Lords—including those who have spoken tonight—as well as Members in another place, will want to give such regulations their fullest scrutiny. As such, we do not think this amendment is needed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The compliments paid to me made me blush, but I probably was not on screen when I was blushing. Anyway, I thank noble Lords for those.
I live in the constituency of Richmond Park in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. We have Swedish and German schools here and a lot of French citizens. The point about the large number of French people in London is quite right. Those citizens are very much members of the local community. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the best way to achieve rights for British citizens abroad is for us to be open and generous with rights in the UK. That is not only the proper thing to do but a good way of negotiating.
My noble friend also mentioned limitations set out in the Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord True, which referred to the London Assembly. I take from the response just now by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that it should have been the Greater London Authority, which consists of the mayor and the London Assembly. I think I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in the Chamber; I thank her for the wave. Like me, she will know that the terminology—the nomenclature, perhaps —of the various parts of the GLA is something that few people get their heads around.
More seriously, perhaps, I think the Minister said that this was not necessarily one for the Bill, and prayed in aid the draft illustrative statutory instrument that has been sent to noble Lords. That seems to me to be a circular argument. Where else should we raise the issue but on this Bill? We are told that we could raise the point when we scrutinise draft regulations that are laid under Clause 4—but we cannot introduce regulations. I really think he has set us an impossible task.
I am sorry that the issue has been dismissed in the way that it has; that is very sad. As I said, I would like us to be open and generous on this point. Clearly there is no more that I can do tonight other than express that. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 33.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 34. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 34
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) Prior to regulations being made under subsection (5), an impact assessment of the effects of those regulations on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom must be laid before Parliament.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Patel.
In parallel to this Bill, the Government are taking through the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to ensure that we have an effective regulatory system post Brexit. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, explained at Second Reading, we must do all that we can to support the UK’s thriving life sciences industry. He described a world where big data, artificial intelligence and genetics have become enormously powerful engines of innovation, and where engineering and computer science have combined with medicine to generate exciting new medical developments.
It is vital that changes being made in the immigration system protect the excellent UK medical research environment, which drives vital progress for our patients. That is contingent, as Cancer Research UK has reported, on the maintenance of the UK’s leading research environment and our continuing ability to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent at all levels. It is this mixture of domestic and international talent that supports our thriving research environment. For example, 31% of the UK’s Nobel prize winners in science were born outside the UK, while 50% of Cancer Research UK’s supported PhD students are not from the UK, rising to 76% of postdoctoral researchers at its institutes.
I welcome the Government’s ambition to make the immigration system work for science and research, but the science and research community has real worries about the cost of the system, particularly in comparison to other countries. The current UK immigration system is already one of the most expensive in the world. The total average up-front cost for a tier 2 skilled worker visa, typically used by scientific workers, is 540% higher than the average cost in other leading scientific nations. Most of Cancer Research UK’s researchers say the ease with which their dependants can access public services and take up work is a key factor in choosing a research destination, yet a researcher coming to the UK with a family of four faces nearly £10,000 of fees if they want to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Much of that cost is associated with the health surcharge.
At the moment, research organisations will often step in and pay these charges, but they themselves are struggling financially, particularly given the uncertainty about research grants post Brexit. Cancer Research UK estimates that a typical institute that it funds could face additional costs of between £300,000 and £800,000 once EEA workers move on to the new system. That is a lot of money which should be spent on research activities.
The new global talent visa will play a crucial role in attracting the scientific talent the UK needs. It is a welcome step, but it also retains fees at a damagingly high level. A five-year visa would incur up-front costs of £2,608 for a researcher looking to move here. It is more expensive than India, France, Australia, Germany and Japan. The global talent visa is designed for experienced research staff, but many who are early in their careers or in vital technical roles will not be eligible. We need the new immigration system to work for all the members of a research team. That means attracting researchers early in their careers and ensuring that vital technical staff, who are after all the backbone of many research teams but who are often not that highly paid, are made to feel welcome to live and work in the UK.
The reduction of the salary threshold to £25,600 is a positive step, but researchers who are not eligible for the global talent visa will still be required to apply via the tier 2 route, which is both costly and bureaucratic. Technical staff, particularly outside London, may still fail to pass the salary threshold and will thus be excluded from the chance to contribute to our research environment. For technicians in particular this route is daunting and, as I have said, it is far from certain that they will earn above the £25,600 salary threshold the system proposes.
Amendment 34 is a constructive approach to encourage the Government to undertake an impact assessment of the effects of these regulations on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff in the United Kingdom. These people are vital to the future prosperity of this country. We believe that the Government should delay exercising the power to modify visa charges until the evaluation has been received, so that they can be fully informed about the impact of fees on recruiting these very talented people. I hope that, as a result, the Government will then bring forward a reduction in the total visa costs for researchers and their dependants, a review of the costs faced by medical researchers through the NHS surcharge and consideration of exemption. An option to spread fees over the lifetime of a visa to reduce up-front payments should be considered, along with an improved, digitised system to streamline visa applications and prepare for an expected increase in demand. I really hope that the Minister and the Government will listen to this sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. Our creative industries are hugely successful, generating over £111 billion for the UK economy. Over the past decade, the sector has grown twice as fast as the UK economy as a whole and is part of a bigger creative economy employing more than 3 million people and generating value across the whole supply chain.
Music is a key component of our creative industries. UK Music’s inaugural Music by Numbers report revealed that in 2018 the UK music industry contributed £5.2 billion to the UK economy and that the total export revenue of the music industry was £2.7 billion. British artists account for one in eight albums sold around the world. Music tourism made a £4.5 billion contribution to the UK economy in 2018.
Given the unique nature of the sector, the high volume of freelancers, micro-businesses and performance and project-based work, it is vital that any new visa system is both shaped by and tailored to the creative industries. This is primarily a services and content-driven sector, so the ability to tour and easily move the people, equipment and materials they travel with is vital.
For many roles, too, there is a shortage of applicants with the required skills, experience or qualifications. The UK is a prime destination for the production of music, offering globally recognised recording studios, composers and performers. Our music producers are used by international musicians. Not only does this ensure a continued influx of talent into the UK; it also creates employment opportunities for UK-based music producers, performers, engineers, music technicians and so on.
The market for touring musicians and composers is extremely competitive, and the UK needs to be easily accessible to continue to attract international talent for continued global investment in the UK. As the Minister is aware, and as I and others argued on Second Reading, the creative sector wants to see the Government provide a simple way for European Union musicians and other artists to tour in the UK, and request reciprocity in the trade negotiations. This would mean extending the permitted paid engagement scheme, allowing for multiple visits and permit-free festival arrangements for EU citizens, and for multiple visits and the seeking of a reciprocal touring visa with the EU to enable creators and performers to travel temporarily and to take their equipment with them, tax free.
The UK already offers visa-free entry, including for work purposes, to non-visa nationals. However, the scope of that route for non-visa nationals is too restrictive, and it does not provide any certainty, because ultimately, it is down to the discretion of the UK border official to assess whether the musician is qualified to perform the paid engagement, or that the paid engagement relates to their area of expertise, qualification or occupation. The details provided by the UK Government in the context of the UK points-based immigration system require further clarification of the status of musicians.
European musicians need to be able to tour without restrictions. This includes the transportation of their equipment, and it applies not only to performing musicians but also to song writers, composers, performers and producers, who often travel for work-related purposes. The crew—the trusted people whom musicians rely on when touring—need to be expressly included within simplified touring provisions. This affects UK musicians touring Europe as well as European Union or EEA musicians touring the UK. So we need clarity in any trade agreement that performers and their equipment can tour throughout the European Union without restrictions. Offering a simple solution to musicians or composers intending to perform in the UK would provide a good negotiating position to ensure a favourable system with the EU and other countries, based on reciprocity.
At present, because of freedom of movement for people, UK performers can play a concert in Amsterdam one night, then simply travel to Paris the next night, with no associated costs or red tape. Following the end of the transition period, this freedom will end for UK musicians, unless there are appropriate measures in place to support touring musicians, composers and so on. Countries such as France have traditionally required work permits for performances by artists from non-EU countries. A new reciprocal system is needed post-transition, to ensure that musicians and their crew can operate across Europe in an economic and unbureaucratic way, preserving vital economic and cultural links.
Costly bureaucracy will make touring simply unviable for many artists, putting the development of future globally leading UK talent at risk. This has become even more urgent following the social distancing measures and other restrictions imposed on live events. Most musicians, composers and everyone else involved in the successful organisation of live music events are self-employed or operate as small and medium-sized businesses. Social distancing restrictions will render impossible any economically viable live events at least until the end of 2020, with catastrophic consequences for the live music sector. Based on the figures for live music in UK Music’s Music By Numbers report, the loss to the sector will be at least £900 million.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and will speak in the same area. I will speak to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I have added my name, and to my own Amendment 75. I am particularly indebted to the Incorporated Society of Musicians for its briefing.
There is considerable overlap between these two amendments, particularly if one understands the term “business”, as used in my amendment, to be business in any form. I will return to that point in a moment.
I wish to associate myself with a passionate and inevitably elegiac speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on the first group of amendments on Monday. While some people did vote to limit permanent immigration to this country, they did not vote for their own movement—the movement of UK citizens—around Europe to travel, work or study abroad to be curtailed, or for temporary visits in either direction to be affected. But the side of the argument that, “What we do to others will be done to us”, has been almost entirely ignored, and continues to be, even though the loss of free movement will have a direct effect on the livelihoods of British workers—including those resident in the UK—unless an agreement is reached.
I did have a little trouble getting the third limb of my amendment, regarding reciprocal arrangements, into the amendment. I could only do so—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones could with his amendment—with the preceding phrase “for the purposes of comparison”, even though we are discussing the direct effects of the Bill as things stand.
The second thing that has been to a large extent ignored and greatly underestimated is our services sector, which depends on free movement. This is extraordinary, because we are, and have been for some time, primarily a services nation. Services are responsible for 80% of our GDP and just over half the UK’s services exports are to Europe, our closest neighbour.
My amendment would cover many areas, from engineers to IT and the creative sector, all of whom have concerns about the effect of the loss of free movement and, consequentially, the essential importance of a mobility framework between the UK and the EU. I think we will discuss this when we debate the Trade Bill. Of course, the experience of all these sectors in the UK ought also to be providing a basis for the immigration arrangements of those visiting our country for similar purposes.
The UK’s creative services before Covid were, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, worth over £111 billion a year and they employ over 3 million people. I gently remind the Government that the UK’s music industry alone—just one part of the sector—is worth almost four times as much as the fishing industry and is important too, as the whole of the creative sector is, in terms of soft power. If fishing, important though that industry is, is holding up a trade deal in other areas such as services, I wonder whether the Government are losing their sense of perspective about what is important in the round—I emphasise: in the round—for this country.
There is a particular concern for the performing arts, including music, whose business in Europe is touring, although not exclusively so. Has the Minister seen the ISM’s 2020 report How Open is the UK for the Music Business? It shows that the current immigration system, which is intended to be applied to EU nationals in the new year, is not fit for purpose. Specifically, this includes the permitted paid engagement route—it is not being applied in the manner that, I admit, I helped to negotiate—the standard visitor route and the tier 5 temporary worker, creative and sporting visa route. All those routes have been criticised by artists, promoters, tour managers, music agents and festival organisers. It has become increasingly difficult for non-EEA musicians to obtain visas or to work in the UK, and indeed the same is true of other areas of the creative sector. If this is to be the basis of a reciprocal agreement, things do not bode well.
From our perspective, it is essential that an arrangement is made with the EU rather than having to go through the nightmare of doing this with 27 individual countries. The recommendation of the Incorporated Society of Musicians is that either the commitments of mode 4 should be extended to include performing or that a multi-entry touring visa, valid for two years and covering the EU, is introduced and that EU nationals are treated in a similar vein. It is becoming clear that mode 4’s conventional interpretation of business activity is too narrow.
Also, as a result of the loss of the four freedoms, the Government need urgently to negotiate a cultural exemption for the temporary transportation of instruments and equipment or cover the cost of carnets, scrap plans to introduce a charge for musical instrument certificates, maintain the health insurance, ensure that the A1 certificate system continues to be recognised in the EU, and expand the list of CITES-designated points of entry and exit. Transportation by ferry will not be possible between Belfast and the mainland. I hope that all this is being looked at.
It is also important to understand that there is an inherent sense of reciprocity in our creative sector—which I am sure is true of other areas considered in this grouping—which stands apart from reciprocity as a necessary part of a trade agreement. Much of this is about an exchange of ideas and culture, which is one reason why it is so difficult for many of us to accept the loss of freedom of movement. Nevertheless, in the long term, the better the arrangements we make for our temporary visitors, the greater will be the benefits for us. Some of the arrangements that I have mentioned will apply also to other services, but the performing arts provide an example of some of the widest range of concerns.
Amendments 75 and 69, like others in this group, ask the Government to develop an evidence base to inform later decision-making. The problem is that time is not on our side. The arts in particular, perhaps more than any other area, have been knocked for six by Covid. It is essential that there is an arrangement for our creative sector by the end of the year, otherwise that sector in particular will suffer a double whammy. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, expressed it very well on Monday when he said that while
“we are legislating in the dark for the withdrawal of many rights of EU citizens coming here, it is also true that we are legislating in the dark for the rights that we are going to be taking away from UK citizens that they can currently exercise in respect of their travel and legitimate business on the continent.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 568.]
We are in the dark at the moment. I hope very much that that will not continue to be the case and that we will see some light and hear positive assurances in the next few weeks.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, within this grouping, I support amendments that protect reciprocal rights of United Kingdom citizens and those of EEA countries and Switzerland. Following current changes regarding immigration, these include the need for regular impact assessments on skills shortages, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Amendment 59; the emphasis of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Amendment 75, on assisting arrangements for short-term EEA and Swiss nationals for business purposes; equally to do so, as advocated in Amendment 69 by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, to achieve free movement of persons involved in arts and entertainment activities; and to do the same, as urged in Amendment 97 by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, for members and representatives of faith communities. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also reminds us, in Amendment 34, of the importance of continuous
“recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom”.
I come now to my own Amendment 76 on
“Leave to enter for education, research, training and student exchange”.
It goes without saying that, from the Middle Ages, when it was notably in evidence, free movement in education has always been part of the United Kingdom’s and Europe’s culture and expectations.
Nevertheless, when, shortly before it was created in 1949, Winston Churchill urged a Council of Europe for the healing of wounds and the bringing together of minds, by implication he also did so in terms of education, research, training and student exchange. As a result, in 1953, the United Kingdom signed the European Convention on the Equivalence of Diplomas leading to Admission to Universities as well as the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications.
Predating our membership of the European Union as this did, yet continuing our proactive membership of the Council of Europe, which we do, the case for following Churchill’s advice in these respects is all the stronger now that we leave the European Union.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees and is able to accept Amendment 76.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 97 in the name, specifically, of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, on whose behalf I speak today. However, before I do so, I express my sympathies with the other amendments in this grouping with deep concern particularly around the creative arts and the music industry. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Hooper, who have kindly added their names to Amendment 97, for their support on this issue.
I state a simple fact when I say that faith cannot be contained by borders and that faith groups do not fit neatly within national boundaries. They are both local and global communities made up of individuals united in common belief and sharing in common structures of organised life. Our shared convictions and organisational structures reach across nations and continents. The migration of people is an inevitable result.
This issue that this amendment addresses—namely, that the Government should be aware of implications that the Bill has for faith communities—was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments on that day, when she stated that the Government greatly valued the contribution that migrants made to faith communities in this country.
In principle, this amendment is as simple as ensuring that individuals can come to the UK for reasons connected to their faith where needed. As the Minister said at Second Reading, changes were made to the visa system in 2019 for religious workers and ministers of religion. The new requirement prohibited tier 5 religious workers from filling roles as ministers of religion and, instead, individuals had to apply directly through the tier 2 sub-category for ministers of religion.
Previously, most Roman Catholic dioceses had used the tier 5 religious worker visas for priests to come here on supply placements while parish priests were away for short periods of time because of sickness, training or annual leave. These supply placements are essential to ensuring that worship continues, while keeping parish activities running smoothly.
Furthermore, other faiths, particularly Hindus and Sikhs, have used this visa because there is a lack of religious ministers within the UK, so they needed support from abroad. Unfortunately, the requirement introduced in 2019 has more than doubled the costs incurred. For small faith groups and those without significant funding, this is compromising their opportunity to practise their faith and will disproportionately affect the poorest areas and communities.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, while I associate myself with all the amendments in the group, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 69 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing it so comprehensively. In the UK’s creative sector we have something that really can claim to be world-leading. As we have heard, the sector makes a significant contribution to the UK’s GVA, to employment and to services exports. Also, unlike many parts of industry, this sector has for some years been growing in every region of the UK. Therefore, in addition to its considerable contribution to the UK’s cultural, social and economic well-being, the creative sector can play an important role in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Yet it is a sector at risk, because its success has been built over the last three decades or more on the four freedoms enabled by membership of the EU, with ease of mobility the freedom most highly prized by artists and cultural organisations. I worked in this sector for over 30 years as artist, producer, commissioner, manager and director, and I lived the benefits of that mobility. It enabled me to develop my artistry and skills within different environments and in front of different audiences, to build valuable creative networks, to be challenged and inspired by artists trained in different ways, and to innovate in the spaces where different voices, values and views come together. The UK’s artistic and cultural success has been underpinned by these easy interactions across borders.
That success has also been underpinned by ease of access to talent from our nearest neighbours. A quarter of the occupations on the tier 2 shortage occupation list are in the cultural and creative industries. In the most economically productive areas of the sector, domestic skills gaps mean that 30% of staff have been recruited from the EU, while EU workers fill gaps in less lucrative subsectors like my own—dance—and museums. The skills gap is so pronounced and so specialist that, even had we started on the day after the referendum, we would still not have been able to train up a homegrown workforce to fill the gap by the time the current supply route closes down.
We have heard repeatedly that this new points-based system will allow access to so-called high-skilled workers and the brightest and the best. This amendment creates an obligation on government not only to test that assertion but also to test the impact on the bright young talents of the future. According to the latest report from the Migration Advisory Committee, several creative and artistic jobs may be deemed “high-skill, low-pay occupations”—something you do not really need to tell me. Many young artists like me do not train at universities, let alone go on to the postgraduate qualifications that would earn us an additional 10 points, and our salary levels are certainly not a proxy for our skills.
Given this, emerging artists are unlikely to accrue the necessary points for entry. I have known several dancers from EU countries who took jobs at the bottom of the ladder at basic salaries, spoke little English and certainly had no PhD, but we had the privilege and the pleasure of watching them develop from promising talent to international superstar, becoming valuable agents of soft power for the UK and, in some cases, achieving the status of national treasure. However, if they were applying for entry next year, I am not sure that they would notch up the crucial 70 points that they would require.
The Government have also been clear that they do not intend to create an immigration route for the self-employed. The creative workforce is 38% freelance and we have heard, over and over again, in this Chamber about the critical role freelancers play in the cultural ecology. The Creative Industries Federation has said that:
“Given the project … based nature of our sector”
and its scale, bringing the route for temporary workers from the EU in line with rules currently applying to non-EEA nationals will be,
“hugely damaging for the creative industries … 95% of creative businesses employ fewer than 10 people”.
These businesses are reliant on specialist temporary workers to provide essential services on an occasional basis, often at very short notice. As the cost for each individual temporary worker’s visa is likely to be over £200, the financial and administrative burden this presents could be overwhelming.
An Arts Council survey of almost 1,000 stakeholders found that the top priority for arts organisations, post Brexit, was to ensure the continuity of short-term mobility between the UK and the EU. This was even more important to them than replacing EU funding, even though this has been worth approximately £40 million each year.
In leaving the EU, we are leaving behind our automatic right to work across borders. That was our decision, and the curtain has fallen on that particular debate. This amendment would shine a spotlight on the impact of this decision on one of the UK’s most productive and successful sectors and help ensure we do all we can to sustain and enhance its success into the future. As someone whose career owes so much to that easy and reciprocal mobility, it was a pleasure and indeed an obligation to put my name to this amendment.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I too have considerable sympathy with all the amendments in this grouping. However, I am happy to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, as a co-mover of Amendment 97, and will confine my remarks to that new clause. This is, as the right reverend Prelate had said, a probing amendment. We hope that the Government can use this debate to clarify the next steps and perhaps give us some idea of a timetable.
I appreciate that the definition of faith communities may give us some difficulties but, as a Roman Catholic, I wish to present some of the challenges facing the Catholic Church in relation to the changes being introduced in this Bill. The Catholic Church is, after all, a very international body. Movement between different countries within religious orders, and for educational and other purposes, is an integral part of that internationalism.
In the course of preparing my brief for this debate, I have learnt a lot about the various categories of visas, something I was previously unaware of. I can fully appreciate what a struggle it is to cope with all the requirements. As the right reverend Prelate has said, most Catholic diocese have previously used tier 5 religious worker visas, for the reasons that he stated. Supply placements are essential, as they allow us to continue attending mass, while also keeping parish activities running smoothly. The new requirement, introduced in 2019, was for anybody who was preaching to use tier 2 minister of religion visas. That has more than doubled the cost incurred by parishes arranging supply cover. For some parishes, this is unsustainable and that of course compromises people’s opportunity to practise their faith.
Furthermore, seminaries that conduct formation in English are not necessarily recognised by the Home Office as meeting the English language requirement under the tier 2 route. This means that many priests, who may have been educated to postgraduate level in English, are nevertheless required to take a language test, with extra logistical and cost implications. Unless some changes are made, the situation will of course be further aggravated as a result of the end of free movement following Brexit. Priests coming from European Union countries to provide supply cover will now also be subject to the same regime.
This new clause is intended to give the Government the opportunity to keep Parliament informed, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about government thinking on this issue.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is not with us, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I am sympathetic to the amendments which have been debated and explained so clearly and positively. I particularly support Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to which I have attached my name. I shall be brief.
One of the greatest opportunities for young people is to pursue education, research, training and student exchanges in another country. It is not always young people, but they make up the majority. That is the purpose of this amendment. We would like these opportunities to be entirely on a reciprocal basis, and I hope if we pass this amendment and establish this principle now, other countries in the EU and elsewhere will follow suit.
Amendment 34 on the cost of visas was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Clearly, if the visas are so costly, that would negate the purpose of this amendment, so I would like to see the amendments working together. Perhaps, we should put a clause in about the cost of visas, but the way it is now is fairly clear.
Although this opportunity for travel rose enormously in the post-war years, it is not a function of the EU, though the EU did help. Free movement has existed for the purposes of education and research for many centuries in Europe. It is well within the European tradition, not dependent on the structural changes within the EU. As a result of the EU, however, all these things was greatly enhanced. I hope that this freedom of movement and educational travel will be part of our young people’s future in the years to come, even when we are not inside the EU.
We all know and have met young people for whom the opportunity to travel for study and education is a supreme benefit. It is something many young people want to do, and some of them are dismayed that this door might close for them when we left the EU. It is important to ensure that our departure from the EU does not mean such an opportunity is closed to young people but is still open.
I repeat that it is not just young people who want this education but older ones. It is part of the vision we want for Europe. The noble Lord who moved the amendment referred to Winston Churchill and his importance in the Council of Europe, and we have a lot to learn from that and other international organisations. I am a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly myself, and these other international organisations can help further international education in the broader sense.
This is an amendment about vision. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 69 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I thank them for their valuable insights in supporting this amendment.
I particularly want to speak about the arts in Scotland. The Edinburgh Festival and Fringe is the world’s largest, and probably greatest, arts festival. It normally runs for nearly a month, with around 55,000 performances of over 3,500 shows across more than 300 venues. The cancellation of this year’s festival probably cost over £1 billion in lost receipts, with a further £200 million lost by the Fringe and much more in spin-off activities. Orchestras, opera, dance, rock and pop have all suffered loss and all depend on international performers. As a result of Covid-19, we need to ensure that adequate support for Scotland’s arts enables them to survive and that when performers return, travel and visa restrictions are as frictionless as possible.
I am advised that Capital Theatres in Edinburgh has incurred huge losses as a result of the cancellation of the festival and has relied almost entirely on furlough payments for income since then. Apparently the Scottish Government are sitting on the cash allocated by the UK Government for support of the arts in Scotland, so will the Minister say what discussions there have been between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to ensure that this money is allocated in a fair and timely fashion to keep the arts afloat?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate that much has already been said about this group of amendments, but I wish to make a few brief remarks on them. First, on Amendment 69 I accept that the creative industries are having a challenging time. I accept that there are some extremely wealthy people in the creative industries, but the vast majority of people in those industries have in the past been living on average incomes, and that was before the serious impact of Covid-19. Many have not been able to do their job at home, never mind not being able to travel more generally to perform their skills. How do the Government intend to underpin the ability of our best musicians and most talented creative artists to work across European member states, and their fellow artists within the creative industry to work here?
I shall make some remarks on Amendment 97. I suppose I should declare an interest as a minister of the gospel. I support the overriding principle of monitoring closely the impact of government policies on the rights and activities of those with deeply held faith across our society. It is important that we ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged. At the same time, I accept that those coming into the UK to preach or to carry out pastoral work should be held to similar standards to those in other professions, in terms of their grasp of the English language and the wider contribution they make to society. Northern Ireland has a large and vibrant faith community. There is a strong record, ethos and desire among local people of all ages to travel abroad to do missionary work, to spread the good news of the gospel of redeeming grace and make a difference to the lives of children and young people less advantaged than themselves. It is imperative that the Government continue to facilitate flexible routes for people across the United Kingdom to carry out their religious and humanitarian work.
It is also the duty of the Government to impact-assess the effects of their measures on the freedom of religion and assembly on an ongoing basis. Over the centuries, the United Kingdom has been richly blessed by the representatives of faith communities being able freely to enter our land for purposes related to their faith. I want to ensure that there shall be no hindrance to the exercise of our religious liberties; indeed, the battle for religious freedom was fought and won at great cost and we must guard it lest it be undermined in any way.
Finally, I will make a few remarks about Amendment 34. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be vigilant about the effects of these regulations on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom. We need to be sure that the United Kingdom is an attractive place for such international research and innovation staff because we are regarded as a world leader in many fields of science and research. This legislation must not hinder nor act as an impediment to our research endeavours. Only the brightest and best will ensure that we continue to lead and not simply follow other nations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. I support Amendments 69 and 75 and the idea of reports on how things work out on arts, entertainment and business visitors. I believe that we should cover UK business interests in the EEA and Switzerland substantively and not just for comparison purposes, as proposed in the amendments. Talented endeavour must flow both ways. Reciprocity, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is what we need. Business growth is vital to Britain, especially at this difficult time, and the arts and entertainment, hit especially badly by Covid-19, are some of our most important and vibrant business sectors in normal times right across the UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said.
Frequent business travel is also important both ways, more generally in services and in particular in financial services and retail, which I know well from my own experience. We are facing a novel situation and it is right to assess things as we go along, particularly in areas so sensitive to changes in the rules on free movement. Reports to Parliament would help us to keep an eye on the practical problems that may arise with the wide range of changes that the Government are planning. I am not convinced that the economists on MAC can do this for us.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there can be absolutely no doubt that two aspects of life that remain great about Britain are: first, the quality of our cultural and artistic life, not least music, and the richness of what has been built up by so many musicians; and, secondly, the outstanding nature of our universities. I have had the privilege to be involved in the governance of Newcastle, Lancaster and the LSE. Indeed, I remain an Emeritus governor at the LSE. What is important about that tradition in our universities is its inescapable dimension of international life. It is so much the international quality of what is going on in higher education that makes it so rich.
Let us take the LSE, for example. I went to the LSE as an undergraduate quite soon after the Second World War. There had been an outstanding contribution and influx of knowledge, culture and perspective from emigrés from Nazi-occupied Germany. We must not let anything undermine that tradition of richness, with its inherent involvement by its openness towards the world community. The quality of higher education itself simply cannot be separated from the contribution made by so many people from different traditions being part of it.
I strongly support this group of amendments and hope that the Government will be able, in spite of all their other misdemeanours, to see the opportunity here for a real investment in our future.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 59 but, in fact, having listened to the debate and read them a bit more closely, I in fact support most of the amendments in this group. Most of them refer to two things that I care very much about. The first is holding our Government to account, which seems to be something that gets increasingly difficult as days go by. Secondly, I feel very strongly that, if you do not assess things, you are not going to get things right. Clearly, all the issues in this group need assessment. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, we need an evidence base or we simply cannot know whether we are doing the right thing. Almost all these amendments seem like common sense, and I hope that the Government listen.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I add my strong support for Amendment 69 in this group with regard particularly to the impact on musicians. I shall try not to repeat too much of the detail of the points already so powerfully made by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble friends Lord Clancarty and Lady Bull.
Through a combination of Brexit and Covid-19, musicians have suffered a perfect storm of career-threatening body blows. Covid-19 has made many forms of musical performance impossible and severely restricted most others. On top of that, many musicians depend for a significant part of their income on touring or performing overseas, often at short notice, which may be severely affected as a result of the ending of free movement. As we have heard, that impact could take a variety of forms relating to obtaining visas, transporting instruments, obtaining health cover or, indeed, avoiding having to pay double social security contributions.
I do not need to remind the House, particularly after this debate so far, that this is a sector that not only creates enormous economic, social and cultural value for the whole UK but has suffered perhaps more than any other from the impact of Covid-19, with little prospect of any significant improvement before November at the earliest, for those who can survive that long. We owe it to the sector to ensure that the ending of free movement for EU musicians under this Bill, and any resulting reciprocal arrangements introduced by other countries, do not impose additional constraints on the ability of musicians to resume their activity on a meaningful scale, not least because our cultural ties with Europe and the rest of the world will be even more important after political links with the EU are severed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, a lot of the speeches have understandably focused on the problems that are likely to arise in the arts and the creative sectors, including for musicians. My noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and other noble Lords including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have also focused in particular on the arts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, rightly raised the problem of freelancers and people who are needed at short notice and for short periods who have specialist skills that lend themselves to that sort of freelance and self-employed status. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others rightly stressed the need for multiple-visit visas, touring visas and a reciprocal system, because this cannot work unless there is close co-operation with our EU partners.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a good point. It is not that we wish the fisheries sector anything but well but, given the weight of fishing in the economy, which is a tiny percentage, well under 1%, compared with the contribution of services in general, which is over 80% of our economy, the disproportionate attention that fishing is getting in the Brexit negotiations for the future relationship—if those negotiations, as we hope, are going somewhere—is, quite honestly, incomprehensible.
The arts—the creative sector—are extraordinarily valuable, not just to London but to other parts of the country, including Scotland, and perhaps Edinburgh in particular. Other sectors are rightly mentioned in the amendments, from business to tech, from research to faith communities, and these all demand a great deal of attention from the Government.
The organisation techUK has stressed that tech talent is in huge demand globally, so any friction makes the UK less attractive. Currently, apparently, a tier 2 visa can take 23 weeks to process, so techUK urges that the Government ensure that the new points-based system significantly reduces that time.
techUK also makes a good point about how the fee system needs to be transparent and easy to understand. We have discussed the level of fees and whether the Government should have delegated powers in setting them, which some of us are worried about. Transparency is important. techUK says the current system is fragmented and the plethora of different charges and add-ons acts as a deterrent to hiring talent because, in addition to salaries, total costs include the sponsor licence, the visa, the immigration skills charge and the immigration health surcharge. This makes recruiting overseas workers more challenging.
The ending of free movement will have a huge impact. For EU nationals, where the cost to business has been zero, it rises to £8,400 for a five-year sponsored visa. That is for the main applicant only, not for any family members. It will be £9,500 if proposed increases to the immigration health surcharge take effect. This is much greater than the cost in Australia, France, Germany and Canada. It will be a big deterrent for talent to come here in the future. techUK asks for transparency over where the money is going for other charges, such as the immigration skills charge. That would give employers confidence in the future immigration system. It is a fair request.
The City of London is obviously very worried, but financial services are not just about the City. The sector accounts for considerable employment throughout the country, in cities such as Leeds as well as Edinburgh, which I have already mentioned in relation to the arts. The City is worried about future changes to the Immigration Rules getting no real parliamentary scrutiny. It points out that the UK’s status as the leading professional service centre is the key contributor in attracting other professions and workers. There is a clustering effect, particularly evident in fintech and other tech sectors.
There is a great deal of anxiety in the arts and other sectors of the economy over how the system will work for them. There is a great deal of trepidation. Another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, was that many arts organisations are very small. They cannot bear the administrative costs, the visa costs and the staff time to deal with all this.
Finally, the Government have to think about the children. It always used to be that the wives—these days one would say the spouses—got forgotten. A lot of people will not move unless their spouse can get a job as well. That is quite understandable when there are two qualified professional people in a couple. That goes for the children as well. The treatment of children—another subject we have discussed this evening—will be a factor in the success of the future immigration system. I hope to hear some reassurance from the Minister that these issues, so important to our artistic and economic life, are being given at least the same level of consideration as the fisheries sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has made a compelling case for his amendment to be agreed. Almost every day in the media we hear about decisions, actions and the direction of travel of the Government in this area, and mostly it causes me and many others great concern. My noble friend set out the concerns of the science and research communities that the actions of the Government will do irreparable damage and that our competitors in the United States, Germany, France and elsewhere frankly cannot believe their luck. As my noble friend said, these people are vital to the future of our country.
We need an impact assessment on the effect that these regulations will have on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the UK. In my opinion, to move forward is very unwise, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, will see the strength of the argument in this respect.
What is not acceptable is for Government to hide behind saying that this is the will of the British people. No one voted to put the NHS under further strain, or to put at risk world-leading research or the ability of the United Kingdom to remain a place where talented people from the European Union can come and advance our knowledge and international reputation, ensuring that we remain at the top table. That is without talking about interference in the referendum by foreign powers, which alarms every democrat in this country.
Let us be clear: this has the potential to be an absolute disaster and, I suspect, the focus of another U-turn when the reality and enormity of the decisions being made without proper assessment of the risks involved finally hit home for the Government.
Amendment 59, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is one that seeks to help the Government and Parliament by requiring the Secretary of State to present a report on how the changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected skills shortages in the labour market. This power expires after five years, as by that point we will have a clear understanding of the direction of travel and, I hope, will have acted on the issues raised. I suspect that this will not find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I also suspect that this is exactly the work that the Secretary of State will have to ask his officials to do, as the Government will need to understand the effect of their policy decisions and then take corrective action if it is to the detriment of the UK.
I am supportive of Amendment 69 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out quite startling figures—the billions of pounds at stake if we get this wrong. In this debate it is hard to understand what benefits there are to the UK. As we have heard in the discussion, huge damage is being done and the Government are, frankly, struggling to find mitigations. They are just suggesting that we should not worry because it will all be alright on the night.
I want to pay tribute to the work of the Musicians’ Union, Bectu and Equity in standing up for their members, and to other organisations such as the Incorporated Society of Musicians—which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—mentioned, UK Music and many other organisations that have raised the concerns in the arts and the creative and entertainment industries. We cannot overstate the additional problems and risks to those individuals affected, and to our future prosperity as a nation, if we mess this up.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right that we seem to have forgotten that what we do to others will be done to us. It would be hugely damaging and, frankly, unforgivable of the Government not to fully understand the enormity of the risks to our economy and individuals and not to take action.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments for the passion with which they introduced them and all noble Lords who have participated in, notwithstanding the hour, an interesting and impassioned debate.
Many of these amendments seek to provide a statutory requirement to report on or evaluate the impacts of new immigration measures, and I am pleased to say that I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the Government’s position and that of the noble Lords who moved and spoke to these amendments. It is absolutely right that new policies should be monitored and properly evaluated, and their effects considered in full. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, powerful arguments have been made on that point throughout our debate. That is particularly true when the changes are as significant as the ones we are introducing in January with our new points-based immigration system.
That is why we have published a detailed impact assessment to accompany the Bill and deliberately—and unusually—ensured that it not only covers the provisions of this Bill but the anticipated impact of the new immigration system. I make this point to illustrate that the Government are certainly committed to understanding the impacts of the changes we are proposing and bringing about. The Government are also preparing an impact assessment which will provide further analysis of the new skilled work rules. The Regulatory Policy Committee is currently considering this assessment, and it will be published alongside the rules.
Furthermore, as now, we will continue to publish detailed quarterly immigration statistics, ensuring that they make clear how many people are coming under each main visa route. The Home Office is also working with statisticians in the Office for National Statistics and other government departments to make better use of the data we hold to enhance our understanding of migration in the round.
The highly skilled and talented people mentioned in this debate, whether researchers, ministers of religion, artists or entrepreneurs, are all people whom we warmly welcome and encourage to come to the UK. We recognise the varied and very important contributions they make to our society, communities and economy, which is why we continue to offer dedicated immigration routes to cater for them.
Turning specifically to artists, entertainers and musicians, I appreciate the passion which many noble Lords have expressed for the UK’s creative sector and its unquestionable success—it is a passion I share—particularly in the current challenging climate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, we all greatly missed the Edinburgh Festival this summer. This is why we have a range of options available to people working in the creative industries to help them come to the UK.
Once free movement ends, we intend to treat EEA citizens as non-visa nationals for the purposes of short visits, meaning they can come to the UK to perform at events and take part in competitions and auditions without needing to apply for a visa. Friends of mine who work in the creative industries and frequently travel internationally for auditions have made that point to me directly. For those who wish to stay in the UK for longer, the current tier 5 route for temporary creative workers will continue to cater as it does now, permitting a broad range of creative workers to live and work in the UK for up to 12 months at a time. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and others have rightly urged us, we are determined to get this right and ensure that these talented people choose to work and base themselves in the UK.
In addition to keeping labour market data under careful scrutiny to monitor pressures, Home Office analysts will lead a comprehensive evaluation of the new immigration system. This research will involve analysis of migration system data and the first-hand experience of the people using it. It will be conducted over a number of years so that we can benefit from proper insights and make any necessary improvements.
While independent scrutiny plays a vital role, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, I part company with some of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening, as I do not believe we need to create a new mechanism for this. We are very fortunate that we have the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been mentioned many times already and which is widely recognised for its expertise and independence. It was established more than a decade ago and has been of great benefit to successive Governments, and to successive Parliaments in holding those Governments to account, by producing detailed and thoughtful reports and recommendations. Long may it continue to do so. As noble Lords will recall, we have expanded the Migration Advisory Committee’s remit so that it not only responds to specific commissions but also has the ability to comment on any aspect of immigration policy as it sees fit. In line with that, the MAC will be producing an expanded annual report. I therefore see no reason to replicate what we already have, particularly where it could risk duplicating or undermining the MAC’s independent and impartial rigour.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, spoke with great ecumenism on people of all faiths. He raised the point about the particular impact of these policies on smaller faith groups. Of course, any changes to policy have to take into account the obligations under the Equality Act, which, of course, has been done following consultation with a wide variety of groups from people of all faiths, as the right reverend Prelate has acknowledged. It is certainly right that those playing a leading role in faith groups—whether that is in our churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras or temples—should be required to have a strong command of the English language. That is so that they can best enjoy their time here in the UK and so that the wider community can benefit from that time here. We recognise that faith is a calling and that the terms of appointment differ from traditional employment models, and that is why our dedicated routes do not require specific qualifications or a salary threshold and why we want to make absolutely clear that people of all faiths will certainly be welcome here to do their important work through our new system.
My noble friend Lady Hooper mentioned the discrepancy between the fees paid in tier 1 and tier 5. It is true that not all of those who are now using the tier 2 visa want or, indeed, need those additional benefits that tier 2 provides, but the Government, as I hope she will understand, must balance a number of factors, including the administrative costs of processing an application, the benefits likely to be accrued by a successful applicant and the wider costs of the immigration system. However, the options we provide for religious workers allow individual organisations to make the appropriate choice for their particular circumstances.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the English language test for Roman Catholic priests who have completed their seminary training in English. Exemptions currently exist where applicants have been awarded a recognised degree. If not, I hope she will understand that it is important that a priest’s ability to speak English to a sufficient standard can be verified; their standards in Latin can be left to their diocese.
I turn to Amendment 76, moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Dundee and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It has given noble Lords the opportunity to discuss the important issue of immigration for the purpose of education, training, research and exchange. The Government strongly welcome those who want to come to the UK for those purposes. I share my noble friend’s aim to ensure that there are means by which talented individuals from the EU can continue to come to the UK to participate in our world-leading academic sector. The UK is proudly one of the world’s leading destinations for international education already, and hundreds of thousands of students choose to come to the UK to study. I recognise, however—and the Government more widely recognise—that we must not stand still if we are to continue to be such a destination, particularly as we have seen this year, given the impact of Covid-19.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister. I first call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not mind if I intervene briefly before he speaks.
I do not think that the Minister can be in any doubt about the powerful concerns that noble Lords have expressed during this debate. First, I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on my Amendment 69. Of course, it is part of a pattern across the board in other areas, including universities and the tech industries, which my noble friend Lady Ludford mentioned as well.
I thank the Minister for his response but he is placing an awful lot of weight on the Migration Advisory Committee making an impact assessment in this area. I will read extremely carefully what he has to say but the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, had it right when she expressed doubt over whether that was the right body to be carrying out this kind of assessment: a rather cold, hard, economic assessment that does not take into account many of the other surrounding circumstances involving our creative industries.
The Minister thinks that the amendment, by creating this kind of assessment and report, would replicate what is already there. I beg to differ: this is a separate, and rather different, arrangement, particularly with respect to its consideration of reciprocity. A number of noble Lords were in agreement that reciprocity was extremely important. I thought that the testimonies of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, were particularly important; they spoke from their personal experience. That is not something that the Migration Advisory Committee would deal with.
I will certainly read with interest and care what the Minister has had to say but we may wish to come back to this really important subject—which has gained such support across the House—on Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. He should be in no doubt of the importance that noble Lords place on these issues, whether it is innovation and research, the arts and creative industries, our universities or our faith communities. I think it very likely that we will come back to these matters on Report.
Would the Minister be prepared to ask his office to go through the debate in the next few days? He could write to us all, as there may be some more points to which we have not had full answers. This may actually assist the Minister; these things might not come back at the next stage.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments. They reinforce the passion of the advocacy made by noble Lords this evening, across a very wide range of sectors and subject areas. I absolutely will go through Hansard and ensure that I follow up on the range of points made in this long, but valuable and important, debate covering a number of important topics.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very good debate. It is good that so many noble Lords took part in the discussions. My Amendment 34, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel, is clearly concerned with maintaining our thriving life science sector, particularly by looking at the current fee structure, which is likely to be so inhibiting to many people coming to the UK.
However, the debate has clearly gone wider. We have heard about the importance of the movement of priests and faith leaders to this country, the movement of young people in education and travel, and of course the performing arts. As a patron of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and Charles Court Opera, I entirely sympathise with noble Lords who are concerned about the perilous state of the arts at the moment and who want to see it thrive in the future.
I see a direct link between the performing arts and scientific sectors. My noble friend Lord Judd pointed out that the UK excels at both. Both enjoy huge international reputations, both sectors enjoy many talented people coming from abroad, and many of our talented people go abroad as well. We are concerned that the impact of the Bill, the Home Office actions, the cost of visas and the associated health surcharge will be a great inhibitor of this in the future. As my noble friend Lord Kennedy said, our international competitors look at what we are doing and cannot believe their luck.
Obviously, I have listened very carefully to the Minister. In a sense his response was a technical one to say, “Well, you don’t need a further impact assessment because we’ve already done one, we’ve got another on the way, and we’ve got the MAC to help us as well.” Frankly, as regards the future of our life science sector and performance sector, the MAC is the last group of people that I would go to for advice. The problem with the Minister’s answer is that in giving a technical one, he has not really responded to the underlying concern that so many noble Lords have about the future of these highly important sectors.
Clearly, we will come back on Report, and I believe that the House of Lords is prepared to make it very clear to the Government that they need to do more to protect these sectors. Having said that, I thank all noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 39. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 39
Baroness Hamwee
“Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals
(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1052); (b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA), to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.(2) The Secretary of State may not detain P under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—(a) the Secretary of State must release P forthwith; and(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section (Initial detention: criteria and duration) are met.(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a limit on the length of time EEA or Swiss nationals may be held in immigration detention of 28 days.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
This is the first of many new clauses which noble Lords have tabled to become part of the Bill after Clause 4. I am moving Amendment 39, which is part of a package with Amendments 40, 41 and 94; all four should be read together. Also in this group is Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and in my name, which raises important aspects of detention.
As with other amendments, because the Bill relates to EEA and Swiss citizens, the amendments themselves are necessarily limited. It may seem unlikely that issues around detention will arise in their case but, as I said on an earlier amendment, it is not impossible that asylum will be sought in the UK from harsh regimes in some EU states. I mentioned Hungary and Poland, which are moving politically, and my noble friend Lord Paddick dealt with the attempted dismissal of that notice.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 70, which is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I also wish to support Amendments 39, 40, 41 and 94, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should also like to thank and commend the charity Medical Justice, which has briefed me on this amendment and has long worked in this field.
As I said at Second Reading, our use of segregation in detention is unique in Europe. It is usually achieved by placing detainees in a special unit in an immigration removal centre. Segregated detainees can be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. This treatment is described as inhuman when used on prisoners who have broken the law. How much worse is it, when used on innocent asylum seekers or people who are seeking to immigrate into this country?
During the preparation of Amendment 70, I had much discussion about the phrase “removal from association” which comes from the Detention Centre Rules 2001, when I meant, quite specifically, segregation. The Minister will, no doubt, point out that staff must be able to take action against detainees who are at risk of harming others or themselves. I hope that that eventuality is covered by the wording of the amendment. Segregation is often inappropriately used as a way to manage people with severe mental health conditions. This highlights the lack of medical treatment facilities in too many detention centres. Far from being used sparingly, data shows that in 2019 alone, there were over 900 cases of the use of segregation.
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has reported that 50% of adults detained are classified by the Home Office as “adults at risk”. Detention, an unnatural situation, is bound to cause deterioration in the mental health condition of a detainee. Segregation, being a most severe and, indeed, draconian measure, can only exacerbate that deterioration, which is why its use should be limited to 24 hours at most.
I must admit that the Minister confused me in her reply to the first group of amendments, discussed by the Committee on Monday. She said, first, that the whole point of this Bill is that the whole world is treated the same. She followed that almost immediately by saying that she did not think it was the right Bill to make any changes in enforcement, which would need to cover both EEA and non-EEA citizens, because it is limited to immigration changes as a result of our exit from the EU. I put it to her that the use of segregation affects the treatment of citizens of the whole world, as she put it, and is not limited to those from the EEA. I therefore ask whether it is included in the long-awaited review of the whole immigration system.
As a proud British citizen I was very sad to see, in this morning’s Times, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, questioning how this country could be trusted to abide by the legal obligation of an agreement that it had signed, and the chairman of the Justice Committee warning that the rule of law was non-negotiable. I fear that if we do not amend the way we currently detain immigrants, we shall lose, in addition to trust and respect for preserving the rule of law, any reputation that we have built up for the decent, humane and civilised way we treat people who want to come to this country. As I say, we are unique in Europe in using segregation on detainees.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we need to bring our proceedings to an end for this evening, so I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 14th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
This is day three in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 70, to which I was pleased to add my name, but I will first speak in support of other amendments which provide for a time limit for detention.
I first encountered this issue as a member of the inquiry into detention by the APPGs on Refugees and Migration, which reported in 2015. The evidence we received convinced me of the case. It is frustrating that, despite a wide consensus in favour of a time limit—including among a number of very senior Conservative MPs—we are still having to argue the case five years on. I hope that the Minister is not going to trot out the usual Home Office line that the law does not allow for indefinite detention, an assertion based on semantics. She knows full well that by “indefinite”, we mean “without fixed or specified limit”—to quote one dictionary definition.
It is the absence of a fixed or specified limit that is so problematic. In particular, it has been shown to contribute to serious mental distress among detainees, a point made in the literature review conducted for the original Shaw report, and reinforced by subsequent reports, including by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee and, most recently, by the Jesuit Refugee Service this year. That report emphasises the trauma experienced by detainees, which stretches beyond the period of detention itself and is relived indefinitely over the years to come. It found that the lack of a time limit laid down was particularly problematic, and that
“not knowing when one would be released was central to an uncertainty that pervaded the experience of detention. Both long detention and the indefinite nature of detention were also seen as increasing the injustice of its practice.”
When debate on this amendment started, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked the Committee to imagine how we would feel with that uncertainty—that draining away of hope. Gabby—not her real name—a woman helped by Women for Refugee Women, to which I pay tribute for its work in this area, put it powerfully. She said that
“indefinite detention destroys people. People who are imprisoned in detention already have mental health issues when they get locked up—and the longer you stay there, the worse it gets. My hair started falling out, and I had flashbacks to what happened to me before”—
she was referring to having been trafficked—
“Not knowing when you will be released had such an effect on me. I kept thinking: will I be kept here forever?”
I know the Minister will retort that no one is detained for ever—her definition of “indefinite”—but that is how it can feel when you do not know when it will end, which is the usual definition of “indefinite” in this context. Gabby was in Yarl’s Wood, and it is welcome that no woman is now being held there. Can the Minister say if any women are being detained elsewhere and, if so, where and how many? If she cannot answer now, will she write to the Committee afterwards?
The release of many detainees into the community in recent months demonstrates that detention does not have to play such a significant role in the immigration system—a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the other day. In this context, will the Minister update the Committee on how the alternatives to detention pilot is going?
Turning to Amendment 70, damage to mental health is a common thread in the case for all these amendments. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he introduced the amendment. Medical Justice, to which I am also grateful for a briefing, wrote about the “devastating” health impact of segregation. It says that it has been found to lead to increased rates of anxiety, perceptual disorder, hallucinations, paranoia and suicidal thoughts, as well as serious physiological effects. The mental health risks for those with pre-existing conditions and other vulnerabilities are especially high. In particular, anyone who has suffered segregation as part of past torture might be re-traumatised by it.
Medical Justice also makes the point that segregation can be counterproductive. The Government’s argument that restrictions on segregation would jeopardise IRCs’ safety and security serves to ignore the deeper systemic problems that contribute to the “need” to remove people from association—for example, poor standards of healthcare, abusive or bullying attitudes or behaviour, oppressive regimes and the impact of indefinite detention itself. If the Home Office addressed these systemic problems, fewer people might behave in such a way as to call for segregation. The Home Office does not publish data on the use of segregation of vulnerable people. Could the Minister explain what they do not and commit to publishing this data?
Finally, as I read the Minister’s complacent response to the amendment in the Commons Committee alongside the briefing for Medical Justice, it seemed like the Minister was living in a parallel universe from the organisation on the ground. Indeed, the Member who moved the amendment made a similar point. I am confident that the noble Baroness will not display the same complacency, but I hope she will accept that there is a real problem here that must be addressed, even if she is not willing to accept the amendment itself.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the campaign for a time limit on detention has deservedly gathered pace over the past 10 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, two parliamentary committees reporting in 2019—the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee—urged a 28-day limit. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made two important points. The first was that indefinite detention—the noble Baroness dealt with that term—
“causes distress and anxiety and can trigger mental illness and exacerbate mental health conditions where they already exist.”
Secondly, it pointed out that
“the lack of a time limit on immigration detention reduces the incentive for the Home Office to progress cases promptly which would reduce both the impact on detainees, and detention costs.”
It therefore called for a 28-day limit.
The Home Affairs Committee pointed out that some people are being held for more than three years, which is intolerable. It said:
“Failure to provide justification for continued detention will only compound detainees’ frustration and may lead to self-harm and violence in immigration removal centres.”
It welcomed the Home Secretary’s commitment at the time that he—that must have been Mr Javid—would
“consider ending indefinite immigration detention in response to Stephen Shaw’s follow up report.”
It went on to say that
“a maximum immigration detention time limit is long overdue … lengthy immigration detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm.”
I understand that the Government’s policy guidance says that there should be no detention without a realistic prospect of removal, but this appears to be routinely breached.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this amendment is about basic human decency; I am very pleased to support it. Personally, I would like to scrap immigration detention altogether. It is inhumane that we as a country are doing this to people. Convicted murderers and paedophiles get better treatment than refugees and asylum seekers fleeing war, famine and persecution, often as a result of our own foreign policy. They just want to find a better life.
This amendment would place important restrictions on the dehumanising practice of solitary confinement. Solitude is often used as a psychological torment to break a person’s spirit and enforce compliance. It should be used in only the most extreme cases, as set out in the amendment, and be subject to many safeguards. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ludford, covered some of the issues I wanted to talk about, including time limits, so I will cut my remarks short. Will the Minister please take all these amendments away and work with your Lordships ahead of Report? I hope she will be able to give that assurance.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 39 to 41. I say from the start that I broadly support the Government’s policy on all these matters. All these amendments would have a similar effect. They would make it very difficult to detain a person who claimed asylum for more than a few days, irrespective of the facts of the case. It is surely perfectly obvious that such measures will make it extraordinarily easy for any claimant simply to disappear into the very large community of illegals—perhaps 1 million—that we already have in the UK.
We have to consider these amendments against the background of current events. A substantial and growing inflow of migrants across the channel is, understandably, very unwelcome to the public. They rightly perceive that they have nearly all come from a country that is safe, whether France or Belgium, and that they are not in fear of their lives. This is confirmed by Home Office evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 3 September, which said that, of those crossing this year, 98% claimed asylum, half of which had been considered so far, and 80% of that number had been refused. Some 71% were refused because we are not the responsible country. That, of course, is because they travelled through a safe country before they arrived here.
It follows that for those who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers—I of course accept that many noble Lords and noble Baroness are concerned about them—the situation has to be tackled if public support for the asylum system is to be maintained. However, limiting detention to 28 days, as proposed in Amendment 39, would exacerbate the crisis of immigration enforcement and undermine support for asylum generally.
People need to feel confident that the asylum system, which costs the taxpayer £1,000 million per year, is producing a worthwhile result. The main effect of a 28-day limit on detention is that false asylum claimants would have only to spin out their claim or make some false statement that could not be refuted in the allotted time before being released and potentially disappearing. Indeed, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has found
“little evidence that effective action was being taken to locate the vast bulk of absconders”.
It follows that illegal immigration—which, by the way, 77% of the public consider a serious problem—would intensify. The credibility of the immigration system as a whole would also be further undermined.
Some Members will remember that, on the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly pointed to the crucial importance of the integrity of the immigration system in the eyes of the public at large. It is a continual surprise to me that others in the political arena seem to have failed to get this absolutely central point.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important amendment. So many of those involved have been through unspeakable, disturbing—even horrific—experiences. Detention is really not appropriate for any of them but, if there is detention, it must be strictly monitored and should certainly be for only a limited period of time; 28 days is surely more than long enough for the authorities to be able to establish reasons for declining residency to people who are in detention.
The practice of detaining people, as referred to by Amendment 70, is unspeakable when you think of the kind of backgrounds many have come from. The other practical point I make is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases with which we are dealing, people are ultimately released from detention. This makes it all the more obvious that something is wrong. The system needs very close attention; these amendments help us to provide that kind of focus.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of this group of amendments and, in particular, address my comments to Amendments 39 and 40. I concur with the excellent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the introduction to this debate, as well as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others who have spoken since.
I would like to further emphasise the human and moral cost of our current and proposed detention system. The effect of indefinite detention, which lasts in some cases for months or even years on end, is devastating on the mental and physical health of detainees. Hopelessness promoted by a lack of knowledge over what comes next and flashbacks to past trauma are common experiences.
I offer an illustrative example, collected by the Jesuit Refugee Service, of the impact of our present system. Oliver was conscripted into the army at 17. He had no choice—he was taken off the street one day on his way home from school. He managed to escape after eight years but was captured, imprisoned underground and tortured. He was the victim of human trafficking twice, once being sold into slavery and once when he was taken to Europe. He arrived in the UK in July 2015, immediately made himself known to the authorities and claimed asylum. He was taken into immigration detention at Dover and moved to Harmondsworth IRC.
Oliver spoke no English. He had committed no crime. The incarceration triggered flashbacks to his imprisonment underground in his home country. He was examined by doctors and found to be suffering from PTSD. He had clear injuries on his body, which were ratified by a medical examination as being signs of torture conducive with his experience. After three months in detention, he was released to Section 4 accommodation in Cardiff. A year later, he was suddenly detained again and taken by taxi from Cardiff to Dorset. This time he was released after 18 days and finally granted indefinite leave to remain in 2019.
I could have filled a much longer speech with many other examples, including those of children, victims of trafficking, slavery and sexual abuse, and of people repeatedly detained in a highly traumatic environment that served no purpose in protecting the wider public. These amendments do not dispute that detention can serve a valuable, even critical, purpose, including—in a small number of cases—the protection of the public. What these amendments would do, however, is demand that the purpose of detention is clear and justifiable in each case, and cannot be of unlimited duration or used repeatedly in ways which have been shown to be immensely harmful to detainees. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, I believe that the public recognise that detention for long periods is not the way that we treat human beings in our country. We all want a better, respected asylum system, but detention detracts from that. I hope that the concerns in these amendments can be addressed.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is quite some time since my colleague and noble friend Lady Hamwee introduced this group of amendments with such eloquence and in her customary informed, thorough way. I would contrast her remarks with the assertions made by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. In speaking on this group of amendments, I wish to take us away from the traditional route of making policy by assertion and look towards some evidence.
In normal times, there are usually between 1,500 and 2,000 people detained under immigration powers at any one time. When the pandemic kicked in earlier this year, in March, there were about 1,400. According to Detention Action, that number then fell because of the fears of Covid striking in both prisons and IRCs. By 21 April, the total number of people had fallen to 708; 368 of those were detained in IRCs and 340 under immigration powers in prisons. So the number of people had roughly halved in a very short period of time.
What was the effect of that—on public safety, on levels of absconding or on anything at all? We all know the public cost of detention; it is about £30,000 per person per year. We know from the eloquent testimonies across the House about the cost to the health of individuals of being detained—and, principally, of being detained indefinitely for long periods. Can we begin to talk about the cost and benefit to the Government of indefinite detention? We hear very little about that.
As I will not be speaking again, I want to address one other issue. The Minister quite rightly told us at the beginning of our debates that this legislation was simply a matter of unifying the way in which the country treats people making asylum or immigration claims from the EEA and Switzerland with those from the rest of the world. She will not be surprised to hear that I think we treat LGBT asylum seekers from all over the world appallingly. We have spoken about this many times.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, here we are again. I recall many occasions like this in the past, and I see some familiar faces. This is my first intervention on this Bill, and in view of what has already been said, I will be very brief.
As we have heard, these amendments contain the accumulated wisdom of several legal experts and several trusted organisations over many years. Put simply, not only is it wrong and inhumane under our normal rules and customs to lock up detained people for long periods, we do not have to do it, except in very few cases. The right reverend Prelate made it clear that people must not be locked up indefinitely. Look at the consequences: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, mentioned cases of self-harm, trauma and suicide.
No one should be redetained. Removals are necessary—they have to be done—but they must be arranged more efficiently so that the relevant documents are in place. If they cannot be so arranged, and removal is not imminent, there must be an automatic bail hearing with judicial oversight.
This generous amendment, which has been carefully crafted, provides six months’ grace for the Government and will save them a lot of money. I know immigration is causing a lot of problems, but surely the Home Office should finally accept this amendment now or before we have a vote on Report, which otherwise seems inevitable.
Lord Hylton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part in this Bill until now—perhaps a relief to your Lordships. However, I would like to emphasise that the hybrid proceeding is no way to conduct the Committee stage of a Bill with so many implications. I asked the usual channels to look seriously at what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said last Monday on returning to more normal procedures.
I support Amendment 39 and the others in this group. In connection with bail, is there now a backlog in applications for bail from immigration detainees? If so, what are the Government doing to ensure that such applications are promptly heard?
These amendments point to a much wider need to reduce the use of immigration detention, which is expensive and harms the mental health of detainees, sometimes leading to suicide. I understand that the UK is the only European state to allow detention for an unlimited period. Even in the case of foreigners convicted and jailed, with a recommendation for deportation, better co-ordination between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office should ensure that deportation takes place immediately on release from prison. I hope to have a positive reply on this point to a Question for Written Answer recently tabled.
In conclusion, I note that the June report from the National Audit Office stated that total voluntary and forced returns to other countries had fallen dramatically since 2015. This is perhaps understandable, given coronavirus and a lack of flights. The report also spotted regional variations in enforcement. Much intelligence is still not being assessed or used. I trust, therefore, that enforcement will soon improve and that official statements will avoid terms that increase fears and xenophobia, such as the labelling of all unofficial landings or arrivals as “illegal”. I trust that progress will be made on all angles of this group before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, does not wish to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this debate has focused on several new clauses which are to be inserted after Clause 4. I have signed up to Amendments 39, 40, 41 and 94, along with my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hamwee, who opened this debate last Wednesday. I am also supportive of Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
The risk here—it is all about risk—is that many people will not have their status sorted and will not have put a claim in, and are then at risk of detention. Immigration detention is something that should happen only in the most necessary cases and for the shortest period of time possible. My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett set out, with examples, the effect of detention and the damage of not knowing when you are going to be released on individuals and their mental health. We need to think about that: we can all accept that being locked up and not knowing when it is going to end is not a good place to be.
Taking that into account, can the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, when she responds to the debate, tell us what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the minimum number of people are detained and for the shortest possible time? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said she expected to be told that most people are released from detention after a short period of time, but we need to think about those who are not.
There is also the risk of redetention: when a person reports who is required to do so and then finds themself detained by the authorities. How long will it take for an application to remain to be considered? As we have heard, Amendment 39 would impose a strict time limit of 28 days and ensure that detainees could not be redetained unless—I emphasise “unless”—there has been a specific change in circumstances.
Amendment 40 sets out the conditions for a person to be detained in the first place and Amendment 41 provides for bail hearings during the initial detention period of 96 hours. Amendment 94 brings in the provision six months after the Bill comes into force. This gives the Government time to get all the procedures and regulations correct. I agree with the comments made in that respect by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
As I said earlier, I am supportive of Amendment 70, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others. This amendment raises the issue of those individuals in immigration detention who are segregated and at risk of being locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. I fully accept that there must be rules and that people must be protected from either themselves or from others, or from causing harm to others. However, we also must be mindful of the effects that detention—of being locked in a cell for long periods of time—can itself have on someone’s mental health. Again, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett made reference to this in her contribution. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said in his contribution that these people have committed no crime. They themselves may be the victims of horrific crimes, and periods of detention can be long and re-detention is a real risk. When considering these amendments, we have to think about the effect of the risk of being re-detained on individuals who may, in the end, be given leave to remain in the United Kingdom. We must remember that these people have committed no crime here in the UK.
I will leave my remarks there; I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about regretting the hybrid procedures, I am very glad of them; they protect noble Lords from the numbers, which are clearly going up.
This is another group of amendments that are not relevant to the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords know that, and I know that they are keen to discuss this issue. They feel very strongly about immigration detention, which has been discussed at great length in this Chamber, but that makes it no less important.
We must have an immigration system which encourages compliance and protects the public. Where people no longer have the right to be in the UK, we must be able to carry out their removal if they do not take the opportunities we provide them to leave the UK voluntarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about the concept of unlimited detention. The noble Lord asked me to list the safeguards to ensure that decisions to detain and to maintain detention are not unlimited. When someone is referred for detention, an independent detention gatekeeper assesses that person’s suitability for detention. Since 2016, the gatekeeper has rejected more than 2,300 referrals for detention. After an individual is detained, their continued detention remains under regular review at increasing levels of seniority, especially where there are any significant changes in circumstance.
Anyone detained can apply to either the Home Office or the courts to be released on immigration bail at any point during their detention. In addition, independent panellists and specialists within case progression panels provide really important oversight of the appropriateness of anyone being detained under immigration provisions at three-monthly intervals. Automatic referrals for bail also occur at the four-month detention stage for non-foreign national offenders, providing additional external oversight of detention decision-making. Immigration removal centres also provide those who are detained with access to legal advice should they need it.
The introduction of a detention time limit would severely limit our ability to remove those who refuse to leave voluntarily, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pointed out. It would encourage and reward abuse and, as I have said, there are a number of measures in place to safeguard against any prolonged or unnecessary use of immigration detention.
The decision to detain people who no longer have the right to be in the UK is an integral part of the removal process, but we do not detain indefinitely. There must always be a realistic prospect of removal—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, shaking her head—within a reasonable timescale, and this requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person whose detention is considered. It is already used sparingly: 95% of people who are subject to removal from the UK are at liberty in the community, and the detention estate is now almost 40% smaller than it was five years ago, with 8,000 fewer people entering detention in the year ending December 2019 than in 2015.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The problem that I have here is that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament, things will move along very happily and then, many years from now, when we are all no longer doing what we are doing now, all these problems will arise whereby things are not done properly. We could have immigration centres with Italian and French citizens, people who have lived here but have not regularised their situation, being locked up and held for days and things—and that is just an anathema. My worry is that sometimes things are done and then, many years later, different people come along, things are not done so well, and there is a problem.
I am concerned about the innocent people. I am not concerned about people who have committed offences, who need to be dealt with—this is about innocent people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. They potentially could have been our friends and neighbours, living in our country, who have not regularised their situation. Unfortunately, mistakes happen, for all the assurances, and people find themselves taken away, probably quite unfairly, locked up and stuff. I want to hear a bit more about how we are going to deal with those sorts of situations. I am talking about the innocent people. How are we going to look after those people, who have done nothing wrong? We are all agreed on those who are criminals and have done bad things, but what about the innocent people, who are treated unjustly? That is what I want to hear about.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We will be talking about the EU settlement scheme in future groups. As I will go on to explain, the scheme does not end, in the sense that, if people are here, certainly between now and 2020, and want to regularise their status, they can do. Of course, the reasonable excuses rule will go on indefinitely as to why people have not regularised their status.
Obviously, these amendments have nothing to do with the Bill, but I hope that I have outlined the various degrees of safeguards that will guard against people being detained indefinitely. We will go on to talk about the EU settlement scheme and some of the safeguards that go around that, particularly ongoing, with people who have missed the boat. I hope, with those explanations, the noble Lord is happy.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is absolutely right about the numbers of people who may find themselves in a situation—and not even be aware of it—which is not regularised. Yes, we will come on to talk about the settlement scheme, and perhaps we will pick up the Minister’s words about the possibilities of applying some way into the future.
The Minister started as I expected, by saying that these amendments are not relevant to the Bill and that if we were to include them, we would be discriminating against people who are not from the EEA or Switzerland. It is entirely open to the Government to apply these provisions to everyone, as I think they should be. They are relevant to the Bill. My noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Paddick made it clear on an amendment last week.
We started debate on this group of amendments late on Wednesday and as a result some noble Lords were unable to take part, or cannot participate today. Two have asked me to make a short comment on their behalf. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I include them now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 42. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division, should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 42
Baroness Hamwee
“Right to rent (EEA and Swiss nationals)
(1) The following provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 shall cease to apply to EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependants.(2) The provisions are sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 (right to rent).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that landlords do not carry out immigration checks on EEA and Swiss nationals under the Right to Rent scheme.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42. I will speak also on Amendments 50 and 71. These amendments deal with the so-called hostile environment measures. That phrase is used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her Amendment 71, which extends to the Data Protection Act; that is the subject of the next group. I am aware the term used now by the Government is “compliant environment”, but I am concerned with the substance not the terminology.
We have turned citizens, our public services and the police into border guards. We have dumped on them the enforcement of immigration control. The policies encourage us to be suspicious of each other and undermine trust in our public services. People are deterred from seeking medical treatment for fear of a large bill or being reported, detained or deported. An answer to this would be that emergency treatment would not be withheld. A condition not an emergency today may still need treatment and it may become life-changing or life-threatening.
To what end is the hostile or compliant environment? I understand that the Home Office acknowledges that the “vast majority”—I quote that term—most of whom are people who came here legally but subsequently lost status, have done nothing wrong. Landlords are required to check the immigration status of potential tenants and face huge fines or imprisonment if they fail to check or get it wrong. Can it be any surprise that many landlords take the easy course and look for tenants who are British passport holders? They must regard this as being simply practical, not discriminatory. It is—though without any real sanction.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, whose action against the Home Office continues, says on its website:
“It takes BME people and migrants up to twice as long to find a home to rent as a white British person.”
Recently, the organisation the3million commissioned a poll of employers in connection with its campaign for physical documentary proof of EU settled status; we will come to that shortly. The poll seems relevant to this issue. It was a poll of professionals with authority over hiring decisions. It said that it was worth noting that the picture is bad when considering all employers in the UK; the fact that the poll was online means that there will be a certain amount of oversampling of employers who are more comfortable with digital technology. This affects EEA and Swiss citizens in the immediate short term, but the Government aim to roll out the digital-only status to an ever-expanding group of immigrants.
The poll’s findings included the fact that employers are very concerned about the consequences of getting it wrong. This creates an incentive to play it safe and avoid recruiting people from outside the UK, so there is just the same risk of discrimination as in the landlord/tenant sector. Thank goodness the “Go home” vans were short lived.
We can address only address legislation through our amendments. The legislation sets out the policy, and from the policy, practice flows.
A week ago, Ian Birrell wrote an interesting and powerful article in the i about the impact of our arrangements. He talked about the large number of people who
“had never bothered applying for passports, while the Home Office had lost their papers”
and then discovered that they were “technically undocumented”. One young woman who found herself in that situation was precluded from attending university, for which she had qualified, and is behind a report showing how lives are “distorted and damaged”—her words—by a
“callous bureaucratic system that sows division, hurts mental health and condemns families to more than a decade of massive financial strain … Talk to these young adults and you hear tales of life on the edge as they are pitched into a Kafkaesque process that is complex, intrusive, often incompetent, demands huge and constantly rising fees”—
the fees are no little part of the picture—
“yet make one mistake and, like a dystopian game of snakes and ladders, applicants slide back down to start the torturous … process to citizenship again.”
I will discipline myself and not quote further from the article, but it ends by saying that
“the horrors of the hostile environment have not faded”.
The Government talk of welcoming people from the EEA making a home here within the Immigration Rules, but the application of the hostile or compliant environment legislation does not say, “Welcome to the UK.”
I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 71 in my name and also to Amendments 42 and 52 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford. They cover parts of Amendment 71 and also Amendment 43, which covers data sharing.
I pay tribute to the campaign group Liberty for its help with my preparation of this amendment and for its support through its unfortunately unsuccessful struggle to see its scope allowed to cover everyone affected by the hostile environment, rather than just those who face being newly affected by it—for whom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the digital-only status is likely to create particular issues.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her opposition to the hostile environment in her Amendments 42 and 50—an argument eloquently and powerfully made by her. The hostile environment has turned our citizens into border guards and made us suspicious of our fellow citizens, even those legally in the UK. On right to rent, it is the safest option for landlords to rent to white people, or British passport holders if landlords go beyond seeing the white face in front of them.
The evidence suggests that the Government’s right to rent scheme is being seriously enforced against only those who require a visa to enter the United Kingdom and not those who are allowed visa-free entry. This again calls into question whether the Government are really serious about ending the free movement of EEA and Swiss citizens, or indeed the free movement of B5JSSK citizens. The only alternative explanation is that there is no way of legally enforcing right to rent against these citizens.
When I spoke to the first group of amendments a week ago, I referred to A Short Guide on Right to Rent, a publication in which the Home Office advises that landlords can establish a B5JSSK, EEA or Swiss national’s right to rent by checking their passport, which will have no stamp to show when they entered the UK, together with evidence of the date they last travelled to or entered the UK.
I have had the opportunity to go back to make sure that the Home Office advice I referred to was up to date. It is even worse than I thought. I quote:
“Acceptable evidence of entry to the UK may include (but is not restricted to) one of the following, or a combination of: An original or copy* of a boarding pass or electronic boarding pass for air, rail or sea travel to the UK … An original or copy* airline, rail or boat ticket or e-ticket … Any type of booking confirmation (original or copy*) for air, rail or sea travel to the UK”.
There is an asterisk by the word “copy” and an explanation that
“a copy can be a hardcopy such as a photocopy or an electronic copy such as a screenshot”.
The Government are clearly not serious about enforcing right to rent for citizens of these countries, as landlords have to see not even the original ticket, boarding pass or travel booking but an easily forged photocopy or screenshot.
Not only that, the guide goes on to say:
“Although these individuals only have six months’ leave unless they obtain a visa, landlords who have correctly conducted a right to rent check will obtain a statutory excuse for 12 months and must schedule a follow up check … before the end of the 12-month eligibility period if the individual is still occupying the accommodation.”
The Home Office’s own guidance talks about landlords being required only to do a follow-up check six months after EEA, Swiss or B5JSSK citizens should have left the country. At that point, the EEA citizen could produce another ticket, boarding pass or booking showing that they entered the UK within the last six months, and the landlord could then rent for another 12 months.
The question has to be asked, and I would like the Minister to answer this: why are the Government insisting on strict enforcement of right to rent against those who require a visa to enter the UK but apparently relaxed about those from B5JSSK countries and, at the end of the transition period, EEA and Swiss nationals? The Government either are not serious about enforcement of right to rent against these citizens or accept that it is unenforceable against them.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments but particularly propose to speak to Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I declare an interest: I have a property that I rent out. It is let by agents, in part precisely because the idea that I as an individual know what I should be looking for, in terms of right to rent, becomes really quite difficult. I will not discuss that any further.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talks about the so-called hostile environment. My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that it is now known as the “compliant environment”. There should never have been the concept of a hostile environment. We heard earlier, at the end of the previous group of amendments, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, uttered by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, reminding us of the importance of our values. As the United Kingdom prepares to end the transition period, it is as important as ever that we abide by our values that are open and tolerant.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 42 seeks to repeal the right-to-rent scheme introduced by Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the 2014 Act. That chapter, coupled with amendments made to it by the Immigration Act 2016 and amendments made there to the Housing Act 1988, requires landlords and their agents to refuse accommodation to people who require, but do not have, permission to be in the UK. Landlords and agents may indeed face criminal sanction if providing accommodation in these circumstances.
As Amnesty firmly argued in its excellent brief, the impact of this regime is more widely harmful for people of colour. It essentially promotes homelessness and race discrimination—for example, because it becomes safer for landlords to avoid providing accommodation to people who are not white, do not have recognisably British accents and have non-Anglo-Saxon-sounding names.
Amendment 50 essentially seeks the repeal of other provisions of Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014, which provides for an immigration health charge and restrictions on who may open a bank account or obtain a driving licence. It is particularly important to emphasise the need for a repeal of the immigration health charge. As Amnesty again forcefully argues, it is nothing more than a tax upon people coming to the UK to work, study or join family—people who are already taxed by immigration fees often set far above the administrative cost, over and above the taxes that they, like others, pay by reason of their living and working in this country.
In the sad legislation before us, we need to take these points very seriously indeed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I do not know what is going to be included in the Government’s response to these amendments, but we have heard today, as we have on previous days in Committee on this Bill, that an amendment or group of amendments is not relevant to the Bill. I am assuming that that is being said purely as the Government’s view, since presumably, through the changes that it does or does not make to a government Bill, it is for Parliament to decide what should or should not be in a Bill and is therefore relevant to it. So I would be grateful if the Government could confirm that when they say an amendment or group of amendments is “not relevant” to the Bill, they are simply expressing a view and accept that that is an issue that Parliament will have to determine.
Amendment 42 in this group would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependents from the right-to-rent immigration checks by landlords under the Immigration Act 2014. Amendment 50 would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependents from some provisions under the Immigration Act 2014, including the NHS surcharge and immigration checks on opening bank accounts and holding a driving licence. It would also exempt them from provisions in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which disallows a person from being employed if they do not have a valid immigration status. Amendment 71 would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals residing in the UK immediately before the commencement of the Act from a variety of immigration provisions, including checks on renting, bank accounts, driving licences and illegal working.
We understand the concerns that these amendments seek to address. The experiences of the Windrush generation, when lives were ruined and families torn apart, simply highlighted the failures of the hostile environment policy, particularly the culture that it led to in the Home Office that determined how the policy was applied, and as reflected in the terms of the Immigration Acts in 2014 and 2016. Against that background, it is understandable why there is concern among EEA citizens living in this country about the impact that changes to their status following our withdrawal from the EU could have on their position in relation to the application of the terms of the Immigration Acts.
The Government could have used the Bill to signal the end of the hostile environment policy in reality, not just in name, and in so doing convince EEA citizens that their concerns were without foundation. The Government have chosen not to do so, and consequently these amendments seek to do what the Government have failed to do, by giving EEA and Swiss citizens exemption from some of the more contentious parts of the Immigration Acts, including in particular those parts of the now rebranded hostile environment policy that were effectively farmed out to private individuals and private companies to implement, such as the checks in relation to the renting of property or opening of a bank account.
I hope that when we hear from the Government, as we are just about to, we will hear some hopeful response to the thrust of these amendments and that the Government are equally determined to address—and how they intend to do so—the concerns that the amendments have raised.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, in thanking noble Lords for speaking on these amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that I am going to argue not that they are irrelevant to the Bill but that that they are discriminatory, in their own ways. They would undermine the commitment to the British people to introduce a single global system. They would also weaken the immigration system by reducing the incentive to comply with the UK’s rules and laws.
On right-to-rent checks, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that immigration does not begin and end at our borders; it is more far-reaching than that. Under our new immigration system, everyone will be required to obtain their current correct immigration status, and we will clearly distinguish between those who are here lawfully and those who are not, regardless of their nationality. The measures in question concern migrants’ eligibility to rent accommodation, to work, and to access healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences. These measures have all been approved by Parliament. They contribute to our efforts to tackle illegal migration and those who seek to profit from immigration offences, while protecting taxpayer-funded services. Exempting from these measures EEA citizens and their family members, including those who do not have lawful immigration status, would undermine the integrity of the new immigration system1 which we have promised to deliver.
Amendment 42 specifically relates to the right-to-rent scheme, the legality of which has recently been upheld by the Court of Appeal—to echo the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. By disapplying these checks to all EEA citizens and their family members, this amendment would significantly compromise the right-to-rent civil penalty scheme. Under the current system, when a landlord is found to be letting to a disqualified person, the Home Office can issue a civil penalty of £3,000. A scheme that does not require evidence to be obtained for every tenant would render unworkable the Government’s ability to impose criminal and civil sanctions against unscrupulous landlords, as this exemption would serve as a blanket defence.
It is not clear how Amendments 42 or 71 would work in practice. Eligibility checks by landlords, employers and the NHS apply to everyone, including EEA and British citizens. Those carrying out the checks would not be able to ascertain who was part of the exempt cohort, as set out in these new clauses, and so would need to check everyone anyway. Alternatively, landlords and employers would have to take, at face value, a self-declaration of anyone who claims to be within this particular cohort. Amendment 42, for example, would make the right-to-rent scheme inoperable, as migrants who are unlawfully present or ineligible could self-declare as an EEA citizen, which could prevent the landlord from requesting further evidence of eligibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked who will check whether someone has UK immigration status. Particularly after the grace period, EEA citizens granted leave under the settlement scheme will use their digital status information to demonstrate to employers their right to work, to landlords their right to rent, and to other government departments and local authorities their right to access benefits and services—if they meet the relevant eligibility criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out the various documents that would be required. I am wondering whether he was questioning whether they were up to date, but I am sure he will come back to me on that if I have not made that clear.
For Amendment 50, I will focus on two aspects of the new clause. As noble Lords know, illegal working is a key driver of immigration offending. The ability to work without lawful status encourages people to take risks and to break our immigration laws, and leaves people vulnerable to exploitation—I refer to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—including being paid under the legal minimum wage. We are determined to continue to tackle illegal working, but this amendment would hinder our progress.
The proposal to prevent the application of provisions relating to healthcare charges to EEA citizens and their dependants would also have a significant negative impact. The immigration health surcharge is designed to help support the NHS, ensuring that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution to the wide range of health services available to them. By exempting such a large cohort, including those in the UK unlawfully, from being charged for accessing healthcare, this new clause would increase the financial pressure on the NHS considerably.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for expecting me to speak after her. I have two points. The first is that we seem to be playing a whack-a-mole game about whether the amendments are relevant to the Bill or discriminatory. Let us hit the other one on the head: the only reason these amendments are restricted to EEA and Swiss nationals is that the clerks would not allow broader amendments, because they would not be within the scope of the Bill. They are not discriminatory; they aim to get rid of the hostile environment for everyone. That is the first issue.
Secondly, on the specifics, I apologise to the Minister for not making it absolutely clear which group of people I was talking about when I was saying that the right-to-rent scheme did not work. I was talking about EEA and Swiss nationals, at the end of the transition period, and all those other nationals who can now use the e-passport gates to enter the United Kingdom for six months without a visa.
I demonstrated in my speech that these individuals could rent for up to 12 months without a landlord being in peril of a civil penalty or any other penalty. Indeed, if during that 12 months they produced another ticket, boarding pass or travel booking—or a copy of any of those—they could further extend their rental with the landlord, because they had produced evidence that they had arrived in the UK within the previous six months. Therefore, you can see that they could extend and extend their rental of a property, completely undermining the right-to-rent scheme. Only those nationals who can use the e-passport gates, who get six months’ visa-free travel, can circumvent the system in that way. Those other foreign nationals who require a visa cannot do that because the landlord has to check digitally with the Home Office. The Minister may say that eventually everything will be digital, but this will not be digital. There will not be a digital way to check the rights of people who have six months’ visa-free entry to the UK. It will still be done on the basis of passports, tickets, boarding passes and bookings. That is the point I am trying to make.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I see the noble Lord’s point. We need a further discussion or, indeed, an exchange of letters on this before Report. The first letter that I sent him clearly did not do the trick, so we will have further discussions on this.
I know exactly why noble Lords have tabled amendments that refer to EEA and Swiss nationals, because it puts them within the scope of the Bill. It does not make it any less discriminatory technically and legally, however, but I get his point.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, having a “non-Anglo-Saxon-sounding name”, to use the terminology used by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I am very conscious of the position. The Minister is, of course, quite right about why we had to confine the amendments to EAA and Swiss citizens, but it is disingenuous to say that we are being discriminatory. I said on the last group of amendments that we take opportunities where we can. We are very happy to invite the Government to apply the amendments to every nationality. Sadly, this is not open to us; as there are no Private Members’ Bills at the moment, our opportunities are pretty limited.
My noble friend Lord Paddick is not into whacking moles—because he is kind to animals, apart from anything else—but he may be very challenging to the Minister. I think it is wise to try to bottom out this issue after this stage.
Reference has been made to the black economy and how people who do not have status are driven into it and are vulnerable to exploitation. There is a big difference between our position and that of the Government. We see that as the outcome of the hostile environment provisions, not as a driver for them. I am intrigued by the points about forgeries that have been made, because it is the Government’s position that physical documents for the EU settled status scheme would open up the possibility of forgery, but we will come to that later.
We have done what we can, for the moment at any rate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 43. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 43
Baroness Ludford
“Data protection: immigration (EEA and Swiss nationals)
(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(5) This paragraph does not apply if the data subject is an EEA or Swiss national.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 43 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and to speak to other amendments in this group. Amendment 43 seeks to remove paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act in relation to EEA and Swiss nationals, and there is a reason why it is drafted only in relation to EAA and Swiss nationals.
These Benches and others have consistently opposed the suppression of data protection rights of migrants and free movers, which paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 imposes. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very powerful speech when moving an amendment on Report of the Data Protection Bill to remove said paragraph, which she said was “very far-reaching indeed” and even
“gives scope for quite considerable fishing expeditions.”—[Official Report, 13/12/17; col. 1588.]
One of the safeguards lacking from the Data Protection Act is the protection of Article 8, on data processing, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Because the Government refused to include the charter as retained EU law on exit, all we have is the European Convention on Human Rights, and once again there are rumblings about the ECHR. Yesterday, the headline in the Sunday Telegraph—I had to go out and buy it, which was rather galling, because it is behind a paywall—was:
“Boris Johnson set to opt out of human rights laws”
and that meant the convention. Here we go again. The Sunday Telegraph reported that Mr Dominic Cummings, no less, has previously attacked the European Court of Human Rights, and
“has warned that voters would expect the jurisdiction of European judges to end in the UK as part of the Brexit process”—
those pesky European judges. At least the newspaper had the grace to add that the ECHR and court were not part of the EU system, but there is that attempt to cross over and interlink the whole time. There is a connection between the UK’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Brexit process, in the sense that the Government are resisting giving the EU a formal undertaking to adhere to the convention. The Justice Secretary told a radio programme this weekend:
“The idea that we’re going to leave the convention is for the birds.”
The trouble is, one might have thought the same about the idea that the Government might renounce part of the withdrawal agreement—until they did, in the Bill being debated in the other place this afternoon. Indeed, in April 2016, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, said:
“The case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, which means Britain is subject to the European court, is not clear.”
She said the case was not clear and she, of course, was subsequently Prime Minister.
The deputy counsel to the Joint Committee on Human Rights advised that implementing the GDPR—the general data protection regulation, the EU’s data protection law—would arguably not be enough on its own to ensure a data adequacy finding for the UK if the Data Protection Bill fell short of standards required by Article 8 of the charter. You can double this if our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights is also at risk. The knock-on effect if the UK fails to get a data adequacy decision will mean that the prospects for law enforcement co-operation with the EU, or business transfers of data to EU and EEA countries, will be dim indeed. This point was made repeatedly in proceedings on the Data Protection Bill and, indeed, on various Brexit Bills in this House. The weakness of human rights safeguards makes the loss of data protection rights for migrants even more significant.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 72 complements my Amendment 71. I have spoken at length on these issues, so I will be brief. I also support Amendments 43 and 74, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for making the same point as I made at the start of my speech. It might seem somewhat disingenuous to suggest that these amendments are discriminatory by choice, when we were actually given the option of applying these only to limited numbers of people. Everyone who has spoken on this subject has expressed their desire to see them used to end the entire hostile environment.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the Data Protection Act is designed to fundamentally affect the way we use data to market, provide services and run our businesses. It also provides an obligation to warn people how their data will be gathered and used. My noble friend has already spoken about why the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals. I support the arguments that have been advanced, particularly in the field of immigration.
Immigration is a fairly emotive issue and the use of data has caused serious problems in this country. There is an insatiable appetite to question migrants about their movements, but to put very little emphasis on what has been said. The Minister arranged a briefing session prior to Committee. I was not satisfied when I asked why some of the agencies can share the information collected but the police have been excluded from this arrangement. We need clarity on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide that today.
I do not dispute the procedures, which are to admit those who are eligible and to remove those who are not, but in any administrative system questions arise about priorities. The administration of the immigration system is no exception and we know that the points system is to be introduced at the tail end of this particular withdrawal Bill. The purpose of the data collection is not in dispute. The administration of the immigration system about the need to exclude the ineligible is no exception. It has always been the case that to exclude the ineligible means that checks have to be made to determine who is eligible and who is not. The immigration officers have similar powers to those of the police in this matter. There is always a concern about fishing raids unless they are done on intelligence. The problem is that the more intensive these checks are, the more delay and expense there is to those who are eligible. The matter of proper documentation has been a point of dispute and likely to cause serious problems. We have seen this in relation to Windrush, which is so often mentioned in debates on this subject. Even today, after 70 years, we have not resolved this issue. We may head towards the EU settled migrants with similar problems if we fail to give proper documentation backed up by proper data collection and the proper use of information collected.
There are ample safeguards on how the information on individuals is to be used. It is explicit that such information may not be used for immigration control or enforcement. All we want to ensure is that there is less adversarial contact with migrants. The police need adequate information in their duties as providers of public services, as is the case with public service organisations such as the NHS and schools.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I want to address my remarks to Amendments 43 and 74 in the names of my noble friends. As my noble friend Lady Ludford has so eloquently outlined, the exemption from data protection for migrants is unjustifiable. Indeed, as she said, the suggestion that we might even withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights only adds to the alarm that we should feel about that.
This issue goes back some way, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said. During the passage of the Data Protection Bill through Parliament, my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised this issue and sought to amend the Bill, sadly unsuccessfully at that time. She asked the Government to justify the exemption, but from my reading of Hansard, they either could not or would not. She also asked for reassurance from the Minister —and I believe it was the same Minister, the noble Baroness—but, sadly, she did not seem to get much. In fact, the Minister told the House that a decision on whether to apply the exemption could be exercised not only by the Home Office but by contractors who worked for the Home Office. She said that it would apply not only to migrants but to British citizens who supported the applications of migrants. The one piece of assurance that the Minister gave was that the exemption would be used in only a very small number of cases. She was quite explicit about that, so I hope that in her reply, the Minister will tell us how many times the exemption has been applied and, if not, whether she will undertake to write to us.
The truth is that the exemption gives huge discretion to the Home Office and its contractors to determine when access to data can be denied. The Government say that it would not be abused. That might be fine if we had not had the events of Windrush, which my noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to, and if we really felt that we could trust the Home Office and its contractors in this era of the hostile environment. However, in these circumstances it is very hard to do so. We have no way of knowing how the exemption is being applied, unless the Minister is able to tell us a bit more about that. Therefore, this is a matter of significant concern to us. As my noble friends have noted, we are seeking to remove the exemption from EEA nationals. I hope that we will not hear from the Minister that that is in some way discriminatory, as we want it removed from everybody.
Finally, and briefly, on Amendment 74, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said, we really want to hear an assurance from the Minister on this matter that will appear in Hansard.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As we know, the Data Protection Act 2018 provides for an exemption from some general data protection provisions where personal data is processed for the maintenance of effective immigration control. Of course, that allows an entity that processes data for immigration control purposes, such as the Home Office, to set aside a person’s data protection rights in a range of circumstances. It can also prevent people involved in immigration cases being able to request access to the data that the Home Office holds on them, and that could affect EEA or Swiss nationals applying for a new immigration status in the UK after Brexit.
As has been said, Amendment 43 would preclude the exemption from applying where the person in question is an EEA or Swiss national. EEA and Swiss nationals will become subject to this exemption as a result of our departure from the EU.
Amendment 72 would ensure that personal data belonging to an EEA or Swiss national resident in the UK before the Act that has been gathered through their use of public services cannot then be shared and used for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The relevant public services include primary and secondary education, and primary and secondary healthcare services, as well as where a person has contacted law enforcement to report a crime.
Amendment 74 would provide that a third party—for example, a landlord—given access to check a person’s settled status for specific purposes may not be allowed to use that access or information for any other purposes.
The issue is that there have been reports and evidence of data sharing as part of the Government’s rebranded hostile environment controls when people have, for example, access to education or report a crime to the police. In that latter regard, there appear to be examples of migrant women in particular suffering domestic abuse and being deterred from reporting a crime for fear of getting pulled into the immigration system. The comment has already been made about the independent Windrush Lessons Learned Review identifying a number of people from the Windrush generation who have been wrongly subject to proactive compliant environment sanctions, where the Home Office has shared data with other departments. Therefore, there is a lot of evidence that this data sharing goes on and that it has a detrimental effect on some individuals.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has found a 10% error rate in immigration status checks. Therefore, being unable to find out what immigration data the Home Office holds that led to an error—for the purposes of an appeal, for example—is of significance. The figure that I have been given—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that, since the beginning of 2019, 60% of requests for disclosure have been denied. I hope that in their response the Government will, at the very least, say how they intend to address the concerns raised by this group of amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the points that they have made on these amendments. Perhaps I may address Amendments 43 and 72 together, as they both concern data protection.
I appreciate the concerns to protect data subjects’ rights and to ensure that data sharing for immigration control or enforcement purposes does not prevent people living in this country accessing public services to which they are perfectly entitled. However, I cannot agree to these new clauses, because they would not be proportionate or constructive amendments to the Bill, or indeed address the concerns behind the amendments, and I shall say why.
They would restrict immigration authorities in performing their lawful duties in respect of immigration control, including being able to confirm a person’s immigration status, and they would be unable to prevent potential prejudice to the immigration system. Essentially, the new clauses would expressly prohibit the Home Office from using a necessary and lawful exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018, should it have cause to do so. The immigration exemption has been debated previously in this House and concerns raised have been addressed on those occasions.
The exemption applies to restrict specified data subjects’ rights where the maintenance of effective immigration control, or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control, are likely to be prejudiced. Rightly, it should apply to anyone who is subject to immigration control, including EEA and Swiss citizens. The new clause proposed in Amendment 43 would therefore constitute a difference in treatment on the grounds of nationality. We do not believe that that can be justified, as one purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there will be no difference in treatment between EEA citizens and those from the rest of the world when it comes to immigration policy.
Amendment 72 would have a similar effect in creating a difference in treatment based on nationality. The effect of the amendment in the clause would be to maintain the current position, so that one particular aspect of the compliant environment—data sharing—would not apply to those who now benefit from free movement. The amendment would have no effect as far as non-EEA citizens are concerned, and data collected in relation to them could still be used for immigration control or enforcement purposes, thereby treating them unequally under the law.
With regard to the immigration exemption dealt with in Amendment 43, it might help if I expand on the safeguards built into the Data Protection Act. The exemption can be applied only on a case-by-case basis and only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It cannot be, and is not, used to target any group of people, be they EEA citizens or otherwise. Nor does the application of the exemption set aside all data subjects’ rights; it sets aside only those listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. A further limitation is that the exemption can be applied only where compliance with the relevant rights will be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control. This “prejudice” test must be applied first, and, as a result, the situations in which the exemption can be used are significantly limited. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked me to give numbers. I cannot do so at this point, but I will see whether I can access them.
Furthermore, the exemption may be applied only so long as the prejudice can be seen to be evidenced and must be removed thereafter. It is not used to restrict access to personal data that would allow a person to further a claim; it is used only where we need to restrict access to sensitive data—for example, details of ongoing enforcement operations.
The exemption has been found to be lawful by the courts, and the ICO has issued robust guidance on how and when it may be used—guidance that the Home Office adheres to. Furthermore, the Home Office has robust safeguards and controls in place to ensure that data is handled securely, lawfully, ethically and in accordance with all relevant data protection regulations. I say again that the Home Office must at all times comply with the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 when data is shared.
Similar to Amendment 72, Amendment 74 seeks to limit the use of data. To reiterate the points that I made to noble Lords during the recess, I reassure them that the services that we provide to third parties for checking immigration status information about EU settlement status can be accessed and used only to check an individual’s immigration status and the rights associated with that status.
I will explain how users can view and prove their immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. Individuals can authenticate securely on the “view and prove your settled or pre-settled status” online service, where they can view their immigration status information and choose to share it with third parties for a variety of reasons. To take the example of right-to-work checks, the individual selects the option to share their right-to-work information and is given a time-limited code, which can be emailed or given to the employer. The employer uses the share code, along with the individual’s date of birth, to access just the information needed to confirm the individual’s eligibility to work, via the “view a job applicant’s right to work details” service on GOV.UK. The information provided to the employer can be previewed by the individual and contains only information relating to their right-to-work entitlements, along with the individual’s name and facial image for verification purposes and the expiry date of the leave, where appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who asked me to reiterate this point, is satisfied with my explanation.
For other services such as health, benefits and banking, users can share basic information about their status under the settlement scheme and the process works in exactly the same way. Checking organisations can access the information on a time-limited basis, via the “check someone’s settled or pre-settled status” service. The information provided in this service represents the minimum amount of data required for those checking organisations to perform their duties, and again includes the individual’s name, facial image, the leave they have been granted and the expiry date where applicable.
Third parties do not have access to the immigration database. An individual must choose to share their immigration status through the “view and prove” service before it can be viewed by third parties such as employers. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the police do not have access to the EU settlement scheme or the immigration database, but we are working with other parts of government to develop system checks to share immigration status for specific purposes such as health and benefits. For example, we will provide information to the National Health Service to support it in establishing whether an individual is entitled to access free healthcare.
I hope that noble Lords are now assured that we are committed to delivering immigration status services for the purposes of checking immigration status information only. These services have been designed to protect the personal information of those with EU settled status and have been built around GDPR principles, including that of data minimisation, ensuring that the information available to third parties is only what is absolutely necessary. I hope that, with those words, the noble Baroness is happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers but the first is, again, the disingenuous objection that the amendment focuses only on Swiss nationals and is therefore discriminatory on the grounds of nationality. I repeat something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said at least twice: it is up to the Government to extend it to all migrants if they wish.
Can the Minister tell us—she may have to write to me—whether any other EEA countries have exempted immigration data in their implementation of the general data protection regulation? Also, she said that the Data Protection Act was compliant with GDPR, but that remains to be seen. I think it is doubtful because that regulation, which I worked on as an MEP, provides no blanket exclusion of immigration data. The Minister did not respond on the prospect of a data adequacy decision from the European Commission. Winning this decision is of huge significance to our security and our businesses.
The combination of this part of the Data Protection Act, not retaining the charter and constant noises about the European convention is not designed to increase the confidence of the European Commission in granting a data adequacy decision. Not getting that will seriously prejudices the chances of the cross-border police co-operation that is vital to this country. The UK has made a huge contribution in that area in building up the EU justice and security measures, as was shown when Theresa May was Home Secretary about six years ago and we had the mass opt back in to all the vital measures. If we are unable to continue that, we will not be able to access information required to catch serious criminals and it will prejudice the security of British citizens. Also, if we do not get a data adequacy decision, it will be much more difficult for businesses to transfer data across the EEA—tech businesses are particularly reliant on data—using other, clunkier routes.
Already, a shadow has been cast on the ability to get a data adequacy assessment by the surveillance provisions in the Investigatory Powers Act and others; that has been the subject of several court cases in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. It is dangerous to undermine further the chances of a data adequacy decision. There are higher things than the Home Office’s wish to have constant access to this data.
Hope springs eternal. I thank the Minister for what she said on Amendment 74, which I will read carefully in Hansard. Unfortunately, she is not giving me any comfort on the other amendments, including Amendment 43, which I moved. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 44. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else from this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 44
Baroness Hamwee
“Late applications to EU Settlement Scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must, before 30 June 2021, publish a report setting out proposals for dealing with late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme and a motion to approve the report must be debated by both Houses of Parliament.(2) Until the report has been debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament, the EU Settlement Scheme must remain open for applications and the Secretary of State must extend the deadline for applications accordingly. (3) “The EU Settlement Scheme” means the scheme for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause will ensure that the EU Settlement Scheme will remain open until such time as the Minister has published proposals as to how to deal with late applications and that report has been approved by Parliament.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 44 and will speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford—Amendments 45 and 46—and to Amendments 52 and 96, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy.
This group of amendments brings us to the EU settled status scheme, which is dealing and has dealt with huge numbers of applications. I do not seek to deny that, but the task is huge to ensure that all EU citizens in the UK at a given date are able to remain when they have the right to do so. These amendments address aspects of the scheme. Later today we will continue with Amendment 49, in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates, which is about how to prove that status.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 44 on late applications, to which I have added my name, especially in the light of the pandemic, with people perhaps not being well for quite some time or not knowing that they need to register. I hope that there will be explicit provision in the Bill for late applications. I also support Amendment 96, which would require publication of reasonable grounds for late application. Again, that would help people to understand that there is the wherewithal, for those who have missed the deadline, for genuine reasons to be catered for.
I also support Amendment 46 in the light of the information we have received from members of the public who are concerned about their lack of sickness insurance. I would be grateful if my noble friend could address that issue and what deliberations there have been in the department that might address the issues raised in this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I was deterred from joining the crowded ranks for the Second Reading of the Bill. I support all the amendments in the group and I shall speak to Amendment 46, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, has asked me to reiterate his support for it, as he cannot be here today.
As we have heard, Amendment 46 concerns the retrospective requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance to have been taken out before settled status is granted throughout any period of self-sufficiency or as a student. This requirement has borne disproportionately hard on Roma people, with consequent unjust refusals of applications for naturalisation. This has been brought to my attention by the Roma Support Group, since it has particularly affected Roma women who have been looking after children full time, and thus are self-sufficient—neither employed nor self-employed—and who have applied for settled status using such documentation as they had, such as rental agreements or council tax bills, which were of course deemed insufficient. The requirement also prejudices the children of parents who have settled status but who did not acquire comprehensive sickness insurance themselves. The fees are usually out of their reach.
In answer to my Question HL6271 on this matter last July, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that having comprehensive sickness insurance
“has always been a requirement”
under EEA regulations, implying that students and self-sufficient people should have known about the requirement and ensured that they had the insurance. In fact, the CSI requirement results from the Home Office’s specific interpretation of EU regulations, which the European Commission considers to be in breach of EU law. I quote the European Commission’s own text:
“Under the Free Movement Directive, EU citizens who settle in another EU country but do not work there may be required to have sufficient resources and sickness insurance. The United Kingdom, however, does not consider entitlement to treatment by the UK public healthcare scheme (NHS) as sufficient. This breaches EU law.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, seems not to be with us, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I essentially support all the amendments in this group, but in particular it is crucial to think about the EU nationals resident here for maybe five years or more who expected to get settled status and then were given pre-settled status. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee so eloquently outlined in her opening remarks, 41% of those EU nationals seeking status of some sort have so far been given pre-settled status.
Maybe members of Her Majesty’s Government are always fully on top of every detail of every document they are ever required to look at, sign or agree. Whenever they get a piece of paper—assuming they even get a piece of paper and it is not some digital communication—they presumably know where they put it and they will know that on some future date, perhaps 23 July 2023, they will have to say, “Now I’m due to have my settled status. Oh Government, please, what do I do now?”
Every Minister might be able to do this, but I suspect that many of the 1.4 million people with pre-settled status might be more like the rest of us: they would know at the back of their minds that they needed to do something. It is a bit like doing a tax return, but at least with an annual self-assessment, one is reminded of it constantly—not just by emails from HMRC but by regular newspaper and television advertisements telling people the date by which they have to do their annual self-assessment tax return. People with pre-settled status are not going to have a single date: each of them will have a different point at which their five-year residence is up and needs to be turned into settled status. Amendment 45 is therefore absolutely crucial.
The Minister may argue that each individual should take responsibility for themselves—this may be the government view. I am sure that everyone who has sought settled status and has so far been told that they can have only pre-settled status is trying to take responsibility for themselves, but there may be all sorts of reasons why they do not necessarily remember the precise date by which they need to regularise things. It could be because of individual specific circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, mentioned, it could be because of the Covid crisis. There are all sorts of reasons people may not be able to deal with paperwork in the way they would normally be able to do. There may be a family bereavement—there could be a whole set of reasons why people have not thought through what paperwork is required.
There is, however, something to be said for the Government sending appropriate reminders. Surely one of the lessons of Windrush is that it is hugely important not only for individuals to have details of their own status but for the Government to have them too. If the Government are moving so much towards digitisation—so that all settled status documentation will be digital, unless the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates is passed—it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Government to have a mechanism for alerting people, six months out, to what they need to do to convert their status. If the Minister is minded to demonstrate Her Majesty’s Government’s compassionate and flexible approach—not something we very often see from the Home Office—that would be one way of going about it.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, requesting information about what would count as appropriate for a late application is most valuable. EU nationals who have used their rights of free movement in recent years would be fully aware of the requirement to seek settled status. But people who have lived in the United Kingdom for many years—who were maybe born here, to parents who are not British but who had the right to be here because of some other European citizenship—may not think to apply. Maybe they have lived all their lives in the United Kingdom and never stopped to realise that they did not have the rights of residency that settled status would give them, without which they may not even be permitted to be in this country. Unless the Government has an effective way of identifying a whole range of people eligible for settled status but who did not realise that they needed it, some flexibility is required. A tolerant country would surely allow these people to apply late when their status becomes clear.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support for all the amendments in this group. We have already had a strong, informative debate, so I will not take up very much of the time of your Lordships’ House.
I wish to address a couple of points. On Amendment 46, on comprehensive sickness insurance, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, powerfully and clearly set out the discriminatory effects of this surprising—possibly illegal—application of the rules. I am particularly concerned about the differential gender impact: invariably, it is women in caring situations who do not have their own income who will be affected by this.
I want to speak briefly to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This can be described only as a modest and reasonable request for transparency, democracy and scrutiny from the Government. It asks them to show what their plans are for looking after the group—that will inevitably, by definition, be made up of more vulnerable people—affected by the inability to apply for settled status within the deadline. Debating this amendment in the other place, as well as in your Lordships’ House, would be a chance for scrutiny, as well as constructive engagement, the pointing out of flaws and making suggestions for improvement. Will the Minister consider this? We can assume, I hope, that we will receive many assurances from the Government about how they intend to use the right to late applications. The Government clearly already have in mind how this is going to look, so surely it would not be that difficult to set it out on paper.
I want to briefly follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, said about technology. These days, what people have to do practically and how they manage their lives is increasingly digital. Maybe you have put a reminder to yourself in a digital calendar to do something. The deadline is there and you have done the right thing, but we all know that sometimes technology goes wrong: computers die and people lose passwords. The Government should be able to ensure a steady recording and reminder process. They do not perhaps always have a great record when it comes to IT projects, but this should not be very difficult or very costly. It would provide people with a security blanket, which is what all these amendments seek to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in her introduction, we are talking here about enabling people to exercise the rights to which they are entitled. Surely that is something that the Government want to make as easy and practical as possible.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments, and the later group on the grace period, are somewhat interrelated. However, as I will not be speaking to that group, I want to make all my remarks now.
Amendments 44, 45 and 46, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, with support from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on Amendment 46, are designed to address concerns about late applications and the need for the EU settlement scheme to remain open. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has fully explained, it would ensure that those granted pre-settled status get a reminder of the need to apply for full status and can, in the meantime, enjoy access to social assistance and housing. It would also rule out a retrospective requirement for private health insurance, which is what comprehensive sickness insurance means in this context, if a person with settled status applies for citizenship. I also fully support all the comments made by my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham.
A week ago, in a debate on applications for citizenship, the Minister told us that
“if people who were previously here as a student, or as self-sufficient, lack this”—
“this” being CSI—
“it does not mean that an application will be refused. The British Nationality Act allows for discretion to be applied around this requirement in the special circumstances of a particular case.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 579.]
I do not think we were told what the nature and criteria of the exercise of this discretion would be. Perhaps the Minister can tell us a bit more about this.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee. I intended to speak last week but I was not feeling too well, so I did not and did not come. I apologise for that, although there may be members of the Committee who think an apology is not appropriate and who were quite pleased about it. I declare something of an interest. I have a close in-law who, I am pleased to say, has just achieved settled status, although it took him a long time to bring himself to even apply for it. I support the amendments in this group and all the speeches that have been made.
This group should be put in its context. Among a lot of European citizens living in this country, large numbers of whom now have settled or pre-settled status, there remains an acute sense of concern. A lot of people are still fearful and worried; some are still scared. They are worried particularly about family relationships. Jobs are a different thing, in a sense. People are worried about their jobs but somebody who has got a good job and skills can go and get another one. A lot of people are still wondering what to do. How long might they stay here; will they stay here for the rest of their lives as many intended to do? People keep saying to me: “Yes, we have got settled status and that is fine, but how do we know that they won’t change what it means?” This week, one person said: “Look, it’s part of the withdrawal agreement and an international treaty, but we have a Government who do not seem to care too much about that.” Whether or not that is true is a different matter; it is the impression that is being given, so they are asking what it means.
How long will it be before people come along and say, “Yes, but you are European citizens and we will change the basis on which you live in, work in, or have the right to return to this country”? It may be in small ways; it may be in the detail of complicated legislation. So much of what the Committee is talking about is exactly that. I do not think that this is something that the Government can give reassurance on. They have tried, but they cannot guarantee what a future sovereign Parliament may allow—or force—a Government to do. We talk about the hostile environment: a lot of people still believe that the way in which they are being treated and regarded by many British residents of this country is undesirably different from what it was before the referendum.
That is all history; we know what is happening. It would, however, help if the Government, instead of concentrating on what they are now calling the need to be compliant, and pursuing that kind of thing, came out with some positive spin: propaganda or publicity about the value of European citizens and how important they are to this country. The end of this year—the end of the transition period—would be a good opportunity to do that, because that still gives six months, and it could be tied to a renewed government campaign to pick up the people who have not yet applied for settled status.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in her brilliant introduction to this group, suggested that the number of people who might be caught at the end of June by not having applied and not fitting into whatever guidance the Government finally come up with—they have given some indications but they are not very comprehensive and the guidance will not come out before we have dealt with this Bill—might be huge. It does not matter whether it is a huge number or not; it might be a few hundred or a few thousand, although it is likely to be rather more than that. We do not know how many there will be, but for those individuals it is no more or less important if it is 10,000, 20,000 or 200,000. Many people think that it is going to be rather more than a few thousand, given the comparison between the number of people who have applied so far and estimates of how many European citizens there are in this country.
These amendments are very important. I will not repeat all the reasons why people may not have applied for settled status by June next year, or indeed why they have been given pre-settled status, except that it is fairly clear that in the majority, probably, of pre-settled status cases it is simply that people have not been living here long enough. That is fair enough: they can continue to live here and will then qualify. Anecdotal evidence—of which there is a lot—suggests, however, that much of it is error by the Home Office, or the inability or failure to provide some detail, often a quite trivial detail. The anecdotal evidence comes from two groups of people. The first group is those who have appealed; the rate of success among them is, I understand, quite high. That suggests that many other people have not appealed and have said, “Well, I am only going to live here another two, three or four years”, or, “Well, we will get it all sorted out in three or four years’ time”. They are the sort of people who will get caught by the system. We have no idea how many of them there are; we know, however, that in relation to the 40% or so who have status—the people the Government are so proud about—it is temporary status.
Why should the Government make an effort to tell people about the scheme? My noble friends went through a lot of reasons. One of them—a perfectly legitimate and acceptable reason—is that people change their minds. People who think that they will be here only another two or three years may experience a change in their circumstances. They might get married, have children, get a new job; they might do all sorts of things. When their circumstances change, they may just change their mind and decide that they would like to stay. They will then, however, have to reapply. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that when, in due course, people who have been turned down for settled status but have pre-settled status apply for settled status, the Home Office will not revisit their original application, find errors in it and use that as an excuse for not giving them settled status? That is a fundamental point. Will the Minister give that assurance?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, we welcome the work that has been done on the EU settlement scheme so far, and the number of people who have been able to access it. We hope that the scheme proves successful, but that remains to be seen.
I will speak to Amendments 52 and 96, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. Amendment 52 seeks clarity on the rights of EU citizens who have the right to apply for settled status but have not yet done so. What are their rights in the “grace period” between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applications?
The Government have now published a draft of the citizens’ rights (application deadline and temporary protection) (EU exit) regulations 2020—we might call it the grace period SI—during this stage of the Bill, which is helpful. This SI, made under Section 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, would specify 30 June 2021 as the application deadline and provide that certain provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016—the regulations that provide for free movement rights—will continue to apply during the grace period for relevant persons, despite the revocation of those regulations under this Bill.
In essence, the government factsheet tells us that the SI will temporarily “protect the existing rights” of EU nationals who are eligible for the settlement scheme during the grace period. Regulations 5 to 12 of the SI specify which provisions will continue to apply. Can the Government confirm to the House that the full existing rights of EU citizens will be carried into the grace period by this SI and there will be no substantive changes or loss of rights? We welcome the clarification that the person’s existing rights continue during the entirety of the processing of their application—even where, for example, they apply late in June and the deadline passes while their application is being considered.
We welcome the Government’s aims in the SI to provide legal protection to these rights. However, questions remain over how they will be protected in practical terms. If an EU national tries to open a bank account, rent a home or enrol their child in school during that period, what are the Government doing to ensure that their continuing rights are widely understood—because people are generally not aware that they have that right and there could be a difficulty?
Regulation 13 of the SI states:
“Where any question arises as to whether a person is or was lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at a particular point in time … it is for the individual in question to prove that they were”.
That is to say that they must prove that they were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. Can the Government say in which situations they expect that people will have to prove their ongoing status and how they envisage people will do this? What documentation might they need, for example? Crucially—since one can see there might be some difficulty in being able to prove it—what support will there be for a person who runs into this kind of difficulty and who may well, in fact, be perfectly lawfully resident in the United Kingdom?
I am sure there will be many other questions that arise in relation to the draft SI, but I will move on to Amendment 96, which seeks more information on late applications to the settlement scheme. The Government have repeatedly said there will be “reasonable grounds” on which a late application will be accepted, but of course I am sure we would all acknowledge that the word “reasonable” is subjective. Different people will have different interpretations of what is reasonable. When can we expect full guidance on late applications? If a person was completely unaware that they had to apply, will that count as reasonable grounds? Would this also apply to a person who just made a mistake and missed a deadline? At one time or another, most of us have made such a mistake.
However, our main question is on the immigration status of people who miss the deadline. An NHS doctor, for example, misses the deadline but continues to go to work. If they are then granted status in, say, 2022, they will—presumably—have been officially unlawfully resident in the UK for a number of months. Will they be considered to have been working illegally and, if so, will there be consequences for that? What status will they be deemed to have had between the June 2021 deadline and the granting of status in 2022?
Another example might be an elderly person who missed the scheme entirely because they are not digitally literate—something I can empathise with—and who continues to use healthcare services before any application is organised on their behalf. Will they be liable for high NHS fees because they did not know that their right to use those services lawfully had lapsed?
I hope the Government will be able to provide answers to the questions that I and other noble Lords have raised—either in their response or subsequently—and, not least, to the points on CSI made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the concerns expressed over the potential implications for the future of the high percentage of those who have been given pre-settled status.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and rightly probed me on some of the detail of what the Government are intending to do across all the various issues that are raised in these amendments. I am pleased to say that, on most points, I think I will be able to reassure noble Lords on the issues they raise.
On Amendments 44 and 96, both concern how the Government will deal with late applications to the EU settlement scheme. Both are incredibly well-intentioned, as they concern how we ensure that those eligible for the scheme obtain status under it. There is plenty of time for those EEA citizens and their family members resident here by the end of the transition period to apply for status under the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of 30 June 2021. Furthermore, in line with the citizens’ rights agreement, they will be able to apply after the deadline where they have reasonable grounds for missing it.
I think noble Lords will find that, throughout my response, I will outline how the Government intend to take a very pragmatic approach to all these issues. During the Second Reading debate, I confirmed that, early in 2021, the Government will publish guidance on what constitutes missing the deadline. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I say that the timescale is appropriate because, for the time being, our priority has been to encourage all those who are eligible to apply to the scheme to do so before the deadline. We do not want to risk undermining that effort by inadvertently encouraging people to put off making the application.
Amendment 44 would cause confusion over the deadline for a scheme which has been designed to be simple and straightforward. We must also deliver on our promise to the people to end free movement and, from 2021, introduce the new global points-based immigration system. However, as I said earlier, the EU settlement scheme does not close on 30 June 2021. It will continue to operate thereafter for applications by people with pre-settled status applying for settled status and by those who are joining family members in the UK as well as by those with reasonable grounds for applying after the 30 June 2021 deadline. A report setting out proposals for dealing with late applications—as sought by Amendment 44—is not needed because we have been clear that we will take a pragmatic and flexible approach to late applications and will be publishing that guidance early next year.
Amendment 96, concerning such guidance, is also unnecessary. Our guidance on reasonable grounds for applying after the deadline will be indicative and not exhaustive. I think noble Lords will agree that this is the right approach; we will consider all cases in light of their individual circumstances. A person with reasonable grounds for missing the deadline who subsequently applies for and obtains status under the scheme will enjoy the same rights from the time they are granted status as someone who applied to the scheme before the deadline.
The withdrawal agreement obliges us to accept late applications indefinitely where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. This and other rights under the agreements now have direct effect in law via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, so this commitment is already effectively enshrined in primary legislation agreed by Parliament.
The Government are also doing all they can to raise awareness of the scheme and ensure support is available. In March, we announced a further £8 million of funding, in addition to £9 million last year, for organisations across the UK to help vulnerable people to apply. Plans for a further burst of national advertising are under way because we are determined that no one will be left behind. My noble friend Lady Altmann specifically asked about this point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in a more indirect way.
I will take a moment to outline what we are going to do between now and next year. With less than a year to go until the deadline, we will continue to update our communications approach. We will have further and future national advertising, which will have adjusted messaging and emphasis to ensure that it speaks to the remaining audiences still to apply.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will have to read what the Minister has said when I pore over Hansard, but I do not think that I am reassured in relation to the grace period SI. This SI refers to how the provisions of the EEA regulations 2016 continue to have effect despite the revocation of those regulations by this Bill—but it is the EEA regulations, unlike Appendix EU for the settlement scheme, which require CSI.
In accordance with the promise made by the then Home Secretary Theresa May in 2017, CSI would not be required as part of a settlement scheme application, but the grace period SI, by referring to the EEA regulations, as opposed to the rules under Appendix EU, that is EU settlement scheme rules, appears to be reintroducing the requirement for CSI. This is complicated and perhaps I have not properly understood it, and I will have to pore over what the Minister says.
Representatives of the 3 million were told by an official at the end of last week that there appeared to be a mistake, although this is only hearsay—perhaps this official did not understand any more than I did—but immigration lawyers who are trying to advise EU citizens on this think there is a problem. Referring to the EEA regulations incorporates a requirement for CSI—that is to say private health insurance—which has not been required during the settlement scheme application to date, but suddenly, in the grace period, it will be. Citizenship will also be required, but there is a discretion for that. Unlike for citizenship, there does not even appear to be a discretion to exempt it for settled status.
Clearly, the Minister, who is shaking her head at me, thinks I have continued to misunderstand this, but I remain less than reassured, and I hope I will manage to get it clearer in my own head. Perhaps more importantly, people whose profession it is to understand the EEA regulations and the settlement scheme, as opposed to a mere legislator, might be reassured by the Minister’s words, and I will defer to her.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I hope the noble Baroness takes a look at Hansard. These are not the easiest things that we are discussing, but I understand the grace period SI does not affect the criteria for the EUSS status. The SI is protecting the EEA rights of those who have them at the end of the transition period. I know we will speak further, and I know that she will read Hansard, but I hope in reiterating that point again, she will feel happy that the amendment is withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I thank noble Lords. I, too, will supply myself with some hot towels and read through all that. We have another opportunity to discuss the grace period on Amendment 80, but I, like my noble friend, feel less than reassured. The issue is whether, without having sickness insurance, one has the relevant rights. The arguments seem to have moved over the past few months as to whether having CSI is necessary to exercise the rights or, in other words, whether you have been the exercising right to free movement or the treaty rights.
Some very pertinent points and questions have been posed during this debate. I wish my noble friend Lady Smith had not reminded me about tax returns and the amount of filing I have to do, but she was right and explained my reasoning on Amendment 45 better than I did. There has been a focus on individuals throughout this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves that it is not about the numbers of people. What matters matters to 100% of each individual.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 48. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 48
“Leave to enter: family unity and claims for asylum
(1) For at least such time as a relevant agreement has not been concluded and implemented, a person to whom this section applies shall be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) is on the territory of any relevant Member State; and(b) makes an application for leave to enter for the purpose of making a claim for asylum; and(c) would, had that person made an application for international protection in that Member State, have been eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 by reason of a relevant provision if the United Kingdom remained a party to that Regulation.(3) An application for leave to enter under subsection (2)(c) shall be made in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe save that—(a) there shall be no fee for the making of such an application and no requirements may be prescribed that are unreasonable having regard to the purposes of this section and the circumstances of persons to whom it applies;(b) in relation to such applications, the Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that applicants receive a decision regarding their application no later than two months from the date of submission of the application.(4) A claim for asylum made under subsection (2)(b) must remain pending throughout such time as no decision has been made on it or during which an appeal could be brought within such time as may be prescribed for the bringing of any appeal against a decision made on a claim or during which any such appeal remains pending for the purposes of section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeal); and a claim for asylum remains one on which no decision has been made during such time as the claim has been made to the Secretary of State and has not been granted, refused, abandoned or withdrawn. (5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring that unaccompanied children on the territory of a relevant Member State continue to be relocated to the United Kingdom, if it is in the child's best interests.(6) For the purposes of this section—“applicant” means a person who makes an application for leave to enter under this section;“claim for asylum” means a claim for leave to enter or remain as a refugee or as a person eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection;“Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013” means Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council including the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast);“relevant agreement” means an agreement negotiated by a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the United Kingdom, with the European Union in accordance with which there is provision for the transfer of a person who has made an application for asylum in a Member State of the European Union to the United Kingdom and that provision is no less extensive than Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 insofar as that regulation operated to enable the transfer of a person to join a child, sibling, parent or other family member or relative in the United Kingdom before exit day;“relevant Member State” means a Member State for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;“relevant provision” means any of the following articles of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013—(a) Article 8,(b) Article 9,(c) Article 10,(d) Article 16,(e) Article 17.”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 48, which has cross-party support in this House and the House of Commons, is concerned with the rights of child refugees in Europe. We are all aware that the refugee crisis is one of the biggest challenges facing us, both in Europe and the whole world. We have a responsibility, along with other countries, to meet that challenge.
We have all been shocked by the filming and newsreels of the fires in the Moria camp. I visited the Moria camp about a year and a half ago; I was shocked then at the overcrowding and the appalling conditions in which people were living, or existing, particularly the children. I visited the Calais area, which had equally appalling conditions. I believe that children in Moria, Calais and in other camps are not safe. It is no good saying that these children are safe in Europe. They are not safe in Europe, and we have a responsibility to help.
Even before the Moria fire, the Greek Government had for months been asking other countries to help them and take a fair responsibility for unaccompanied children. Some countries stepped forward: Germany, Portugal, France, Luxembourg, Finland and even non-EU Switzerland said they would take children but, as far as I am aware, the United Kingdom did nothing.
Since the tragedy in Moria, a number of countries have taken emergency action to help the children specifically impacted by the fire. The Greek Government moved some of them off Moria on to the mainland, but they are still in difficult circumstances. As I understand it, we are talking about 407 unaccompanied children. Ten countries have stepped forward: Germany, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Croatia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Switzerland have all said they will take some of the unaccompanied children from the camps, but still the United Kingdom has not responded.
In the grand scheme of things, the United Kingdom receives far fewer asylum claims by adults and children than many other EU countries. This is not a matter of competition or using statistics, but Germany, France, Greece and Spain have each taken more than the UK. In relation to their population size, Sweden and Belgium are also doing better than we are. The idea that we are doing our share frankly does not pass the test of the numbers that I have quoted.
I believe that there are three legal routes to safety for child refugees. The first is the vulnerable person resettlement scheme. That is of course a step away from the scope of the Bill, but it is mainly for refugees from Bekaa, Jordan and Lebanon. It is a worthwhile scheme and I applaud the Government on it, but it would be useful to know from the Minister what the Government’s intentions are after 2020, as they have said that it has been agreed until only 2020. Of course it is illogical that a child in a camp in, say, Jordan, should be able to reach the UK in contrast to a child from Greece or the Calais area who apparently is not welcome here. That is why the amendment is so important in providing a safe and legal route.
There are two specific legal routes from Europe. There is Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 for children in Europe who do not have relatives here, which was capped by the Government at 480. I have argued with the Minister on a number of occasions; the Government say that there are not enough local authorities to take more children in foster homes but, frankly, I am aware of quite a large number of local authorities that are willing to take children who do not have family here and to provide foster places, and indeed I think a louder call for local authorities to respond would produce even more places than the 1,600 or so with safe passage that the NGO working on this has been able to cover.
Then there is the Dublin agreement—Dublin III, as we call it—an EU treaty under which children in an EU country can apply to join relatives in another EU country. This is probably the key point in the Bill because it is about family reunion, which is surely a fundamental right. Children should be able to join relatives in this country where those relatives have accommodation for them. This is something that we have debated before; indeed, we even passed an amendment to the 2017 Bill to include Dublin III—that is, that the UK Government in negotiating with the EU should make sure that the provisions of the Dublin treaty regarding family reunion would continue even after we left the EU. That was voted by this House into the 2017-19 Bill and was eventually accepted by the House of Commons. It was then removed from the statute book by the 2019 Act.
I had meetings with Ministers and argued with them. I even had a meeting with the then Immigration Minister, now the Northern Ireland Secretary, who asked at one point in a discussion that we had, “Do you not trust me?” Of course I trusted him—well, things have changed since then, but that is in a different context. We were given assurances that the Government would protect the rights of Dublin III children, but when the Government eventually published their response it fell very short far short of the protection necessary. We took legal advice that said the response was a much weaker one than the one under the Dublin treaty. I am disappointed that we are at the point where we do not know what is going to happen in future.
I understand that, for reasons that are not clear to me, Brussels says that in negotiation with the UK it has no mandate from the 27 countries to negotiate on the Dublin III treaty and that that will have to be done on a bilateral basis—that is, in 27 separate negotiations. That is of course a recipe for a long drawn-out process. I do not know why that is the case because even our Government would be keen for there to be one separate negotiation, although, as I said earlier, I would like it to be on something more substantive than the Government’s proposals that were put forward recently.
If we have to leave the EU without a deal—I am bound to say that that looks increasingly likely—or with a very limited deal, where does that leave the Dublin III children? The amendment that we originally passed in 2017, which the Government said they would accept the spirit of while deleting it in the 2019 Act, was of course based on the premise that we would find some good basis for negotiating our continued relationship with the EU. That seems less likely now than ever, which is why Amendment 48 is surely the best way forward and is so important.
Let me restate: I believe that the UK, along with other European countries, share responsibility for refugees. It should be a wide international responsibility. However, I have never said we should take all the children; I have said only that we should take our share. If this issue is explained to the people of this country—it has already been explained, but we will go on explaining it—we will find that most people in Britain, though not all, are sympathetic to the idea that we should take child refugees. This is something I believe commands public support. Those of us who have been campaigning for child refugees have always said, as I have certainly said, that it is public support that we need—community groups, faith groups, or whatever group in the public.
We know that providing safe routes is the best way of defeating vicious people traffickers. That is why the two legal paths to safety, plus the scheme from the region, are the right way forward. This amendment will consolidate that and give children in Europe safety in this country. We are a humanitarian country. We can demonstrate this best by accepting this amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
After the masterly explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, there is little to add. However, I want to have a go. I said at the start of this Committee that I should declare an interest: I am a trustee of the Refugee Council.
First, I make a general point about the hysteria about invasions across the channel. There have been 4,000 people who came this year—why? It is not, pace the Prime Minister, because they are stupid. It is because there is no open legal operational alternative for them. This means that we are effectively accomplices of the criminals who stuff them into dangerous dinghies and lethal lorries. It is not the fault of the French, pace the Daily Express; there is no legal or moral obligation on the French to say to people who would like to seek asylum in the United Kingdom that they must instead seek asylum in France. Let us keep it all in perspective; the French and the Germans received more than three times as many applications for asylum last year as we did. The Greeks received twice as many. Let us try to take out of the debate some of the emotion and hysteria that Mr Farage is so keen to stoke up.
I have three points on unaccompanied children. First, it is a shame that despite all the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have still not cracked the problem. The overwhelming number of these cases are about family reunion. The humanitarian case for family reunion is overwhelming. The evidence I see at the Refugee Council suggests that British public opinion thinks so too. British public opinion would like us to crack this problem. The British people are not inhumane.
Secondly, the problem is about to get worse. Dublin III will not apply after 1 January and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was saying, it is clear that the Frost-Barnier negotiation will not produce the replacements for Dublin that our Government were required by this House to seek. Section 37 of the withdrawal Act abolished that requirement to seek it. Their own proposal was inadequate as a way of matching what the House of Lords had asked for before our request was knocked out of the Act. It was more about a requirement on the 27 to accept failed asylum seekers on return than about making it possible for families to be reunited in this country. As I understand it, that proposal is dead.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register as receiving support from the RAMP project on immigration policy and as a trustee of Reset. It is a real honour to follow the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, with whose comments I fully agree, particularly the final points from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on pull and push factors.
In our churches, we tell a story about a man who was attacked by robbers on the road. As he lay wounded, people passed him and hurried on their way. Who helped him? It was not those from his own community. Instead, a stranger saw the man’s plight, chose to stop, carried him to safety and took care of his needs. This man, Jesus observed, was truly a good neighbour. In the light of this, who is our neighbour in a global age?
Throughout its history, the people of this country have faced choices about whether to offer sanctuary to those fleeing violence and persecution. We are rightly proud of the occasions when we have done so. The legacy of the Kindertransport in the Second World War, which saved Jewish children’s lives, and about which many of us have heard our noble friend Lord Dubs speak so movingly on occasions, still motivates many of us to support this cause.
Sadly, there is another history too, in which we in this nation have chosen a different path: of rejecting those in need and shutting our eyes to the plight of those afflicted by conflict and persecution, and of the racist exclusion of those who have come here to rebuild their lives. In a world of conflict, disaster and persecution, we face this choice again and again. Will we offer welcome or will we turn away? Which path will we take as a nation? For those least able to help themselves—unaccompanied children—what will we choose to do?
This week, as we have heard of and seen reports on the fire at the Moria camp in Greece, we are pressed to make a choice whether to help or to stand by, as both the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, have said. In that camp, there were thousands of children, including more than 407 unaccompanied minors, some of whom are reported as having family members in the UK but are still waiting to be transferred here, months after being accepted for family reunion under the Dublin III law. In response to this debate, I hope that the Minister will address what is being done for them. Those of us who support this amendment are concerned that while Germany, France and other countries have already offered assistance to those affected by this fire, the UK appears yet to have done so. I am worried that in their actions this week, the Government have already chosen between the two paths with which we are faced.
Christians often remind themselves of these words of Jesus:
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
We are called to treat every child—and every person fleeing persecution and war, for it is within our power to help—with dignity and hospitality, as if they were the son of God himself. Many of us will share a conviction, whatever values or beliefs it is based on, that human life is precious, and that each person carries a unique, incalculable value. How do we choose to recognise that in the question before us of children separated from their families?
I acknowledge the argument made on previous occasions that primary legislation is not necessary to facilitate family reunion. I do not doubt the sincerity of the reassurances that I and others have received repeatedly over recent months from Ministers that they take our humanitarian obligations seriously. Yet I note with regret that the UK’s refugee resettlement scheme appears still to be paused while other countries have restarted theirs. I also note that the Dublin arrangements will soon lapse and that, in any case, there are precious few safe and legal routes for those seeking sanctuary to arrive here.
In the light of that, I must support this amendment, that we might bind ourselves to making the choice to offer sanctuary to those in need of it. I encourage everyone in this House to support it too.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is quite difficult to follow such eloquent speeches and I will not attempt to emulate them. However, I can give the House some examples of why I think that they are correct in what they say about public opinion. First, I must declare my interest, as in the register, as being a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
Having been the local MP, I know that the London of Borough of Hillingdon received and looked after a large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My fellow MPs for the area, John McDonnell and Nick Hurd—that is, from all sides of the political spectrum—and we worked hard because we knew that we welcomed these children. However, we had to make the point, and we came together in doing so, that the then Labour had to provide ample resources so that the public—our constituents—did not feel that they were being disadvantaged in any way and that services would suffer from the long-term financial commitment of looking after these children. I have to say that we were very successful.
When it is explained that this is something that we should do for unaccompanied children, I think that public opinion is there. Without venturing into the right reverend Prelate’s area of expertise, I can give a personal example of where I found the most unlikely good Samaritan. A member of my Conservative association was—shall we say?—very forthright on the immigration policies at that time and was not a fan of lots of people coming in, as he saw it, illegally, legally or whatever, to the point where sometimes I really winced when I heard him speak. However, there was a knock at my window late one night—I lived, and still do live, in the heart of my constituency—and it was this gentleman, who said, “John, you’ve got to do something.” Apparently, he had had a bad road accident and the only person who had come to his aid as he was lying on the road was a young Kosovan, who was going to be deported. When somebody realises that these are real people, suddenly any antipathy disappears.
This country has a great tradition of looking after people, and I shall quote an example that I am aware of but which is probably little known. During the First World War, a lot of Serbian children were looked after in Scotland as they were escaping the horrors of the war. Many settled here; some went back to Serbia after the war. Not only was it right for us to do that but it gave them a great sense of the British way of life. I know from reading an excellent book how grateful they were for what happened at that time.
Therefore, I just say to my noble friend that I think we should be less cautious in worrying about what some of the perhaps more right-wing side of the media say about this. When children come to this country unaccompanied, they do not come for a pull factor; they do so because where they come from is such a hell. Nobody would willingly put themselves at such risk to come from those countries. I am not sure about some of the wording in the amendment—although I am not an expert on it—but I think that we should take this issue very seriously at this particular time.
A couple of years ago, I was at the main railway station in Serbia and saw the flow of migrants, although by that time it was not as large as it had been. Anyone who sees, close to, families who are desperate and leaving war-torn countries such as Syria and Iraq cannot be anything other than moved. I support the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this list to fulfil a promise to certain campaigners who had been lobbying me. I have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I have nothing further to add except to say that I support everything they said with my heart and mind.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. It is quite shocking to hear from Safe Passage that in their negotiating proposals the Government seek to replace children’s rights under Dublin III with a discretionary provision that provides vulnerable children with neither the certainty nor security they sorely need. That contrasts with the mandatory approach taken to returning children to other EU countries—or EU countries, now—which rather smacks of double standards.
Surely it is hypocritical to wring one’s hands over children and young people risking their lives to cross the channel in tiny boats while increasing the likelihood of that happening in future by further narrowing clear and firm legal routes open to them, as has already been stated. On that, can the Minister say when the Government plan to start the resettlement programme, which has already been mentioned? She recently told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that the Government will do so
“as soon as it is practical and safe to do so.”—[Official Report, 3/9/20; col. 519.]
The Government have already deemed it “practical and safe” to restart some deportation flights, so why not resettlement flights? I understand that nearly half the countries in the resettlement programme restarted their schemes weeks ago. As Stephen Hale, chief executive of Refugee Action, has said:
“It is baffling that the UK government has arranged travel corridors for summer holidays on the one hand but prevented resettlement flights taking place on the other. Flights that would offer a literal lifeline to some of the most vulnerable refugees in the world.”
He underlined that it is “a matter of urgency.”
Urgent too, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, is action to help those children whose lives have been turned upside down yet again by the dreadful fire at the Moria camp in Lesbos. We have heard that a number of other countries have offered to take some of these children but that this country has not stepped in—or, I should say, stepped up—to its responsibilities. Can the Minister explain why? Why have we not yet done what we should be doing here?
Returning to the Bill itself, Coram has bemoaned the lack of attention given to children generally in the Government’s immigration proposals. Have the Government even undertaken a child rights or best interests assessment of what they are proposing? I have not seen one. Can we perhaps have one before Report? Here is an opportunity to give children’s organisations such as Coram some reassurance by accepting my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I sometimes wonder whether the Government—particularly those within No. 10, holding office or otherwise—have any sense of shame whatever. There is really no other way to describe their dilatory approach to all this than shameful. Perhaps nothing is unbelievable these days, but it is almost unbelievable that—dealing with children in the most vulnerable situation, who have been through hell and are psychologically and sometimes physically in a very bad way and in need of love, affection, care and concern—there is a total failure to ensure that the provisions of the Dublin agreement, such as they were, have been carried forward and a satisfactory replacement negotiated with the European Union.
I know that it is a controversial thing to say in this House, but I have reached a point at which I feel shame for my nation. Do we care about children, or indeed adults, who are in desperate need or do we not? Why are we not busting a gut, with all our ingenuity and skills, to find ways in which people can, in their desperation, make safe journeys rather than being thrown into the hands of smugglers or acute dangers in totally inadequate vessels? This issue goes to the kernel of what kind of nation we want to be and appear to the world to have become.
All I can say is that my admiration for my noble friend Lord Dubs is unbridled. The way he has been, in effect, repeatedly let down by government is a sad and sorry story. I am sorry if it appears that I am just moralising, but this is crucial to where our sense of care, concern and responsibility as a nation is. Therefore, this amendment, whatever it can do, is desperately needed. I cannot say how sorry and sad I am that we have reached this predicament.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hesitate to speak in this debate having heard the eloquent and dedicated contribution of my noble friend Lord Dubs, and from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, about the humanitarian imperative to act now in this terrible crisis that we are seeing unfold, both in Greece and France, of unaccompanied children and families. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we see proposals from the Government that appear to prepare to weaken our commitment to reuniting unaccompanied children with their families—at a time that strikes at the heart of what we believe are British values of caring and standing up for those who are less well off than us and taking our share and burden in helping those in greatest need.
Amendment 48, which I support, would provide the basis on which this country could have rules that offered a safe route for children to join their family members in the UK. Having such clear rules offers a path forward. The Minister has to tell the Committee why the Government find themselves in a position in which the EU has rejected the proposals that they put forward in the negotiations on the basis that they were not part of the mandate. They were never part of the mandate. It looks unlikely that we will be able to negotiate bilateral agreements with the other member states. If the EU has overall competence for this matter, that route will be closed off for ever.
On 3 September, a Home Office official appearing before the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee confirmed that at the end of December 2020 the UK will not be bound by the Dublin arrangements. So we have no route through negotiations; we think that bilateral arrangements are unlikely, and we know we will not have Dublin III, according to the Government. Can the Minister tell the Committee, if she is going to reject amendment, what plans the Government have to ensure that we have a mechanism in place at the end of the transition period to provide a replacement for Dublin III? Can she explain how unaccompanied children in desperate need of clarity and certainty will receive speedy action so that they can be reunited with their families? Will she detail how, if she will not accept the amendment, she intends to insert rights into the Bill that protect children with relatives in the UK who are willing to take responsibility for those children?
The Government are being offered a clear and simple way forward to meet these obligations by the brilliant work of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I urge the Minister to accept the principles enshrined in the amendment. I hope she will respond positively to all the comments that have been made thus far in this very important debate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with the Children’s Society saying that child refugees worldwide now number some 13 million, surely the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was right to say that this is one of the gravest crises facing the world. The Minister will no doubt remind the Committee what the Government have done. They have done much to try to help children caught up in this terrible spiral of violence—I do not think that anyone in the Committee would not want to respond in some way to try to deal with many of the issues raised during the debate so far. However, she will understand from the cri de coeur she has heard from noble Lords across the Committee that just because we have helped some, that is not a reason not to try to help others as well. Just because we cannot solve the problems of everyone is not a reason not to try to solve the problems of anyone.
Given his own personal story, there is no one better equipped or able than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to put the case. I also wholeheartedly associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said about the sanctity of every human life and our particular duty to the most vulnerable. I make common cause with all those who have spoken in the debate so far.
Amendment 48 takes us back to the well-worn road to Dublin, although, as the Irish would say, if you wanted to get to Dublin you wouldn’t start from here. Over the months, the Minister has had to respond to my repeated questions, along with those of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords, about the Dublin regulations—those European Union protocols concerning the identification and transfer of people, especially unaccompanied children who have submitted a claim for asylum from one member state to another where the applicant has family. Of course, the issue of unaccompanied children was also the subject of the Dubs amendment, which was referred to by the noble Lord earlier in the debate. That amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House and I was very happy to be one of the signatories to it.
Amendment 48 has become necessary because Ministers have yet to create new arrangements post December 2020, when the transitional arrangements elapse. The amendment would provide some legal framework to enable those who would have been able to come here under the Dublin regulations to enter the UK and make their asylum claim.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is talking to an amendment that comes up later.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have my name to this amendment on behalf of our Benches. The subject matter of this amendment, and that of later Amendment 62, are very close. Amendment 62 is about family reunion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, in particular, referred to that. It will not escape the Committee that there is a particularly persuasive factor to Amendment 48, and that it is led by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose track record in leading the House on issues relating to refugees, particularly child refugees, is second to none.
I do not want to repeat points that have been made about push and pull factors, or about children’s experiences. I am very clear about the moral issues that have been referred to. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has rightly reminded the House, the Government has not done nothing. It will, however, be hearing the call to do more.
I want to make some technical points. Ministers tell us they are working hard—I do not mean to impugn anything there—to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after in the best possible way after we leave the Dublin regulations. As we have heard, they have referred to the draft negotiating document, the draft working text for an agreement between the EU and the UK on the transfer of these children, but there are two problems. First, there is nothing firm about that text: member states “may” make a request to transfer a child, and the UK “may” make a request to member states. Secondly, the EU has no mandate to negotiate on behalf of member states on this. To deal with the latter first, the Security and Justice Sub-Committee of the House’s Select Committee on the European Union took evidence on the text in July from witnesses, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and Professor Elspeth Guild, who explained the position to us. In the political declaration of last October, which is the basis for the commission’s negotiations—it has been given a mandate to negotiate on that basis—there was only one section on what is called illegal migration, which in turn is the basis for a draft agreement. That provides for co-operation to cover only three subject areas which do not include this issue.
When I first read the political declaration I wondered whether illegal migration covered refugees at all because they are not illegal, but since one of the three issues is tackling problems upstream, that suggests that refugees come within it. However, I will not challenge a professor of law with posts at two prestigious institutions, and I follow her argument. The EU has no mandate in negotiations, but that is not the end of it. The UK cannot negotiate an agreement member state by member state, because this is, counter-intuitively in view of what I have said, a fully exercised competence of the EU, so it is not open to member states to negotiate with the UK. It is counter-intuitive and a Catch-22 situation. Professor Guild said:
“The idea that we would be able to negotiate with each member state an equivalent of Article 6 of the Dublin regulations seems to me … astonishingly naive.”
It would need a lot of political will on all sides to sort this out through the UK-EU negotiations. We are all aware that matters are somewhat tense—would that be the right description? I, like others, am not optimistic about a positive outcome.
In January 2019, when the House was considering this issue, the Minister wrote to noble Lords that:
“negotiations ahead can be carried out with full flexibility and in an appropriate manner across all policy areas”,
referring to
“the traditional division between Government and Parliament”.
Given what we all know, or maybe do not know but suspect, about what is going on, is it wise to rely on the possibility of negotiation?
Apart from the principle, there are some shortcomings in the draft text of the provisions: the “may”, not “must”. It also says that no rights can be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the parties. That alone would make it hard to go along with the text. However, we can sort this out in domestic law, hence the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has been as persuasive as ever. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been clear about channel crossings. I will not go on; I agree with pretty much everything—possibly everything—that has been said. Immigration Bills come along quite frequently, but we should not wait for the next one. The amendment is not a big ask; its objective, in proposed new subsection (5), is clear, but it requires strategy and clarity about reaching that objective. Crucially, it refers to the “child’s best interests”. We should take this opportunity to provide this safe and legal route for children.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 48 provides that the only existing legal route, which is under the Dublin III convention, for asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children, to join family in the UK would remain operational after the end of the transition period. It also requires the Secretary of State to lay a strategy before Parliament to ensure that unaccompanied children continue to be relocated to the UK if it is in the child’s best interest. Family reunion under the Dublin III convention will no longer apply after the end of the transition period, in just over three months’ time. That means that vulnerable child refugees seeking to join relatives in the UK will no longer have this, or any other, safe route to our country, unless—which looks increasingly unlikely—there is a deal with the EU before the end of the transition period, which incorporates an alternative family reunion arrangement.
The Government have previously given assurances that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children. However, the UK’s draft proposal for a replacement to family reunion no longer includes mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate such reunions. Instead, it makes a child’s right to join their relatives discretionary and, on top of that, abolishes a child’s right to appeal against a refusal. Vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children and adults, would lose access to family reunion entirely. The evidence indicates that, without a mandatory requirement, family reunions will, to all intents and purposes, end, which may be the intention behind the Government’s draft proposal.
For the five years before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, from 2009 to 2014, family reunions of children and adults to the UK averaged just 11 people annually. After mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK averaged nearly 550 people annually. Significantly more than 11, but not a significant number in itself, compared with the overall net migration figure of some 200,000 plus. Without a mandatory requirement, children are likely to remain stranded in Europe indefinitely; alternatively, some may risk the more hazardous routes, involving crossing the Channel in small boats or a lorry in an attempt to reach family members.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken with such passion on these amendments; I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, of course, although I am not sure that I agree with his summation of our history of providing refuge for the most vulnerable children across the globe. The Government have an excellent humanitarian record in assisting vulnerable people, including children. We are one of the world’s leading refugee resettlement states. Under national resettlement schemes, we have resettled more refugees than any country in Europe and are in the top five countries worldwide. In contrast to some of the things noble Lords have been saying, we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees since 2015, around half of whom were children. We can be proud as a country of our ambitious commitments and achievements.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, stated that France and Germany have more asylum claims than us. That is not the case. We received 3,651 asylum claims from UASC in 2019, more than any other EU state and 20% of all claims made in the EU and UK. I hope that I have set that record straight.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked what we have done during the pandemic. It is absolutely fair to say that it has been very difficult to resettle children for all the reasons that the pandemic has brought; however, the UK has remained open to receiving Dublin transfers. I remember that, very early on in the pandemic crisis, Minister Philp was in talks with Greece. Three group flights have taken place from Greece in recent months, on 11 May, 28 July and 6 August. We continue to make arrangements with Greek officials to facilitate transfers of people we have accepted under the regulation. I must make it clear that all arrangements to complete the transfer are the responsibility of the sending state.
There are 5,000 unaccompanied children in local authority care. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, says that he knows that there are councils which would take more. I have pressed him for the last four years to tell me which councils these are and whether they would come forward to offer those places. Of course, Kent is struggling at the moment, but if there are more local authorities who can provide that protection, we would really like to hear from them.
We have given protection to nearly 45,000 children since 2010, including over 7,000 in the past year. We also issued over 7,400 family reunion visas in the year to March 2020. I do not think that is a sign of a mean country but a sign of a very small country that has done everything in its power to help the most vulnerable. In addition, once we have delivered our current commitments under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme—with almost 20,000 to date, and we will get to 20,000—we will consolidate our main schemes into a new global UK resettlement scheme. Our priority will be to continue to identify and resettle vulnerable refugees in need of protection, as identified and referred by UNHCR.
The proposed new clause does not recognise the existing routes in our immigration system for reuniting families, nor that we are pursuing new reciprocal arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We have tabled draft legal text for a negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system which would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity. These guarantees cannot be provided for in UK domestic provisions alone. We have acted in good faith and hope that the EU will do the same. The draft has not been rejected but—just to correct another statement made tonight—is still on the negotiating table. We will continue to provide safe and legal routes to Britain to bring together families of refugees through our refugee family reunion policy. Additionally, family members of British citizens or those granted settlement in the UK can apply to join them under Part 8 and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. All these routes remain in place at the end of the transition period.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord is, unsurprisingly, based on recreating the Dublin regulation. This is obviously an EU provision, and we have now left the EU. We are a sovereign state with our own family reunion routes, which are substantial, as I have just set out. We must avoid creating further incentives for people, particularly children, to leave their families and risk those dangerous journeys. This plays into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people, and it goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. Allowing individuals to sponsor family members to join them in the UK before a decision on their asylum claim is made creates great uncertainty for families, who may be unable to remain in the UK. We must also guard against significantly increasing the number of people who could qualify for family reunion while not necessarily needing protection themselves, and who may be seeking to make unfounded claims on our protection systems for economic gain.
Finally, the proposed amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a strategy on the relocation of unaccompanied children from EEA states. The Government have no intention to lay such a strategy. It would be incredibly challenging to deliver, not least because of the pressures already faced by local authorities that are currently caring for over 5,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That is an increase of 146% since 2014. As I said earlier, in 2019 the UK received the highest number of asylum claims from unaccompanied children in Europe, and 20% of all such claims made in the EU and UK. We only have to look at the situation in Kent in recent weeks to realise the pressure that some local authorities face. Alleviating that pressure and ensuring that unaccompanied children already in the UK receive the care they need has got to be our priority. In the longer term, we need to ensure that there is a fairer allocation of caring responsibilities across the entire country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, in July the Government announced they had successfully completed the transfer of 480 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Greece, France and Italy under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. Parliament was very clear then that this was a one-off scheme, which is now complete. We are pleased to see other countries now stepping up to support Greece by taking in unaccompanied children, and we stand ready to offer advice and guidance to member states who wish to develop their own schemes.
On that note, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so supportively and passionately in favour of the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for having laid out the Government’s arguments and responses. I am sure that we will come back to this on Report, but I would like to make some very brief comments. I do not want to bandy figures too much; I think we can probably deal with that between now and Report stage.
The Minister mentioned the Section 67 scheme in the 2016 Act. The Minister said it was a one-off scheme, but it was only one-off because the Government arbitrarily closed it. There was no number given in the amendment; the Government quite arbitrarily said that there were no more local authority places. I think the Government stopped that one.
The Minister mentioned the children who came and how generous we have been but, according to the figures she quoted, the majority of these children came illegally. They crossed the channel, either in dinghies or in the back of lorries. I believe that, had they had legal paths to safety, they would not have come that way. The figures would have been the same, but some of them would have had a safe and legal crossing, instead of the terrible dangers of crossing the channel.
I will certainly get back to the Minister with indications of those local authorities—it was some time ago that we did the check—that I know are able and willing to take child refugees, so we can take the argument to that point.
The Minister mentioned the global UK resettlement scheme. Fine, I am all in support of that, except of course that this will not take a single child from Europe, as I understand it; it will be ones from the region. I welcome that they will be taken from the region, but I do not welcome the fact that the scheme will not cover any from Europe, which is why we need this particular amendment.
With regards to push and pull factors, I remember talking to a Syrian boy who fled from Damascus or Aleppo. He told me very vividly how he had seen his father blown up by a bomb in front of him. That is an experience which will mark a child for life, and that is a real push factor if ever there was one. A lot of the children I have spoken to have had the most terrible journeys in order to try and find safety. They are coming because they want to find safety somewhere in the world. The majority of them have gone to Germany, Sweden and other EU countries. Some have come here, and I hope more will come.
As I say, I believe we can return to this on Report. I repeat my gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 49. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 49
Lord Oates
“EU Settlement Scheme: physical documented proof
(1) The Secretary of State must issue physical proof confirming pre-settled status or settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status under the EU Settlement Scheme and who request such proof.(2) No fee may be charged for issuing physical proof under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to provide physical proof of settled and pre-settled status to those who make a successful application through the scheme, providing physical evidence of their migration status.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 49, to which the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, have added their name. The noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Kerslake, have asked me to pass on their apologies for not being able to participate in the debate—the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, cannot do so for obvious reasons—and to make my remarks on their behalf also.
I pay tribute to the3million for its tireless advocacy on behalf of EU citizens in the UK, as well as to British in Europe and the other country-specific groups that represent UK citizens in the EU and work so hard on their behalf.
The amendment’s importance is underlined by the fact that it not only commands cross-party support but is backed both by people, like me, who passionately wanted us to remain in the European Union and by those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Polak, were equal in their passion to leave. This amendment is not about refighting the battles of Brexit. It is simply about ensuring that EU citizens feel secure in their new status and do not face discrimination in the provision of services or the right to employment. It might even be described—properly, on this occasion—as specific and limited in its nature.
The amendment would require the Government to provide physical proof confirming settled or pre-settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status and who request it. It would also require that the document be provided free of charge. The only way in which it appears to diverge from Amendment 51 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is that physical documents would be provided on request rather than automatically, so that those who did not feel the need for a physical residence card would not get one but those who did would be guaranteed one.
If the Government are correct that the system of verification and cloud-based proof of status will prove simple to use and will run smoothly, there may be little demand for such documents. But if, as I suspect, those granted settled status find that the digital system does not work effectively or is not understood by the service providers they must interact with—or if they simply want the physical surety that I would certainly desire were I permanently resident in another country—it will be available to them as it should be.
The arguments for the Government’s position are a little hard to follow but they seem principally to be these: first, that it would be confusing to people to have a digital system as well as a physical proof of status; secondly, that a digital proof is better than a physical proof because a digital proof cannot be lost; thirdly, that the Government intend to move to a wholly digital system in future and that it therefore makes sense for this new settled status scheme to adopt a wholly digital model from the outset.
On the first point, it is not clear why the Government think that having both physical proof and digital proof would be confusing, as this is exactly the system that exists for non-EEA citizens. They can access a digital proof of status and have a physical document. Landlords, employers and others who are expected to check for immigration status already operate under this system.
Within the settled status scheme itself, there are two different categories. Astonishingly, non-EEA nationals who are family members of EEA nationals—and who therefore acquire settled status through their family relationship—have the right to a physical document, while the EEA family member through whom they gain their status does not. Can the Minister explain to the House the logic behind this very curious arrangement and how it can possibly be said to provide clarity to anyone?
Secondly, when we discussed these matters, the Minister argued that digital proof is better than physical proof because it cannot be lost. I will be very clear to the Government and the Minister that this amendment would ensure that a physical document complements digital proof and would not replace it.
Thirdly, the Government have argued that it makes sense to adopt a digital model as this is the direction of travel of the Government as a whole. However, if a wholly digital system is to be introduced, it should be extensively piloted first with British citizens who are secure in their immigration status. We should not conduct an experiment with the lives of millions of people who are in receipt of an entirely new status, whose rights are not even underpinned in primary legislation and who are, understandably, extremely nervous about the situation in which they find themselves. It is, quite simply, wrong, especially when we already know the problems it will lead to. In 2018, the Government trialled their digital right-to-work scheme with non-EU citizens who have the backup of a physical residence card. Their own internal assessment stated the following:
“There is a clearly identified user need for the physical card at present, and without strong evidence that this need can be mitigated for vulnerable, low-digital skill users, it should be retained.”
In her response, can the Minister explain to the House what has changed since the Government made that assessment?
I hope that, during this evening’s debate, the Minister will be able to put her brief aside and try to walk in the shoes of the people who will be subject to this new system. I hope she will consider the anxiety and distress that they will be caused by the fact that, of the 70 million people living in Britain, they alone will be refused physical proof of their right to do so. I hope she will consider the fact that this anxiety and distress will be particularly acute among the elderly, the vulnerable and those lacking digital literacy.
I have tried to imagine what it would be like if I had an elderly relative who was an EU citizen and I had to explain to them that the whole proof of their continuing right to live in the UK existed only somewhere in the cloud, dependent on the resilience of government IT systems, the integrity of the data within them and the vagaries of an internet connection. I can imagine the distress and disbelief with which that relative would receive this information, and I wonder how I would explain to them why the Government were unwilling to do a simple thing and provide them with the reassurance of a physical document: something they could hold in their hand and show, themselves, to whoever in authority required it. This is something that will be provided to all UK citizens resident in the EU. I do not know whether the Minister or any of her colleagues in government have really thought about how those conversations will go and the distress that will be caused. However, if they have not, I hope they will now think about it and the position they have taken.
We still await the policy equality statement on the settlement scheme, which was originally promised in the spring. On July 28 this year, the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, Kevin Foster, stated that it would be published shortly. Can the Minister confirm that the equality statement exists, that it will be published and when it will be published? Does she recognise that the failure to provide such information before we debate legislation makes it very hard to make parliamentary accountability effective?
While the most vulnerable will inevitably suffer the most, all those with settled status are likely to be impacted by the absence of physical documents. Briefing from the3million group provides illustrative examples of the problems that people will encounter under the new system, which could have a severe impact on their ability to work, rent a property or access medical and other services. They are instructive illustrations and I hope the Government will look at them—and the issues they give rise to—carefully.
As the briefing tells us, research conducted by the Residential Landlords Association found that 20% of landlords are less likely to consider renting to EU or EEA nationals as a consequence of their lack of physical documentation. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants conducted 150 mystery shopping enquiries and found that 85% of prospective tenants who asked landlords to conduct an online check received no response at all. Of those landlords who did reply, only three said explicitly they would carry out such checks.
The situation is little better when it comes to employment. A poll of 500 employers conducted on behalf of the3million found that only 36% of employers knew that an online verification system would be applicable to EU citizens after the end of the grace period. This fell to just 17% among small businesses with a turnover of under £500,000, which means that four out of five such employers are not aware how right-to-work checks will operate under the new system.
What is the likely outcome of such confusion? It is that landlords and employers, who face unlimited fines and potential imprisonment if they employ or rent to someone who does not have the right to work or rent in the UK, will play it safe. As a result, EU citizens will be discriminated against compared with those who can show a physical document indicating their right to live or work in the UK. This is the real world, and these are the real effects on people’s lives, which could be corrected so easily by this amendment.
I hope that in the face of this compelling evidence of the clear harm that this discriminatory system will impose on millions of EU citizens, and in accordance with the promises made by senior members of the Government during the referendum campaign, the Government will think again, show themselves to have empathy and compassion and agree to this simple amendment, which would prevent so many unnecessary problems and so much unnecessary hardship from arising.
I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his excellent and thoughtful introduction.
Non-EU citizens are given physical proof of their settled status. Can it really be that EU citizens will be the only group without physical proof of status? The immigration system should treat people fairly and justly. People who have come to the UK and live here lawfully should not struggle to demonstrate their rights. A physical document, such as a biometric residence permit like those issued to non-EU citizens, will give that peace of mind.
I am entirely at one with the Government and specifically the Home Office’s ambition to digitalise. Of course, it is the way forward. But we are not there yet and, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, the lack of physical proof will be of great concern to those who may not be digitally literate—specifically, some older people. So I was happy to support this amendment once it was agreed to add the requirement that the Government provide the physical proof if requested, thus alleviating the strain on the department.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, began, this amendment is neither political nor a repeat of arguments. It is simply a practical and sensible option to give some people comfort. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree with me that it is just the right thing to do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am the first person who signed Amendment 51 to speak on this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for providing such a clear introduction to both the need for a physical document and the difference between these two amendments. Amendment 51, which I signed with the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, calls for the automatic provision of the document, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates said, and Amendment 49 would provide one on request. I would argue that Amendment 51 is stronger because “on request” requires people seeing into the future and predicting when things might not work. It would be simpler and easier for the department to administer, but either one of these amendments would be a significant improvement on the situation we have now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, both the3million and Britons in Europe have done a great deal of work to spread the information about the need for this document. I was at a briefing earlier with the Children’s Society and the3million, focusing on the situation of the 260,000 children who have acquired settled status and the 150,000 who now have pre-settled status. If we think about the situation where—in about 10 or 15 years’ hence—one of those young children has to suddenly prove their status, recovering all the emails, the phone numbers and all the other information they might need to do that is likely to be far from simple.
I also want to address the situation for adults. Can the Minister confirm my understanding of what the process would be? My understanding is, for example, if someone wants to prove their right to work—as we were discussing in an earlier amendment—they will need to access their status via a website, providing the passport or ID card they applied with and their date of birth; they will then have a choice of getting a code with either email or phone; that code will need to be entered on the website; if that is successful, their status will appear on the screen and there will be an option to prove their status. They will then have to fill in the employer’s email address; the system will attempt to email a code to the employer, who will then need to find the correct website, enter the code along with some security information and finally see a screen with a photograph and proof that the person has the right to work. Does the Minister acknowledge that this has many moving parts? If any one of these fails, then it all fails.
We were talking before about landlords being reluctant to go through the extra hassle. We can also imagine plenty of employers who might be similarly reluctant—if they are choosing between two nearly equal applicants—and thinking, “Well, let’s just go for the simpler option.” We saw research from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that showed that only three in 150 landlords said they were prepared to do those digital checks. Perhaps employers might not be quite so prepared—if they are concerned about discrimination legislation—to talk about their reluctance to do it, but you have to wonder if it would be there.
Of course, as other speakers have already said, this is really very frightening; it makes people feel very insecure. It is estimated that 22% of people do not have the essential digital skills to complete this process. It might be that they rely on someone else—such as the small child that I started off by talking about—but what happens when that person is no longer accessible or available to them or in contact with them? Physical back-up would provide people with certainty and security. It would be good if everyone had it, but either way it should certainly be available. Therefore, I commend both of these amendments, but particularly Amendment 51, to your Lordships.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support Amendments 49 and 51. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said in introducing them so cogently and reasonably, and I had the advantage of being able to have had a conversation with him last week where he explained the generalities of the amendments to me. I thought the arguments were compelling; the noble Lord, Lord Polak, put it well when he said this was a practical and sensible option. All three speeches that we have heard so far have underlined why this is not one of those ragged political debates that require us to take positions; it is something about which we can do something useful this evening in Committee.
I will turn, if I may, from the generalities to something specific, a particular case of people who will be especially disadvantaged by the impact of digital-only status: the Roma community. On 2 August, Roma Holocaust Memorial Day commemorated the shocking liquidation of Roma in August 1944 at the so-called Gypsy family camp at Auschwitz- Birkenau. On that infamous day, 2,897 men, women and children of Roma or Sinti origin were murdered by the Nazis. Of around 23,000 Roma taken to Auschwitz—and hundreds of thousands more perished during the Holocaust—an estimated 20,000 were murdered there. At the time of the liberation of Auschwitz, only four Roma remained alive.
Now, 76 years later, Roma people still face discrimination and liquidation. I especially commend the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Roma in ensuring that Parliament understands the horrors that this community has experienced and the special circumstances and challenges which it faces today.
In debates like this, I miss the voice of Lord Avebury, a good and long-standing friend and the author of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. At the memorial event celebrating his life, Damian Le Bas, a Roma who wrote The Stopping Places: A Journey Through Gypsy Britain—a remarkable insight into the world of Travelling people—spoke powerfully about how parliamentarians such as Lord Avebury can act to ensure that the UK’s 200,000 Roma can lead lives of dignity.
Lord Avebury would have been the first on his feet to support these amendments, pointing to the lack of awareness within the Roma community of digital immigration status and the way in which digital exclusion simply builds on the other exclusions which Roma historically have experienced. The Roma Support Group says that only 3% of Roma are able independently to complete online applications such as those required by the European Union settlement scheme. Very little data exists about how many Roma have applied to the EUSS so far and been given settled or pre-settled status. As the debate proceeds, I will hand the Minister a copy of the Roma Support Group’s briefing on this so that she can read some of the cases illustrating this point. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how this problem can be addressed, especially as the Home Office data does not include a breakdown of ethnicity.
Enabling those who need it to receive physical evidence of their status in the UK would certainly be a start, and enabling programmes to be developed which could address the issue of digital exclusion, on which this debate has helped us to focus, would be a very good outcome.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we all cherish the memory of the much-missed Lord Avebury, who was a champion for human rights globally.
I will speak to Amendments 49 and 51 on the need for documented proof of settled status, and commend the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his compelling speech, and the crisp speech—notably from the Government Benches—from the noble Lord, Lord Polak. The ending of free movement, which this Bill implements, is nothing less than a tragedy. We should not be severing our links with our nearest neighbours, with whom we have the most in common. This seismic change in our freedom impacts all UK citizens, as we will lose our rights to live, work and study in the EU and EEA countries. For EU nationals living here—many of whom are our family members, friends and colleagues—and for UK citizens living in EU member states, the changes will also be profound, bringing a potential loss of security and life choices in the future.
The aim of the Government’s Brexit project of ending free movement to and from the EU and replacing it with the future global points-based immigration system was supposedly to deliver on their aim of reducing net migration. This policy is not supported by the evidence. In 2019, despite free movement, net migration from the EU fell to less than 50,000, but net migration from outside the EU, where there is no free movement, increased to its highest level for 45 years, above 280,000. Is this what “taking back control” was supposed to be about?
Those EU nationals who for whatever reason do not acquire settled status by the deadline of the end of June 2021 will move from an immigration system that currently works to the same unreformed system that currently applies to non-EU nationals, which is inhumane, dysfunctional and, frankly, chaotic. Even those who succeed in registering under the EU settled status scheme will receive no physical documentation as proof of their status; their rights will not be guaranteed in primary legislation and will potentially be subject to alteration by Ministers under the very considerable Henry VIII powers that this Bill bestows on them.
The Financial Times reported in July that the number of EU migrants who have applied for the right to stay in the UK after Brexit already considerably exceeds official estimates of the Europeans who are eligible to remain, raising further questions over the effectiveness of the Government’s scheme. Home Office statistics up to July show that 3.8 million applications have been made, far more than the official estimate of 3.4 million EU citizens living in the UK that was produced by the Office for National Statistics. In fact, the Financial Times survey of EU embassies discovered that the UK Government might have underestimated the EU-born population of the UK by more than half a million people. By the end of July more than 3.5 million grants of status had been made. However, around 40% of those applicants had been granted only pre-settled status, leaving them in a kind of limbo with their status still unresolved for the long term, while many more applications are still anticipated.
Experts warn that the confusion over the real number of EU citizens living in the UK will make it almost impossible to assess how many eligible people will fail to secure settled status by the time the process closes on 30 June next year. However, it is likely that tens of thousands will suddenly become unlawfully resident in the country that they have legally made their own and be left facing the full force of the Home Office’s “hostile environment”—namely, criminalisation and the threat of deportation.
The groups most affected are likely to include many from the age groups under 18 years and over 65 years, who have had worryingly low application rates. For example, there are 9,000 eligible children and young people in the care system in the UK, for whom only 500 applications have so far been made by local authorities. Non-EU-national family members of EU nationals, rural farm workers, those in isolated communities, those with limited English-language skills, those who are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, those without relevant or up-to-date documents and those who are not digitally literate—often the elderly—are all potentially at risk. That last problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic as the support services normally available to such groups have been forced to move online.
For those groups and others, such as full-time students, full-time parents and those who have previously left the UK temporarily for more than six months, providing the required proof of continuous residence for five years to the Home Office can be very challenging, if not impossible. This means that people with a rightful claim to British residence may lose their legal status overnight. It is another Windrush in the making.
The other main impact of the Bill is of course that, as a direct consequence of the abolition of EEA free movement for UK citizens, we, our children and our grandchildren will from January 2021 lose our rights to live, work and study in the 27 member states of the EU plus the three EEA countries and Switzerland—the biggest diminution in value of a country’s citizenship in history. Therefore, at the same time as the UK Government are opening up higher-paid jobs in the UK to the whole world under the points-based system, the brightest and best UK citizens seeking international career opportunities in the biggest, richest market on our doorstep, the EU, will be second-class citizens in their own country.
In addition, the multiple impacts of the Bill on the estimated 1.5 million UK citizens already resident in European Union member states, who will also become second-class citizens within the EU, should not be forgotten. For example, those with non-British spouses and family members will not have an automatic right to return to the UK with their family after 31 December 2020. Frankly, the Bill is an inhumane, reactionary mess and these amendments try to ameliorate that. I stress that they are not party political; they are simply about humanity. That is why I hope the Minister will accept them when she replies.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support the eminently sensible Amendment 49, so well argued by my noble friend Lord Oates and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
The Minister will get rather bored with me, I am afraid, but we are back to right to rent, which is the gift that keeps on giving. As I mentioned at Second Reading and when addressing previous groups, when it comes to renting to EEA, Swiss and B5JSSK nationals —that is, citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America—who come to the UK under six-month visa-free entry and can use e-passport gates at UK airports, landlords are told that they must rely on physical proof of immigration status. Not only must EEA and Swiss nationals, who enter the UK without a visa, produce their passport, they must produce a ticket, boarding pass or travel booking to the landlord to prove that they entered the UK within the past six months.
The Government keep claiming that physical proof of settled or pre-settled status will not be provided because all proof of immigration status will be digital. That is simply not true. Can the Minister please confirm on the record that this is the case?
Something the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said struck a chord with me. I recently lost my driving licence and when I applied to have a replacement the system said that I could continue to drive even though I was not in possession of a physical driving licence. I felt very vulnerable about driving without a physical document in my possession, so that if I was stopped by the police, for example, I would be able to prove that I was driving lawfully. Can the Minister explain when the UK Government plan to phase out physical driving licences and allow drivers to rely simply on a digital system?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit that I originally found the Government’s arguments quite persuasive in the briefing the Minister provided for us, but I have changed my mind, having heard from the 3 million representatives about the many potential pitfalls and just how anxious many of those affected are at the prospect of not having physical proof. I have also seen evidence from the Roma community, the European Children’s Rights Unit and the Roma Support Group, the last arguing that this group experiences a combination of digital exclusion and a lack of digital skills. That is true of many marginalised groups. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken very movingly about this group already.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to a promised policy equality statement that still has not appeared. This is really important, because we know that digital-only policies are likely to have a differential impact on groups with protected characteristics, as the example of the Roma community indicates. We know from universal credit the problems that digital by default can create for those who lack digital access and digital skills.
I am puzzled because the Minister’s response to many other amendments has been to complain that they would create a two-tier system, but it seems that this is creating a two-tier system that the Government are very happy with. Perhaps the Minister could explain that contradiction. I hope that the Government will not oppose this amendment. Amendment 49, in particular, is extremely modest, and I just hope that the Government will acknowledge the contradiction and ensure that they are not creating their own two-tier system here.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many very clear and excellent speeches, starting with my noble friend Lord Oates and including my old friends, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hain. I listened to both of them and thought, “They got some good training when they were kids, didn’t they?”
It is interesting that, of all the things that people such as the3million group and lots of other European citizens who are concerned about settled status and so on do not like, this is the one thing that they are almost all united in thinking ought to be changed. A lot of them put it at the top of their list of priorities, partly because it is such a simple and obvious thing for the Government to do.
I have been in this place for 20 years—I have to pinch myself but it is true—and I have noticed over the years that sensible Governments do not just lie down and do everything that your Lordships’ House wants them to do, although we have the debate and they listen. Occasionally they say, “Yes. There’s sense in this. We’ll take it away and sort it, and will come back.” I think that this is one of those issues. The great advantage that Governments have of doing that here and not in the House of Commons is that the Opposition do not then start shouting “U-turn” and so on at them; they say, “We thank the Government for their sensible thoughts and actions on this. Good for them.” This is one issue where the Minister, who has a reasonable amount of clout in her department and in the Government—not as much as some people but a reasonable amount—
Lord Greaves (LD)
There are shadowy figures who get appointed and seem to run things but never appear in this or any other House, but I am sure that the Minister could do it if she wanted to. I think that this is a single thing that the Government could do.
Various people have talked about it being a two-tier system. My noble friend Lord Paddick said it would mean that people with settled status would be in a position different from that of other people. They would be, and they would sometimes be worse off in some respects compared with some citizens of the European Union. For example, those who come here to work after the end of June next year will need a work visa. As I understand it, they will have a passport and the work visa will be stamped in it. They will be okay. They will say, “Look, I can work”, whereas those with settled status will have to go through the long and complex system that has been described to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
My other question concerns transactions, whether relating to employment, housing or other things—odd jobs and so on, with people doing work for others. If the European Union person with settled status, who might be on either side of the transaction, is the provider of the facilities or services, will they have to show that they are entitled to be here and to provide those services to their customers or whoever they are providing them to? That is a question for the Minister.
It seems a bit ridiculous in some cases, such as odd-job men. Somebody comes around—they may be a traveller or just an ordinary odd-job man—and says they will mend your roof by putting the tiles back on or will set up a window-cleaning round. If you employ them to work for you, and pay them to do it, but they are not entitled to work in this country, will you be breaking the law in some way—or is it all on the side of the person providing the service?
I have been trying to get my mind around the worst-case scenarios. If you want to rent a new flat and you are leasing it from a big landlord, who is highly reputable and provides high-quality accommodation, you will be okay. They will have all the computer systems, will know how to do it and be used to it. It will just go through. But you may be renting an attic from an old lady who has lived in the house all her life but does not know what a computer looks like or how to operate that kind of system. She does not work through an agent or anybody like that; she just does it. You may be a lodger or a tenant. Under those circumstances, you need a physical document.
I can think of loads of others. Think of the gig economy. Lots of it is highly organised and computerised, and will easily be able to cope—driving for Uber, running webinars or whatever it is. But a lot of the gig economy is short-term jobs, such as working at a bar, doing delivery rounds, music gigs or all sorts of things, as we all know. We should not expect this system to work under circumstances where people do not have a physical document. It is simply not going to happen; it is not going to work.
Then there is the question of self-employed people—your classic Polish plumber, or whoever it is, whatever they are doing. As I suggested before, they may have come to mend your roof or sort out your heating. This is a self-employed person, a sole trader. They may or may not be operating properly within the tax system, but there are loads of such people. How will they cope with this? Some of them have devices with them, but lots will not want to worry about computers. If you are employing these people, as I said before, is it your responsibility to check that their settled status is bona fide?
The more I think about, the more circumstances there are where it will simply not work. It might work in 90% of cases, but there are lots where it will not. Simply having a physical document means that the system can work. It does not mean it will, but it means that it can, so that people on all sides of the transactions can cope. I return to what I said before: this is simple. I cannot understand why the Government will not do it. They should go away, design a scheme, come back and tell us what they are doing, and we will cheer them to the rooftops.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 49. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his comprehensive introduction and on continuing to press this important issue. Equality of access and opportunity should be at the heart of every government policy, yet denying EU citizens this physical back-up to prove their status opens avenues for the exact opposite. It raises barriers that may unfairly hamper their ability to lead fulfilling lives and to carry out basic tasks, such as seeking job opportunities—as we have heard— finding a place to live, opening a bank account, getting medical treatment or safely returning home after travelling abroad.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
At the end of the discussion on Amendment 48, the Minister rebuked me severely for something I had said. I would just like to put in her mind the following numbers: Germany, 130,000; France, 90,000; Greece, 80,000; and the United Kingdom, 40,000.
I was extremely grateful to the Minister for seeing some of us during the recess to discuss the Bill. She will remember that the issue most discussed then was this question of physical proof of status. Most of us seemed to find it difficult to understand the Government’s reluctance to issue the physical proof that is so badly wanted by so many of those granted settled or pre-settled status. I still have difficulty understanding it.
Yes, the Government want us all to go online but, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, explained so powerfully, there are still many in the country who cannot—particularly older people and those with poor digital or linguistic skills. Probably, in the community that we are talking about of those seeking settled status, there is a rather higher proportion of such people than in the community at large. I cannot prove it, but it sounds likely. Yes, one can tell the potential landlord or employer to check one’s status on the Home Office website, but some of them cannot do that either. Many might prefer to skip the house or rent to somebody else, or employ someone else, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, explained. Yes, lots of people now bank online, but I doubt whether very many of them choose not to have a bank card. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, we are not trying to replace the digital system; we are trying to complement it.
The most powerful point tonight was the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak. People may be wrong to want the reassurance of physical proof, but the fact is that they do want it. Since it is cost free, what is wrong with giving them what they want? It is called democracy.
I support Amendment 49 or Amendment 51—I support both of them. If the Government still resist and still cannot produce a convincing explanation, I hope that a combined amendment will be put to the House on Report, and I would expect it to receive very strong support across the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, said that this was a practical proposal. I think the term tonight is “pragmatic.” That seems to be the one that the Government put forward in defence of their own position on other matters. This proposal is both practical and pragmatic and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, says, gives us the chance to do something useful. It is useful for those who argue—and we have heard arguments—persuasively and anxiously that they are denied their back-up, in the words of the3million campaign.
The digital status will not be infallible, but there are steps to it which can fail at any point. The examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, are very important ones of people who need and will value having physical documents. I add to them those who have been helped by organisations, sometimes organisations funded by the Government as part of these arrangements, who may not be able to make contact with the organisation in a few years’ time. They may not even remember which organisation it is, or the organisation may no longer be in existence. Yes, one might be able to search one’s computer to see where the information is. I cannot always remember who sent a particular email and, actually, I have my emails pretty well organised into folders and sub-folders. But then I suppose that I am “elderly”—and I would be grateful if Hansard put that in quotes.
The digital rollout is a big bang for the EU settlement scheme. Obviously, it is a matter of some pride to the Government, which is why they are so resistant; they have to hold on to this as a principle, because it is part of a rollout for the whole of the immigration arrangements. I assume that they will have some review before they continue with the rollout. One thing that I have learned during all this is that it took Australia 19 years to make everyone comfortable with purely digital arrangements, and Australia does not have the hostile environment provisions that we have in the UK. I very much support what my noble friend and others seek to do.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 49, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, inserts into the Bill a simple new clause that gives peace of mind to the individuals who request it. As the noble Lord said, it is very specific. I fully understand why someone would want physical proof that they have the right to remain here in the United Kingdom.
In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, set out a number of examples of problems you may need to deal with. One is the whole question of being able to rent a property. You may be required to prove your status, and I can understand a landlord being reluctant. Of course, the Government have made sure that landlords will pay a heavy price if they rent out properties to people who are not entitled to rent them. I can see the same problem for employers. When you take somebody on, you need to check and confirm that they have the right to work here. Again, I can see an employer being worried that they could take somebody on and then find that they themselves have potentially committed an offence. There are real issues here.
The problem is that it probably will not happen next week but in 10 or 20 years when we are no longer involved, all the officials have moved on and God knows where the records are. That is part of the problem. If I was in this situation, I would want to have some physical proof that I could keep safe and that, if necessary, would protect me in future if my status were at some point questioned. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, said we have to understand the stress and anxiety of people not having that physical document that they can put away, knowing they have this proof. With the Windrush scandal we have already seen cases of documents not being around and people who have lived in this country for many years, often coming here as children, really struggling to provide proof. I also support the call for it to be free of charge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made a powerful argument about people who flee abusive relationships, which are all about control. If you do not have control of yourself—being able to rent that property or to get another job—you are almost forced to get back in contact with the person you have already left, fearing for your safety. It cannot be right that the Government are creating conditions that cause those problems for people.
Amendment 51, in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to do the same thing with slightly different wording. It says “must make provision”, whereas the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, says proof must be available on request, but it is basically the same issue.
While sitting here, I was thinking about some of the things I do. I do not know whether other noble Lords have ever done a citizenship ceremony. It is very interesting. I have done hundreds of these ceremonies and spoken to hundreds of people who have been given citizenship. What happens is that you go into the council chamber in Lewisham Town Hall, I walk in, and then the official—normally one of the registration officers—explains carefully to the new citizens what it means to be a British citizen. They then have to swear or affirm an oath and we sing the national anthem. The final part of it is that they walk up and I hand them a certificate signed by the Home Secretary. I have handed them out signed by Theresa May, Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid. The official tells them that this is a really important document and says, “Before you leave, please check that your name and those of your children are correct. It’s your right to be a British citizen”. Then we have our photograph taken. There are hundreds of photographs all over Lewisham of me handing out certificates to new citizens.
We have this situation in which if you are a British citizen you get a certificate, but if you have settled status you cannot have one. That is utterly ridiculous. I hope the Minister will see how nonsensical that is, go away and deal with this and come back on Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank you all, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who made a rousing speech, but I fear we will go over old ground here. However, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Rosser, for providing the House with the chance to discuss the amendments on physical documents. I do not think they are necessary. I would like to reassure noble Lords that we already provide people who are granted settled or pre-settled status with a formal written notification of their leave. It is sent in the form of a letter, by post, or a PDF, by email, and sets out their immigration status in the UK. They can retain the letter, or print it, or electronically store the PDF and keep it as confirmation of their status for their own records and use it if they wish when contacting the Home Office about their status. I must say, it is not proof; it is confirmation. This should reassure individuals about their status when dealing with the Home Office in the future, but it should not be necessary because they will always have online access to information about their status, stored electronically by the Home Office.
Other countries, including Australia, as the noble Lady, Lady Hamwee, mentioned, issue physical documents in the form of biometric cards as they can otherwise be lost, stolen or tampered with.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about how the EU settlement application works, I had a session on this with noble Lords and I am happy to share that presentation with her. We are developing an immigration system whereby all migrants can demonstrate their immigration status via an online service, which they can access securely via the view and prove service on GOV.UK. It is accessible to them at any time and it allows them to share relevant information with third parties who need to check their status, such as employers and landlords, as noble Lords have mentioned. If necessary, EEA citizens can show third parties their written confirmation of status, so the person checking is made aware that there is an online service. Where there is a checked status, written confirmation must not be accepted by third parties as evidence of immigration status.
We are also developing services to make the relevant immigration status information available automatically through system-to-system checks at the point at which the person seeks access to public services such as healthcare and benefits. This will reduce the number of occasions when individuals need to prove their rights or need a document to do so.
In moving to a digital system, we recognise there are people who cannot access online services and will need additional support. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, cited cases and others were cited, such as the Roma community or indeed another category of people altogether. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, spoke about those in coercive or abusive relationships. We are committed to delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. Help on how to use the online services and share status information is available through our contact centre, and we provide a free assisted digital service where applicants to the EUSS or others making online applications in the UK are unable to get support. The assistance is tailored to an individual’s circumstances.
We provide a telephone helpline for landlords and employers in order to provide guidance on conducting right-to-work and right-to-rent checks. We are exploring additional support for those using our online services to ensure they can demonstrate their rights in the UK.
We will require EEA citizens to use their online evidence of immigration status only after 30 June 2021. We have designed the service to be easy to use, but guidance will be available should it be required. It will include guidance on those who care for vulnerable users and on use by a range of stakeholders working with local groups, including vulnerable groups.
The full package of measures that I have described will be available before EEA passports and national identity cards cease to be valid for proving rights in the UK after 30 June next year. In answer to the point on two systems that was made by the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Paddick, we will replace physical and paper-based evidence of status with digital products for all migrants, starting with EEA citizens, in the next few years. These changes are being introduced gradually in a way that builds confidence for users and provides opportunities for adaptations and improvements informed by user feedback. At the same time, we are developing an extensive package of communications to ensure that everyone, from individuals to employers, landlords and other third parties, is fully aware of the move to digital and how online immigration status can be accessed and used.
Right-to-rent and right-to-work checks are not new. I have double-checked and right-to-work checks have been law since 2007. That is 13 years since they were introduced—14 by the time that online evidence of immigration is mandatory in June 2021—albeit they will now be in an online format. This move to become digital is not new. The UK public has learned to access many government services online, from applying for a UK passport to paying their vehicle excise duty. In July this year, 87% of vehicle tax renewals were made using the digital service, dispensing with the need for a physical disc on your car. The feedback from users indicates high satisfaction. UK driving licence holders are able to share online with third parties, such as car rental companies, whether they have driving-related convictions.
Employers are able to conduct right-to-work checks on foreign national employees remotely, without the need for physical documents to be handed over. Holders of biometric residence cards or biometric residence permits have already been able to prove their right to work to an employer by using an online service, instead of using their card, since January last year—the first step in our journey to make evidence of immigration status accessible online. The “view and prove” service is popular with users. In the last reporting period, from April to June this year, there have been over 400,000 views on the service by migrants. In the same period, there have been over 100,000 views of EU settlement status by organisations checking status. The average user satisfaction is very high, at a positive 88%.
It is hard to imagine how a country would have coped during Covid without the digital technologies which have enabled so many of us to work from home, shop and obtain government services remotely. We have seen a sharp uptake in digital provision by service providers and digital adaptation by the general public. Most visa applications are made online. Providing immigration status information online has enabled us to simplify and standardise the system of checks for employers, by providing information about an individual’s status in a format that is easy to understand and accessible to all users, removing the need for employers and others to interpret myriad physical documents, complex legal terminology or confusing abbreviations.
The EU settlement scheme has been at the forefront of the transition from biometric residence cards to secure online access to immigration status information. The online system is operating in parallel with existing document checks of passports or identity documents. This approach is helping employers, landlords and EEA citizens to transition from using physical documents to online services. Ultimately, all migrants coming to the UK, whether from other European countries or the rest of the world, will have access to online services which will enable them to show their immigration status without needing a document or biometric card.
On resilience, digital services are designed to be highly resilient, with rigorous testing to build assurance before services are seen by a user. Multiple security controls are in place to protect against cyberattacks and we have employed third-party organisations to conduct vulnerability and penetration testing to provide additional assurance that our online services cannot be compromised.
I shall not detain the House much further, other than to say that we will always send a formal written notification of the individual’s immigration status by email, in the form of a printable PDF document, or by post where a paper application has been made. As set out previously, I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to delivering an online service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. We recognise there are vulnerable people, such as the victim of domestic abuse and coercive control that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about or others in the Roma community that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about, who may need additional support to use our online service to share their status.
Finally, on the policy equality statement that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned it as well—I am very sorry to say that I cannot add to other Ministers’ comments. The statement will be published shortly as outlined by them.
I hope that with those comments the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. She started and ended by talking about the letter that is sent to people about their status, which can be saved on their computer as a PDF. The Government have said, time and again, that, as proof of the recipient’s immigration status, these letters are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is disingenuous of the Minister to pray in aid these letters in answer to these amendments.
I know the Minister is going to write to me regarding previous amendments. Perhaps she could add whether or not, at any stage in the future, the Government intend to provide digital proof that an EEA or Swiss national who is on a six-month visa-free visit to the UK is here legally.
Finally, the Minister talked about vehicle excise licences going digital and said that no physical disc is now necessary. Can she tell the House what the increase in evasion of vehicle excise licences has been as a result of going completely digital?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the noble Lord knows very well that I cannot give him that figure. However, I take his point that the letter is a confirmation and not a proof—I think I said that in my remarks. The digital proof is a very good way of sharing specific information with people such as employers or landlords as proof of status, but I conclude that we will not agree on this one.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I do not think that anyone in this debate spoke out against the digital rollout or suggested that it was somehow new to require people to provide evidence of their right to rent a property or to work. What is new is that European citizens living here will be required to provide that evidence very shortly.
The Minister did not address at all my points about the staggering inconsistency of the Government. They issue certificates to all British citizens at citizenship ceremonies —hard, paper-copy certificates signed by the Home Secretary. Everyone has them handed out; I have handed out many. At the same time, the same Government and department will not issue any paper certificates to people with settled or pre-settled status. Will the Minister please go away and find out why the Government are acting so inconsistently? If she could write to me I would be happy to receive that letter, but it is ludicrous that there are those two things from the same department at the same time.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They all made important contributions and have provided consistent support on these issues over the extended period we have been discussing them. In view of the time, I will not go through all the contributions but I want to thank my noble colleague, if I may call him that, the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for his support and for the clear and eloquent way in which he spoke in support of the amendment. As he said, this is not a partisan issue; in reality, it is a practical and simple measure.
When I spoke earlier, I asked the Minister to consider putting aside her brief and walking in the shoes of the people who will have to work the system. I am afraid that she absolutely did not do that, and I am deeply disappointed. She said of physical documents, “I do not think they are necessary”. With respect, what matters is not what the Minister thinks but what the people who will have to live under this system think. They think they are necessary, and I do not blame them, because if I were a permanent resident in another country, I would want physical proof of my status. I suspect that many people in the Government would too. On previous groups, the Minister spoke at great length about discrimination between EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens, but that is exactly what the government scheme proposes and would do. She talked about how physical documents could be lost, stolen or tampered with. Then why on earth are the Government issuing such documents under the settled status scheme to non-EEA citizens who gain their rights through family relationships?
I asked the Minister what had changed since her own Government’s assessment of the digital right-to-work scheme found, as I said, that:
“There is a clearly identified user need for the physical card … and without strong evidence that this need can be mitigated for vulnerable, low-digital skill users, it should be retained.”
She did not enlighten the House. We heard instead much about the Home Office’s apparent plans to digitise the whole system. My noble friend Lord Paddick asked the Minister whether the Government intend, for example, to abolish the physical driving licence. I do not think he got an answer but I wondered about the status of the famous blue passport, which has caused such excitement in some quarters recently. Do the Government really intend to abolish it in favour of a digital status? If so, I would not fancy being the Minister who has to explain that to the Daily Mail.
However, there is a really serious point here. The Minister read out a brief that addresses none of the important questions that were raised. She referred to the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, about those who may be fleeing domestic abuse and whose partner may have been the person who controlled the email address and applied for the settled status scheme. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, got an answer but I did not hear what it was.
When Michael Gove appeared before the European Union Select Committee of this House in May, in answer to a question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, about documentary proof for EU citizens in the UK, he told us that
“the moral and social case for it remains as strong as ever, and I shall reinforce that argument.”
I hope the Government will think about those comments by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. To give them time to do so, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 53. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 53
Lord Rosser
“Exemption from no recourse to public funds
(1) This section applies during the current Covid-19 pandemic, as defined by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020.(2) Section 3(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot be applied to persons who have lost rights because of section 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Act.(3) This section may not be disapplied unless a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would delay application of No Recourse to Public Funds rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, many non-UK nationals with leave to remain in the UK, such as people on work or family visas, are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. This prohibits them from claiming a large number of benefits. The condition also means that some British children whose parents have NRPF, due to their immigration status, are effectively unable to access many benefits, as they are unable to make a claim in their own right.
Most non-EEA national migrants with temporary permission to remain in the UK have no recourse to public funds. To keep within the scope of this Bill, Amendment 53 would prevent no recourse to public funds being applied to EEA and Swiss nationals; that is, those who lose rights under Part 1 of the Bill during the current pandemic and then until such a time as Parliament decides. Before I proceed any further, I ask the Minister, when he responds, to say whether an EEA or Swiss national with pre-settled status, rather than settled status, would be subject to NRPF.
Since April, we have been calling for no recourse to public funds to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. We asked the Government to lift NRPF as a condition on a person’s migration status, in order to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken in the fight against coronavirus.
Nearly six months since the national lockdown was announced, towards the end of March, local lockdowns are still required and today sees a retightening in national restrictions on social gatherings. This is a reminder that the pandemic has not gone away. Indeed, the number of new cases of the virus has risen sharply in the last week or so, and the full extent of the economic impact is probably still to come. What the coming winter has in store for us pandemic-wise is unknown, but there appears to be a general consensus, including in government, that the situation is more likely to deteriorate than to improve.
The Migration Observatory estimates that, at the end of last year, more than 175,000 children lived in families affected by no recourse to public funds, and that more than 1.3 million people had held valid visas that would usually have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to them.
The Children’s Society has said that thousands are facing “extreme poverty” during the pandemic, due to their families having no recourse to public funds. A significant number of the parents the Children’s Society is supporting are front-line key workers in the NHS and social care sectors.
Citizens Advice has reported that the number of people seeking advice on NRPF has doubled during the pandemic, and that it has been approached by people facing an
“impossible choice of returning to work while ill, shielding, or living with someone who is shielding or losing their income.”
In June, the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees recommended that the Government should “immediately suspend NRPF” for the duration of the pandemic on public health grounds. That is very similar to what we are seeking as far as Amendment 53 is concerned .The Work and Pensions Committee reported:
“As a result of the no recourse to public funds condition, many hardworking and law-abiding people are being left without a social safety net and at risk of destitution and homelessness.”
In saying that, the Select Committee was also pointing out that NRPF was hitting people who are working legally in the UK and raising their families here, with many being key workers or front-line medical staff.
In response to a question from the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 27 May, the Prime Minister said:
“Clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another … I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help.”
The silence since then suggests that little or nothing has been done, or will be done, to help.
In June, when asked by MPs, including Select Committee chairs, for an official estimate of how many people are affected by “no recourse to public funds”, the Home Secretary did not know. The Home Office does not hold these figures, which is perhaps a reflection of the importance, or lack of it, that the Home Office attaches to people with NRPF during the current pandemic in particular. Perhaps the Government will provide us with the figures in their response.
The Government are not unaware of the risk of destitution that NRPF is posing, particularly in the current situation. In March, the Local Government Minister, Luke Hall MP, wrote to local authorities calling on them to
“utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with no recourse to public funds who require shelter and other forms of support due to the Covid-19 pandemic”.
All too typically, though, this was not backed up with any clear instructions, guidance or funding, even though it was telling local authorities that people with no recourse to public funds should now have such recourse. The result has been inconsistency in application and authorities unable to do as asked, due to the effects of austerity and cuts in government funding, leading to a patchy postcode lottery.
As the Government will no doubt say, it is possible for families to apply for their NRPF conditions to be lifted when, due to a change in their circumstances, they are facing destitution—that is, assuming they know that it is possible, and how, and to whom, to apply. I understand that, in the first quarter of 2020, 843 applications were received for this relief; in the second quarter, 5,565 were received. This shows, on the Government’s own figures, that thousands of people are now in need of relief from no recourse to public funds. Will the Government, in response, either confirm that they do not know the answer or say what percentage of those on NRPF 5,565 represents, in respect of how many of the 5,565 applications the NRPF conditions were lifted, and whether they were lifted fully?
Support groups report that the process to have no recourse to public funds lifted is lengthy, complex, not available to all, and includes too high a burden of proof. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee has recommended that the evidential burden for a change in circumstances due to the pandemic should be reduced.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 53, to which I have added my name, which was moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Rosser. I am sure that I also support Amendment 73, but that has not been explained yet.
The recent report of the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee identified those with no recourse to public funds as particularly vulnerable to food poverty and insecurity. The impact on children has to be of particular concern.
A pre-Covid study of children and food by the Child Poverty Action Group—of which I am honorary president—found that children in families subject to the rule were among the most deprived in the study. Both children and their parents were going hungry, and denial of entitlement to free school meals was a particular problem. One child said of his hunger that
“it was like I got stabbed with a knife and it’s still there.”
Another explained:
“Sometimes you don’t have enough energy, you cannot cope in the classroom so you have to, like, try and rest a bit. You just put your head on the table and you end up falling asleep in the classroom and you get in trouble for it.”
The partial concession, which allowed some children in families with NRPF to claim free school meal support this summer, was very welcome as far as it went. But what possible justification could there be for withdrawing it now that these children are back at school, with the pandemic very much still with us? A letter from 60 organisations to the Education Secretary last month put it very well; it said that
“the Covid-19 pandemic simply exposed the precariousness of daily life for thousands of NRPF families, where the absence of a safety net leaves them only one crisis away from catastrophe. No matter where the next few months lead us, this basic fact will not change. Meanwhile, the effects of this crisis will continue to be felt for years to come. While much effort is being made to ensure children do not fall behind, without access to free school meals many children in NRPF families will face having to make up for half a year of lost learning on empty stomachs, at a time when they may still be struggling to cope with the mental and emotional aftershocks of lockdown.”
As we have heard, the Government have devolved to local authorities much of the responsibility for this extremely vulnerable group, without willing them the means to provide the support needed and without providing clear enough guidance during the pandemic. In particular, as the Work and Pensions Committee noted, there is lack of clarity on whether local welfare assistance funds, which have been boosted during the pandemic, count as public funds for these purposes. Could the Minister provide a definitive clarification on this?
Another concern, as we have heard, is the lack of official data. There has been an exchange between the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the UK Statistics Authority and the Home Office on the issue. While it is welcome that the Home Office has now published data on the change of condition applications, this is only a rough indicator of the extent of hardship caused and the data need to be disaggregated. Could the Minister undertake to see what can be done to improve the provision of data, possibly in consultation with the Children’s Society, which has done a lot of work on this? Without it, how can the Home Office assess the impact of the policy?
The amendments raise important social policy issues, but more fundamentally they raise crucial human rights issues. As Project 17 and Sustain point out, the UK Government have signed up to a number of international human rights standards that uphold the right to food, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I agree with them that, to uphold these obligations,
“our Government should ensure that all children, regardless of immigration status or any other characteristic, are able to access food in a dignified way and this should include universal entitlement to healthy free school meals.”
Of course the “no recourse” rule does not only affect access to food—for example, there are serious concerns about its impact on survivors of domestic abuse, which we will be raising when the Domestic Abuse Bill is with us—but the right to food is crucial to both healthy development and education.
Amendment 53 is a very modest amendment—indeed, some might say too modest—but it could make a real difference to a significant number of extremely vulnerable people, including children and women subject to domestic abuse. The Work and Pensions Committee suggested that the total number exceeds a million, of whom at least 100,000 are children. Moreover, as the committee underlined and my noble friend has already pointed out, there is a very strong case on public health grounds for the immediate suspension of the rule at least for the duration of the outbreak.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government are giving serious consideration to the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, and will not dismiss this amendment in the frankly complacent way that the Immigration Minister did in the Commons, with reference to “a range of safeguards” that evidence from a range of organisations indicates simply are not sufficient to prevent severe hardship and destitution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and Amendment 73 in my own name. I thank her for offering her support before I had even spoken to it; that is much appreciated.
To be speaking on these two amendments in what is Universal Basic Income Week around the globe has both an irony and an extra importance. Universal basic income would be an unconditional payment going to everyone accepted as a member of our society. No recourse to public funds, together with universal credit, is the extreme other view: conditionality that can deny people the most basic support that they need and human rights, such as the right to food, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, just referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, cited what I believe are figures from Citizens Advice showing that 1.4 million people are on visas, or have received visas, that may leave them having no recourse to public funds and therefore, in the age of Covid-19, intensely vulnerable. This is not just a human rights issue; it is an issue of public health. If you face your children going hungry and you have Covid symptoms but you could go to work, what do you do? That is a very difficult situation and one that potentially puts everyone’s health at risk. As other noble Lords have said, this is a very modest measure to apply in the special circumstances of Covid-19 when so many other things in our society have had to adjust and flex.
However, I want to speak chiefly to Amendment 73, which, as I alluded to earlier, is part of a package with Amendments 71 and 72. Together they create a situation where the end of freedom of movement could not be brought in until people who were newly affected by the hostile environment were freed from that environment. As I said previously, this is something that Liberty has done a great deal of work on, and I appreciate its support on this matter.
In the previous debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, spoke about the situation where people—most likely women—trapped in abusive relationships are in a very difficult situation if they cannot access evidence of their status. Of course, this is also true if they have no recourse to public funds and, over many years, I have spoken to many people—particularly workers in refuges—who have been left greatly distressed by their inability to help people in the most desperate need because they are in a situation where they have no recourse to public funds. People make choices to remain in abusive relationships because their other option is hunger and homelessness—a situation where they are also highly vulnerable to abuse.
So we need to think about what kind of society the UK is. I believe that we should be a society with a universal basic income; one where everyone has access to the support that they need. However, in the meantime, Amendment 73 would spare people being newly affected by the hostile environment of “no recourse to public funds” and spare them the impacts of this.
I am well aware that, with the Minister, we are on something of a merry-go-round and back to saying that this is discriminatory. Of course, I would absolutely welcome it and be delighted if this was to be applied to everybody affected by “no recourse to public funds”. However, in the meantime, I have put down the amendment that I have been told is what is allowed within the scope of the Bill. “No recourse to public funds” is now a dreadful sentence being inflicted on innocent people through no fault of their own. That is true under Covid and all the time, and I suggest that this is something we cannot allow to continue.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, both of these amendments seek to do something that I think very much aims to right the injustice of a million people—100,000 children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, was saying—having no recourse to public funds. For many of them, in a time of Covid, that means no food and potentially no heating, which is a danger to the most vulnerable in terms of, “Are they going to starve, are they able to get food that they can then cook from a food bank?” Because one of the real difficulties that you hear so often from people running food banks is that people say, “Please can I have some food that does not need to be cooked because I cannot actually afford to cook anything”. So we are talking about people who are going to be very vulnerable.
The hour is late, and I do not wish to detain the House for very long, but we have already heard that this is about social policy, public health and human rights. What sort of a country are we if we allow children to go to school who cannot be fed and say, “Well, I’m terribly sorry, you can’t have free school meals because your parent has no recourse to public funds”? Whatever choices the parents have made—whether they could or could not go home to another country—the child under 18 has no such say; their rights need to be taken into consideration.
These amendments are limited. We are talking about a time of global pandemic. The amendments are not asking for people to be taken out of “no recourse to public funds” in perpetuity, but the current context is that the economy is in a very, very difficult situation and many people who thought they had a job—perhaps on an hourly basis or possibly a zero-hours contract—may find there are no hours and they may not have been furloughed. Can the Government not find it in their heart to deal with these people fairly? It may be a question of immigration law saying that, normally, it is not right for these people to have recourse to public funds—whether that is right or not is for a wider debate—but, in the narrow context of EU nationals who find themselves still in the UK and unable to access public funds in the current context of Covid, please can the Government think about acting?
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Rosser and the other signatories to this vital amendment. The new clause they have described would delay application of “no recourse to public funds” rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides. That is a high purpose.
While I enthusiastically support the amendment, as Amnesty and other non-governmental organisations working on the front line remind us, there is a need to look at the importance of providing access to welfare support for all people in the group with which we are currently concerned during the current and future pandemics to ensure that people lawfully in the UK whom it is plainly anticipated will remain here, such as people permitted to stay by reason of their private life and people who have joined family for purposes of settling, are not left destitute.
Of course, while Amendment 73 provides an opportunity to examine the wider implications, I stress again that the NGOs are right to insist that we need to look at all those who are put in jeopardy by circumstances out of their control such as the pandemic, and measures taken in response to it, as well as illness, accident, redundancy and changes to immigration rules, or things that people have been given no or insufficient opportunity to plan or prepare for. This is an utterly humane and sensible amendment and I do hope it finds favour with the Government.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Covid has proved a desperate situation in so many different ways. One of the telling impacts is on individuals who have no recourse to public funds, not just for them as individuals but, as other noble Lords have said, in the context of public health, if they have to go to work, or to collect food from a food bank or other donors. The position is diametrically opposed to the UBI universal benefit, to which reference has been made. There is a lot to be said for that.
On Amendment 73, it occurred to me to ask what the policy aim is, because it reads as a hostile environment measure. What is the purpose of applying the no recourse rule to people whose future clearly lies in the UK? It is hard not to come to the conclusion that it is about starving them out.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group of amendments concerning exemption from no recourse to public funds. I will reply to Amendments 53 and 73 together because they are quite similar in nature. I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, particularly in the light of the challenges that many people face as a result of the current pandemic, as noble Lords have talked about. I genuinely welcome noble Lords’ desire to ensure that those most in need, particularly children, are supported at this time but I am afraid that I cannot accept these amendments. I will go through the reasons why.
As noble Lords will know, most migrants visiting, studying, working or joining family in the UK are subject to a no recourse to public funds condition until they have obtained indefinite leave to remain. Individuals here without leave are also subject to the condition. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked for numbers. I am afraid that these numbers are not part of the published statistics, but I know that Home Office analysts are looking at the data to determine what figures could be reduced.
The noble Baroness also talked about the provision of data. In his letter to the UK Statistics Authority, the Home Office chief statistician committed
“to further investigate the administrative data we hold to assess whether it can provide any meaningful information on the issue of hardship specifically”.
However, given the fluid nature of migration, it is quite difficult to provide an accurate figure of how many people are subject to NRPF, but we will do our best to get some meaningful figures.
The policy is based on the well-established principle that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without posing a burden to the welfare system. It is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK and does not lead to excessive demands on the UK’s finite resources. In exempting a significant cohort from the no recourse to public funds condition, even for a limited time, the new clause proposed by Amendment 53 would undermine this policy and increase the pressure on those resources. Depending on how far into 2021 and beyond this new clause continued to apply, it may also act as an incentive for EEA citizens who are not covered by the withdrawal agreements or other immigration leave to attempt to come to the UK to access benefits and services to which they would not otherwise be entitled.
Nevertheless, the Government absolutely recognise the importance of supporting those in genuine need. Existing exemptions and safeguards are in place to ensure that lawful migrants who are destitute or at imminent risk of destitution can receive support, including the option to apply to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted. During the pandemic, as noble Lords will know, the Government have gone further by introducing measures such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme—the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to this—and the self-employed income support scheme to support people, including those with no recourse to public funds.
More than £4.3 billion has been allocated to local authorities in England to support them in delivering their services, including helping the most vulnerable, with further funding for the devolved Administrations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, alluded to, the Government have also temporarily extended the eligibility criteria for free school meals to support families with NRPF, in recognition of the difficulties that they may be facing during these unique circumstances.
Those individuals with leave under the family and human rights routes can apply to have the condition lifted through a change of conditions application. The Home Office is prioritising and dealing with these applications compassionately, as shown by the 89% of 5,665 applications accepted in the second quarter of 2020, due to exceptional changes that some individuals faced in their financial circumstances. We cannot say what percentage of these with NRPF the 5,665 represents.
I turn to Amendment 73, which would extend the exemption beyond the current pandemic. Under our new global immigration system, EEA citizens coming to the UK will be subject to the same requirements as non-EEA citizens, including the same conditions restricting access to public funds. The effect of this proposed new clause would be to maintain an immigration system that provides preferential treatment regarding access to benefits and services to EEA citizens over most non-EEA citizens. This is not the Government’s intention, creating a system that is not fair and does not reflect the will of the British people, demonstrated by the EU referendum and, more recently, the general election.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I can say that those EEA citizens who are already resident here, or who are resident by the end of the transition period, can apply to the EU settlement scheme. This allows them to access benefits and services in the UK on at least the same basis as they were before being granted that status, so EEA and Swiss nationals with pre-settled status are not subject to NRPF. That significantly reduces the need for these amendments.
I understand the need to protect the vulnerable, especially during this time, and particularly in cases involving families or children, but there are already measures in place to provide this support. These proposed new clauses would also undermine the intention to create a global unified immigration system which treats EEA and non-EEA citizens equally. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me withdraw the amendment, but there are one or two comments I would like to make in reply. The first is to thank her for responding to the question I asked at the beginning. That answer confirmed that an EEA or Swiss national with pre-settled status would be able to apply for benefits and would not be restricted in being covered by NRPF—at least that is what I took from her response.
The Minister has confirmed—I am sure she will correct me if I am being unfair—that the Home Office does not really know how many people are affected by NRPF. At least, if it does know, it is still pondering whether to reveal the figures. On behalf of the Government, she said that, of the 5,665 who had asked for assistance for the NRPF conditions to be lifted, 89% had had that agreed. I do not know from that answer how much they were seeking and how much they actually got. If it was not very much or nowhere near what most people would regard as adequate, 89% would frankly not mean a great deal. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated, either now or subsequently in correspondence, what the average payment was and whether, in making the application, people had indicated how much they needed and the extent to which that need had been fully met.
I will not labour the point because in much of what I said I was not producing new arguments; I was quoting what other organisations have said about the effect that the pandemic is having on families with “no recourse to public funds”. The Children’s Society, Citizens Advice and indeed the Home Affairs Select Committee and Work and Pensions Select Committee have referred to the immediate impact on those affected of “no recourse to public funds” during the pandemic. Basically, they say that action needs to be taken now as far as the pandemic is concerned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 54. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear at the end of the debate.
Amendment 54
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Immigration health charge: exemption for EEA and Swiss citizens who are healthcare and social workers
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) After section 38 (immigration health charge) insert—<strong>“38A </strong> Health care workers and social workers from the EEA or Switzerland(1) Any person who would have had the right of free movement before section 1 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 came into force is exempt from the immigration health charge if that person is—(a) a healthcare worker; or(b) a social care worker.(2) The exemption applies to a person who is a family member or dependant of an EEA or Swiss national who meets the condition in subsection (1)(a) or (b).(3) In this section—(a) “healthcare worker” means a worker who works in a healthcare setting within or outside the NHS who may come into contact with patients, including clinical administration staff and care home staff;(b) “social care worker” means a worker as defined by section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (interpretation).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK to work as a healthcare or social care worker would be exempt from the Immigration Health Charge.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 54, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, seeks to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK to work as health or social care workers, plus their family dependants, will be exempt from the immigration health charge.
One of the worst things about the extreme ends of the Brexit debate has been how difference has been whipped up and used as a weapon—not by anyone here, but on social media and elsewhere. There is nothing about difference to be frightened of; it is an accident of birth.
At the height of the pandemic, when we all clapped the health workers every week, I remember seeing pictures of healthcare professionals standing together in their uniforms and holding up pieces of paper on which they had written which countries they had come from.
It was heartening and humbling to see the different parts of the world that people working for our NHS had come from. Huge numbers had come from Europe to do skilled professional jobs and make a life for themselves here. However, we should ask ourselves why they thought it necessary to hold up pieces of paper with the country of their birth on, and not just be standing there as health professionals. I suggest that the tone of some of the debate around Brexit is the reason they felt they had to point out that they were from other parts of the world. That is regrettable and shameful.
Before anyone else makes the point, we do need more skilled NHS workers—doctors, nurses, radiographers and other skilled professionals—from the UK population. I am not against that. I agree that more of our citizens joining these professions would be a very good thing, but it is not going to happen overnight. We should be grateful, be thankful, recognise their professionalism and act accordingly by including this exemption for EEA and Swiss nationals coming here to work in these important professions. Equally, Amendment 55, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is in the same vein and seeks to exempt NHS employers from this charge as well.
Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raises an important issue on which I hope we will get a positive response from the Minister. Charity workers coming here to work voluntary for less than 12 months should not be liable for this charge if they have been given permission to stay here and work in a voluntary capacity. This seems a reasonable request. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to support Amendments 54 and 55 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
My Amendment 65 is supported by more than 50 not-for-profit and charitable organisations across the UK. Many are household names, with support being led by Camphill Scotland, but the amendment is applicable to a host of other national charities providing services to those with a mental health problem, a learning disability or care needs.
We warmly welcome the Government’s recent announcement that health and social care volunteers from other countries will be exempt from paying the immigration and health surcharge. However, the Government’s Command Paper, focusing on the proposed points-based immigration system, appears to confirm that those wishing to apply to work in the UK as international volunteers, including in health and social care settings, will be liable to pay the international health surcharge. Requiring international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, to pay the health surcharge, is unfair and inequitable, particularly as paid staff from other countries working in health and social care in the UK will be exempt.
This clause is a probing amendment, tabled to seek reassurance from the Government that the recently announced health surcharge exemption for health and social care staff will include international volunteers working in or applying to work in the UK under the current tier 5 visa arrangements. International volunteers from EU and non-EU countries make an enormous contribution to the work of charities, supporting people with learning disabilities and other needs and the work of charities across the UK in health and social care and other settings.
By way of example, there are currently around 215 international volunteers in Camphill communities in Scotland alone, providing services for people with these particular disabilities and other needs. A total of 61 of these volunteers currently rely on a tier 5 visa to do so. These young people have chosen to stay and provide care to UK citizens during the national health emergency. This demonstrates their dedication to, and compassion for, the people whom they support. It would be a terrible blow to the morale of charities across the UK if the Government’s very welcome announcement about the immigration and health surcharge exemption does not extend to international volunteers.
Post Brexit, all international volunteers from EU countries and Switzerland wishing to volunteer in UK charities will require visas, along with international volunteers from other countries outside the EU and Switzerland. Against this background, excluding international volunteers from the immigration health surcharge exemption could deter them from working for charities in the UK in health and social care and in other settings in the future. Post Brexit, all international volunteers from EU countries and Switzerland wishing to volunteer in our charities will require visas, along with international volunteers from other countries outside the EU and Switzerland. Against this background, therefore, excluding international volunteers from the immigration health surcharge exemption could deter volunteers from working in the future. This will impact on the capacity of many charities providing care and support and education to people with learning disabilities and other needs, and also on the capacity of charities across the UK in health and social care in other settings, including youth work and services supporting young people.
Can the Minister tell us whether Scottish, Welsh or English taxpayers will end up having to pay for staff to replace the volunteers who have been caring for many of these individuals? I note the current shortage within the UK of both health and care professionals in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Before the Minister turns this amendment down, I wonder whether he would agree to meet with me and a representative of one of these charities that benefit from volunteer help and are anxious about future funding.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 54 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Rosser. I am persuaded also by Amendments 55 and 65.
Returning to the parable of the good Samaritan, cited earlier by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham in relation to another amendment, we find a man who puts aside racial enmity because he is motivated by compassion, while others hurry about their business because to intervene would, at best, complicate their lives and involve their life in the struggling life of another. I had hoped that the pandemic, which continues, and the clarity with which the Prime Minister addressed his own condition and the part played in his recovery by a Portuguese and a New Zealander, might have at last persuaded the Government to review this burden by which we additionally tax migrants beyond what they have already paid.
We are talking about people who pay national insurance and income tax. Yet, for a person from abroad entering employment—for example, in health or social care—with a partner and two children—they must, in addition to extraordinarily high fees for a three-year visa, pay in advance for those years’ surcharge. That is currently £4,800 for four of them. In the projected hike of the surcharge this autumn, this will become £6,564.
How is this affordable? How is this morally justifiable? What country have we become that we think we can burden migrants in this way, yet we expect certain standards of other nations in how they treat people within their borders? I support the amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, previous speakers have forcefully made the case on this question. When you really think about it in the round, it really is quite extraordinary the degree of charges in fees imposed on people by the immigration system. We discussed on earlier occasions the fact that fees on immigration applications for visas are set well above the administrative cost of processing those applications. On top of that, obviously, people pay tax and national insurance. Then we are to impose the health surcharge on top of that, as an additional tax on people who have come here not to be on holiday and swan around but to work and contribute to life in this country. It seems a kick in the teeth that, even if you work in parts of the health or social care system—and I shall come on to that—you have to pay to use the services in the premises that you work in. That seems quite extraordinary, and it might be looked back on as such in future.
The Government have, of course, announced that healthcare staff who qualify for their new NHS visa will be exempted from paying the surcharge, but other healthcare and social care staff will still have to pay up front. People like cleaners and porters will be forced to pay thousands of pounds for the period of their visa. The visa cost is rising in October to £624 and payment has to be made for every year the visa covers, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark itemised that. It could amount to over £6,000, if my memory is correct—I cannot remember the exact figure; it is getting a wee bit late—for a family of four with a three-year visa. That could cause considerable financial hardship on top of visa renewal fees that they are trying to save up for, then having to pay for the immigration health charge. They may also be subject to “no recourse to public funds,” which we discussed in the last group. It is not a double or triple whammy—it is a quadruple whammy, I think.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, are thoroughly justified, as is Amendment 65, which my noble friend Lady Jolly spoke to so eloquently. The contribution of volunteers to the health and social care system is obviously considerable, and it does not seem right to make them pay the immigration health surcharge. I hope the Government will find some compassion in their response this evening.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for tabling Amendments 54 and 55 and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for tabling Amendment 65. As noble Lords have noted, in May the Prime Minister asked the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to exempt NHS and care staff from the immigration health charge, because of the exceptional contribution that they make to healthcare in this country. This exemption will apply to relevant applications and, once our new immigration system is in place, will apply regardless of nationality.
Given that broader scope, we feel that Amendment 54 is unnecessary. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on volunteers, the Department of Health and Social Care is developing guidance on who will be eligible to apply for the surcharge reimbursement scheme and will publish that shortly. That involves consultation with the sector, but I would be happy to agree to the meeting that she requested in the meantime to discuss this with the Minister.
I am pleased to say that applicants for the new health and care visa, which was launched on 4 August, are automatically exempt from the charge, in that a draft statutory instrument incorporating this exemption has been laid before Parliament. Those professions eligible to apply for this visa include doctors, nurses and other critical health and care staff. The visa also includes reduced visa fees, and dependent family members are also able to benefit from that. The Department for Health and Social Care is working on a reimbursement scheme for staff in the health and care sector who either do not meet the requirements of the health and care visa or are in the UK on a different visa. More details on that scheme will be published in due course.
We have a fantastic service in our National Health Service. It has been provided by people from all over the world from, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, its inception, before we joined what became the EU, and that will be the case long after we leave it. The immigration health surcharge is designed to help support this by ensuring that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution to the wide range of NHS services available to them. Income from the charge contributes to the long-term sustainability of a health service of which we are all, especially at the moment, justifiably proud. It has raised approximately £1.5 billion in much-needed income for the NHS since its introduction in 2015 to the end of the financial year 2019-20. This income has been shared between the four devolved health administrations in line with the Barnett formula, helping to fund the National Health Service across the UK.
We are introducing a new single immigration system once free movement ends, and our expectation is that people of all nationalities, including those from EEA countries, will pay the surcharge if they are staying for temporary periods of longer than six months, unless an exemption applies. Certain groups of people are exempt from the requirement to pay the surcharge, including those on the health and care visa. Others benefit from a discounted rate. Meanwhile, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, the Government are in the process of negotiating reciprocal arrangements with the European Union, and it is important that we do not undermine those negotiations through this Bill.
Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, seeks to exclude NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge, where they are recruiting EEA or Swiss citizens. The Migration Advisory Committee has previously supported, in its September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the continued application of the skills charge without exemptions for particular sectors, alongside salary thresholds as a way to protect against employers using migrant labour to undercut the domestic workforce. The Government stand by this requirement. Immigration must be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s resident workforce. This is all the more important in the face of any uncertainty caused by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
For the reasons set out, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment tonight.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, my noble friend Lord Rosser has asked me to apologise to the Committee on his behalf, because in a previous debate he did not thank all noble Lords who had spoken or the Minister, in particular. He wanted to put that on record. He meant to do that, and I am happy to correct the record for him.
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and the Minister for his response. It is getting late now, so I will not go on, but I thank him for his response and all colleagues who spoke in response. Perhaps we will return to some of these issues on Report. I will certainly look carefully at what the Minister has said, and we may return to it at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 16th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Sep 2020)
“Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: entitlement to remain
(1) Any child who has the right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in Part 1 of this Act, and who is in the care of a local authority or entitled to care leaving support, is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”). (2) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister.(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose and no other immigration control purpose.(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted indefinite leave to remain status after the deadline for applications under the Scheme will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with that status from the time of the Scheme deadline.(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed and remains in effect for 5 years from the day of the deadline of the Scheme.(7) For the purposes of this section, children “in the care of a local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following provisions—(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: general);(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision);(c) section 75 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (general duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (provision of accommodation for children);(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (interpretation); and(f) Article 50 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (care orders and supervision orders).(8) For the purposes of this section, children “entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following provisions—(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (preparation for ceasing to be looked after);(b) section 23A(2) of the Children Act 1989 (the responsible authority and relevant children);(c) section 23C(1) of the Children Act 1989 (continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);(e) sections 29 and 30 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities); and(f) Article 35(2) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (persons qualifying for advice and assistance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 56 has cross-party support in this Committee and in the House of Commons, where it was debated some time ago. Its purpose is to fast-track children in care and care leavers through the EU settlement scheme and grant them settled status. I am grateful to the Children’s Society and other NGOs for their help in preparing for this debate. It is my contention that very little decisive action has been taken to ensure that none of these children becomes undocumented as the scheme draws to a close in June next year. By the Government’s own estimates, 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers need to regularise their immigration status because the UK is leaving the EU. The children in this group face three distinct problems: their identification, the problems they may have in applying, and whether they have settled or pre-settled status. I will deal with each of these in turn.
An analysis by the Children’s Society found that, in January this year, 153 out of 211 local authorities across the UK had identified just 3,612 EU, EEA or Swiss looked-after children and care leavers. Even with a margin of error factored into these statistics, that is well off the mark of the estimated total of 9,000. The Government have stated that it is the duty of local authorities to gather information and apply to the scheme on behalf of children in care and to assist care leavers in applying. I am well aware of the enormous pressure on local authorities, particularly on social workers, and I shall argue later that this amendment, if accepted, will actually lessen the burden on social workers rather than increase them.
Evidence given through research by Coram shows mixed practice among local authorities, with fears that some are not totally aware of their duties as set out in the guidance and are making no attempt to identify children in their care who need to regularise their status. Even before we come to the question of rates of applications for status received, there is the issue of oversight. What more are the Government going to do to ensure that children are being identified as needing to regularise their status before the EU settlement scheme draws to a close in 10 months’ time?
Turning to the problems of applying, of the 3,612 children in care and care leavers identified by local authorities in the Children’s Society’s analysis, only 11% have received either pre-settled or settled status. Evidence from the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit shows that this group is having difficulties acquiring nationality documents and evidencing their length of residence in the UK in order to apply for settled status. Social workers, who are hard pressed enough, are often having to spend their time chasing various European embassies to acquire the appropriate paperwork. Everyone should agree that this is not the best use of their time, particularly in the present circumstances.
If the amendment is accepted, social workers could apply straight to the Home Office, without having to pursue the case through various European embassies. That would speed up the process and lessen the total burden on social workers. The children I am talking about have led complex lives. They often require expert legal and immigration advice to understand their options, including their eligibility for British citizenship. The Government should be streamlining this process for children in their care, not making it more difficult. Would the Minister consider lowering the evidential burden to ensure that these children receive settled status?
The third hurdle faced by some of these children is that, if they receive pre-settled, rather than settled, status, they will be in a vulnerable position. Children in care should not be given a temporary immigration status that expires. In five years’ time, when a young person with pre-settled status needs to reapply for settled status, it may well be that their social worker has changed, that they are no longer in care, or that grant-funded projects to support application have ended. The child surely has a right to apply for status under the EU settlement scheme either independently or in line with their parents’ status. For obvious reasons, it may be difficult for children in care to claim status linked to their parents’ situation. This right should be extended for children in care, so that they can apply in line with their corporate parents—the local authority—and receive permanent immigration status. What safe- guards are the Government putting in place to ensure that children in care and care leavers do not face a cliff edge when their pre-settled status expires and they reapply for settled status?
I am aware that the Home Office has sought to alleviate fears by stating that these children will be able to apply past the EUSS deadline of June 2021. What this means in reality is that children not identified and assisted through the EU settlement scheme would still be undocumented and in a difficult position. As is true of all undocumented children in the UK, this group will run into issues in adulthood when trying to rent a property, applying for a university grant or they are required to pay for NHS treatment while their immigration status is being regularised. Care leavers will still have to deal with a mountain of difficulties by themselves in order to secure the status they are owed. It can never, ever be in a child’s best interests to be undocumented. The Government have been warned that failure to act will result in this for children in the care of authorities across the UK.
To conclude, it is important to see that the amendment would place a duty on local authorities to identify children in their care who need to regularise their status. Within the guidelines issued to local authorities and Home Office workers, it would lower the evidential burden needed for children to apply and propose a fast track through the EU settlement scheme. It would end the concept of pre-settled status and ensure that all children had settled status only. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As he just explained, the proposed new clause would ensure that the children of EEA citizens and Swiss nationals who are already in care, along with those entitled to care, are able to stay in the United Kingdom under the EU settlement scheme. Where otherwise would these children go? Therefore, in guaranteeing their protection, this amendment is both logical and necessary. I am sure that the Minister will agree.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
Like the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, my name is on this amendment and, like him, I can be very brief in speaking to it, because the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, gave a masterly explanation of it.
We are dealing here with a small problem. The amendment would ensure that children in care do not fall into a crack, with their status undetermined and undocumented, now or in the future. The numbers involved are not huge; as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, they are probably in the thousands. Nobody would accuse the Government of deliberately creating this crack into which these young people might fall. It is accidental that this has emerged. I would not want to suggest that the Government have been remiss in letting it arise, provided, of course, that they feel able to do the decent thing and accept the overwhelming case that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made and either accept his amendment or produce a similar one that does the trick. It is the decent thing to do and I am convinced that the Government will want to do that to prevent the children falling into the crack that has accidentally been created.
I have one other point, and it is one I fear I may be becoming tedious on—perhaps I am always tedious. It is about Lesbos and the Moria camp. Yesterday in Berlin, the German ruling CDU, CSU, SPD coalition announced its agreement that Germany would take 2,750 homeless refugees from Lesbos, including 150 unaccompanied children and, in addition, children with serious illnesses and their immediate families. I asked what we will do about the disaster on Lesbos twice in Committee and the Minister did not feel able to pick up my remarks on either occasion, so this time I shall ask her four simple, straightforward questions. I hope she will be able to answer them.
First, does she agree that there would be reputational benefit for this country, at a time when we need friends, in doing what the Germans are doing? Secondly, does she agree that there is a strong humanitarian case for our doing so? Thirdly, does she agree that it is an emergency case, given that more than 14,000 people, including more than 400 unaccompanied children, are sleeping rough around the ruins of the burnt-out camp? Fourthly, will she please tell us, at the end of the discussion on this amendment, what the Government are going to do about it?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 56. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in connection with the situation in Lesbos, and I hope the Minister will be able answer his questions. I commend the proposers of the amendment, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his consistent championing of vulnerable child refugees and vulnerable children in general.
We all know that children in care are especially disadvantaged, almost by definition, and there are too many tragic and at times disgraceful stories of the suffering of such children. The commitment to expand foster care is testimony to the fact that being looked after by the state is a last resort. The state is not usually the best parent a child can have, but for some it is the only one. That puts extra responsibility on us when rules change dramatically, as they are because of Brexit, to go the extra mile to ensure that these children are not further disadvantaged as they embark on adult life. It is and should be the responsibility of the state as parent to ensure that children without parents and in the care of the state get the support they need to secure their status. This amendment sets out to secure this.
The Children’s Society’s excellent briefing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred, highlights that more than 3 million people have completed applications, including more than 400,000 children. However, the society points out that the children’s rate is low compared with that for adults. I will not repeat its statistics, but they clearly point to the likelihood that thousands of children could be left undocumented and potentially stateless without the proactive measures proposed in the amendment. Although I say, “thousands of children”, and in the grand scheme of things the numbers are not that large, these are real people with real needs.
This could further blight the lives of young people who will be struggling to build their lives in a post-Covid, post-Brexit environment. The last thing they will need is to be confronted, at a critical point in their lives when seeking employment or other roles, with a challenge to their status because they did not know and were not properly informed of the need to secure settled status or helped to go about it. Because, on the face of it, this is not an urgent matter, overstretched local authorities might postpone support as a priority, but surely it is better to address it while the issue is fresh rather than wait until time has elapsed, people have forgotten, the circumstances have been overlooked and the possibility of people finding themselves on the wrong side of their status is therefore enhanced at a later stage. None of us wants to see tragic headlines about children facing either deportation or lack of identity and status.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment and show that they are on the side of young people. I accept that it is not their intention to create these problems, but, given the opportunity of this amendment, I hope they will recognise that these young people do not need additional barriers to their progress in life and that this amendment is to be commended.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. The Government should be doing all they can to ensure that the estimated nearly 10,000 looked-after children and care leavers are registered. It would seem that the Children’s Society has done more to identify these children than the Government have. It is not sufficient to say that they will allow late applications, welcome as that is, because that means these children will, as has already been said, be undocumented and could then run into all sorts of problems under the hostile/compliant environments. Will the Minister undertake to issue a formal policy statement and guidance that confirms formally what has been said about late claims? Stakeholder groups such as the Children’s Society and the3million are concerned that it is not there in a formal way.
It is not enough to say that it is the responsibility of local authorities and leave it at that, with only non-statutory guidance. According to the Children’s Society and the3million, many local authorities seem unaware of this, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said. To reinforce his questions, will the Minister say exactly what the Government are doing to ensure that local authorities are aware of their responsibilities; to support local authorities to fulfil those responsibilities, because we know the pressure they are under; and to ensure that local authorities are doing all they can to identify and support children for whom they have a responsibility? The evidence suggests that many of these hard-pressed local authorities are not doing what is required.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that to accept this amendment would be to do the decent thing. Indeed, it would, and I do not think it is tedious at all for him to remind noble Lords about what is happening in Lesbos. It is decent that he has done that, and I hope the Minister will answer his questions in a decent way.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment thus far. I particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as others have, for his tireless work in this area.
Most of the questions have been asked and most of the issues have been canvassed, so I will be brief. I think everybody accepts that these are acutely vulnerable children. They do not have a parent who is able to look out for them; the state is their guardian, and that creates huge humanitarian responsibilities for the state that we expect our Government to live up to.
I also echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: where is the Statement and the action from the Government on the situation in Lesbos? We have seen significant action from European Governments, particularly the German and French Governments, so I join others in saying that I very much hope that we will hear an answer from the Minister on what the Government are going to do to help those intensely vulnerable people.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. The Government have given us an example of the reasonable grounds there may be for submitting a late application to the EU settled status scheme, but in this case the applicant is a child whose parent or guardian failed to apply on their behalf.
This amendment is about children of a corporate parent: the state. As we have heard, the Home Office estimates that there are 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers who would need to apply. Not only are these children considered vulnerable—a word we are applying quite widely to very different situations—but in this context they have rights which it is not possible, or certainly not easy in practical terms, for them to exercise. Their parent, the state, is in a rather different position from a flesh-and-blood mother or father.
This is a very nifty amendment. It means that social workers would not have to chase after paperwork; they are very overloaded, as we have heard. It does not leave children in the precarious position of having to apply late, or of being undocumented, when they would be exposed to ineligibility for NHS treatment that is not charged for, and there would be no cliff edge at the end of pre-settled status. I think I am right in saying that the five-year period in subsection (6) of the proposed new clause would mean that it would apply to babies who are currently, or by next June, under five years old.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, this is not too hard to sort out—at least, it does not seem so to me. I hope the Minister will agree. Like others, I think that the noble Lord’s questions are relevant to today, if not relevant precisely to this amendment. They are very important. I look forward to supporting this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 56, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which would add a new clause to the Bill. This clause would provide for children who are EEA and Swiss nationals and in care, along with those entitled to care-leaving support, to be granted automatic indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme.
This amendment has wide cross-party support. The idea behind it had support in the other House, and it has that today. Every speaker so far, from different sides of the House, has spoken in support of the amendment. I am sure the Minister has taken that on board and will want to give us a positive response.
As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, there are vast numbers of these children and the amendment would ensure that none of them become undocumented. Identification is a serious problem, as my noble friend outlined. The different practices adopted by different local authorities is a real problem in itself.
The amendment would speed up the process and enable social workers, who do a fantastic job—we all know that they are under extreme pressure—to apply directly to the Home Office without having to deal with consulates and embassies and all the bureaucracy you have in dealing with another country when trying to get the right documents identified. You would avoid all that work, paperwork and bureaucracy, and go straight to the Home Office.
My noble friend Lord Dubs also asked the Minister about the safeguards in place for children who have pre-settled status, and that question deserves a careful response. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, this is a sensible amendment that really deserves a positive response from the Government.
I agree with all the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, on this amendment. It is the decent thing to do for these children. We are talking about a relatively small number of children, but it would ensure that nobody falls into the trap of becoming undocumented. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said, children in care face all sorts of additional challenges; they are not with their parents and the local authority in effect is looking after them. All this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that they do not have further issues to deal with; a young person leaving care, or in many years’ time, may have the problem of being undocumented and unable to establish their identity properly. This is a very small measure which the Government should give way on.
Like my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, I commend the work of the Children’s Society to identify and raise the plights of these children. The society has campaigned to ensure that they have protection and that their problems are not added to by becoming undocumented. As I say, it is the decent thing to do. Equally, I am sure that we will get a response from the Minister on the amendment, and on the issue in Lesbos.
I should also draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Local authorities do a fantastic job. Certain authorities, particularly Kent, are under particular pressure regarding children’s issues, but they generally do a fantastic job. This is one small measure which the Government could accept to help authorities and make it a bit easier for them in the work that they do. I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to us today, and maybe we can come back to this on Report.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving his Amendment 56, which calls for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to be granted indefinite leave to remain.
May I say at the outset that I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kennedy, and others that no child should be undocumented, and with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we should not create any cracks? So that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, yet again, I will immediately address the issues that he raised.
First, he asked if we should do as the Germans do. I think we should do as we do. As far as reputational risk is concerned, I do not think we should help these children because it has an influence on our reputation; I think we should help children because it is the right thing to do, and in fact this country has a very long history of helping children who need our support.
The noble Lord asked me if I agree that it is an emergency. Absolutely, I agree that it is an emergency. Of course, I also agree that it is a humanitarian issue. One could not fail to be moved by the plight that these children and their families sometimes go through.
The noble Lord then asked me the million-dollar question: what the Government are doing about it. On 22 April, the UK and Greece signed a joint historic migration plan that reaffirms our commitment to closer co-operation with Greece on a range of migration issues. On the direct help for some of those people on the Greek islands, we have given £500,000 for urgent humanitarian help for the most vulnerable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We have received a number of requests to speak after the Minister: from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, and the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy. I will call each Member in turn and then invite the Minister to respond.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my questions. I guess that I am rightly rebuked for suggesting that a relevant factor in considering what we should do about the victims of Lesbos is our reputation around the world. I suppose it is a case of déformation professionnelle. I used to be a diplomat and I am therefore keen on our trying to recover some of our lost reputation. Perhaps the Government—less the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—are less keen today. Perhaps they do not recognise the extent of the reputational damage. Anyway, I agree that that is not strictly relevant.
The Minister agreed that there is an emergency case for helping and an overwhelming humanitarian case for helping. But—I hope the Minister will forgive my saying so—she seems to be saying that we propose to do nothing at all about it. Everything that she cited—the money in April and the flights in July and August—took place before the fire on the island of Lesbos and before these 14,500 people, who are now sleeping rough, were displaced. If she accepts that there is a new urgent humanitarian case then it would be very good if the Government could do something about it.
I note that a number of people spoke on the same lines as me about this problem, so I hope the Minister will take back to Whitehall the idea that there seems to be a feeling in this House that we ought to be doing something to help the victims of Moria.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord can probably tell that I have never been a diplomat. However, I take his point in absolutely good faith. It is probably both reputational and our duty to help those in need around the world.
I spoke to the noble Lord about the joint historic migration plan, which confirms our closer co-operation with Greece. I was speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, before we even began this Committee stage, and I think that we all need to get together and work out solutions for upstream work and to help the desperate people in the regions who will never even get to Europe. We need to tackle some of the drivers of the terrible criminality that goes on, which has no intention of helping the most vulnerable people at all.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I was not sure whether the Minister was talking about money that had been paid to Greece to help, or money that was going to be paid. Clearly, money is needed—I am in no position to think how much that might be—but it is not just about money.
I commend to noble Lords the BBC Radio 4 programme “More or Less” this morning, which objectively dealt with where the UK comes in comparison with other nations in taking refugees and assisting asylum seekers. The tables I have in front of me show that, combining both resettled refugees and asylum seekers, we take less than a quarter of the number taken by Greece and less than 10% of the number taken by Germany. This is not a competition, except a competition to do better. I wanted to put that on the record.
I also want to respond to the points the Minister has just made. The best upstream action is to provide safe and legal routes. She mentioned that in her first response, and I commend her for that. That is where the focus needs to be.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: we need to provide safe and legal routes, and through our resettlement schemes we do provide them. We are all in danger of agreeing violently, because we want to help the most vulnerable and we want places like Greece, that need our support, to get it.
The noble Baroness asked whether the money had been paid or would be paid. It has been paid. She will of course remember that, back in the day, we put quite a phenomenal amount of money into helping people in the region who will never get out and who will never make the journey over to Europe.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the resettlement scheme, but we heard the other day that that is suspended, and it is not at all clear when it will start again. I have a simple question. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that as it is accepted that there is an urgent humanitarian case, it would be good if the Government did something about it. I still do not understand why we are not doing something about it. Why are we not acting like, say, Germany?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that we, as a country, have been backward in coming forward to other countries that need our help. We are working closely with Greece. As I said, we have given it money to deal with some of the most vulnerable people on its islands, and we will continue to do that.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but what I heard in the first question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was about taking refugees from the camp in Lesbos. She talked exclusively about unaccompanied children. Germany had initially agreed to take 400 unaccompanied children, but has now changed that decision and will take in 1,553 refugees from Lesbos, making up the difference in the numbers with adults. Can the Minister clarify that the Government’s position on not taking adult refugees from anywhere in Europe has not changed despite the disaster in Lesbos?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What I said was that we did not participate in the EU relocation scheme; I am not sure whether we ever have. I am saying that we will absolutely meet our obligations under Dublin, and if a request comes from the UNHCR for us to take displaced people from Greece who are eligible to come under Dublin, we will of course consider that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand her position to be that the amendment we are discussing is not necessary and could make the situation worse. Apparently the Home Office supports the aims of the amendment but it is not going to act, because there are measures already in place to deal with this question, and it does not want any children to end up undocumented. Maybe I am wrong, but I am sure that if I am, the Minister will correct me. If I am correct, is she giving a cast-iron assurance that the Home Office will not let any of those children become undocumented, and that in the period ahead it will not take decisions that undermine what she has said to us today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What I am saying is that the Home Office, in conjunction with other departments, will ensure that we can identify every child, or indeed adult, in that vulnerable category and that they are assisted where possible. As I said the other day, the EU settlement scheme will not close and reasonable grounds for late applications will not end, so if any people—either adults or children—are identified in future as coming into the category that noble Lords have spoken about, they will be documented.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to respond to the debate on his amendment.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, so many things have been raised in the debate that I shall be hard put to it to spend only a short time dealing with them. First, I am still concerned, because the Minister said that although she agreed with the sentiment, she thought Amendment 56 was unnecessary and might be counter- productive. I am not convinced that, next June, we will not see a large number of children who, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, have fallen through the crack and are undocumented, and nothing much will be done for them. That is the concern. Short of repeating the point in this debate, we will be forced to keep asking Parliamentary Questions to find out whether all those children have been identified and had their status granted.
The Minister did not talk about the difference between pre-settled and settled status, but the thrust of the debate was that we must give people settled status otherwise they are still left in limbo and a state of uncertainty.
I would like to feel that the Home Office will redouble its efforts to make sure that the amendment is unnecessary, but I am bound to say that I am not that hopeful. I fear that we will have to go on pressing the Government as to where we have got. I find that a bit disappointing, despite the fact that the Minister’s sentiments were very much in support of the aim of the amendment.
Turning now to some of the specific comments, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I particularly welcome the comments on Moria made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I was going to raise this but did not know whether I should at this point. On the other hand, by the time we get to Report, when this issue will come up, another two or three weeks will have gone by. It is such an urgent matter than I can only press the Minister that we can do a bit more than we are doing. We cannot do everything. All we should do is act in concert with other EU countries, even if we are not part of the scheme, and say, “Look, we’re going to play our part in helping.”
We have done something already, of course—before the fire in Moria—but the Greek Government appealed for help from all countries. We are friendly with the Greek Government; we have got an agreement with them. The least we can do is say that we will take some more children, especially the ones who can reunite with their family here.
I was concerned by the Minister’s comment that Dublin III will be operational until the end of December. Of course it will be, but we are worried about what will happen after then. We are concerned that there will be no safeguards unless the Government act on the amendment that we discussed the other day, which is to say that we will negotiate to continue the arrangement long after we have left the EU. I fear that that is not the Government’s position; I would like to feel that it were. There is a real gap here in what the Government are doing, and I am disappointed. We will come to the end of December and there will be children with relatives and family here who will no longer have the right to come here.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister and the other noble Lords who contributed to the debate on this amendment. We will have to watch and see. If the Government are as good as the Minister’s word—that is a big statement—maybe it will all get sorted by June next year. I would like to think so, but at the moment I am still doubtful.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 62. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 62
Baroness Hamwee
“Refugee family reunion
The Secretary of State must make rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to allow any EEA or Swiss citizen who has exercised a right brought to an end by section 1 and Schedule 1 and who has been recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom to sponsor their—(a) children under the age of 25 who were either under the age of 18, or unmarried, at the time the person granted asylum left the country of their habitual residence in order to seek asylum;(b) parents; or(c) siblings under the age of 25 who were either under the age of 18, or unmarried, at the time the person granted asylum left the country of their habitual residence in order to seek asylum;to join them in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is intended to probe the need to expand family reunion rules.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 62 is grouped with Amendments 64 and 79, which I very much support.
On a previous day, we debated Amendment 48, a “Dubs amendment”—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is becoming a noun; I hope that he will forgive me for using his name in this way—which was also about refugee family reunion, with a focus on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My Amendment 62 is different. The starting point is that someone of any age, including a child, who has refugee status in the UK could sponsor certain family members to join him or her. As with other amendments that we have debated, the issue is very much wider than EEA and Swiss citizens, but I cannot let the Bill go by without making points about this situation, too.
I believe that this is a very modest ask to test the water, as I have done previously and hope to do again if we ever get back to Private Members’ Bills, because I have one on this subject in the pipeline. The amendment would allow a refugee to sponsor his or her
“children under the age of 25 who were either under the age of 18, or unmarried, at the time”
the sponsor left the country. The “unmarried” point is important. One hears alarming stories about the treatment of young women in refugee camps. They have an even more precarious existence than others, as well as precarious experiences on their journey. The amendment would also allow the sponsorship of parents or siblings who came in the categories I have just mentioned.
It is often suggested that families in difficult parts of the world send a son off to try to reach the UK with a view to the family seamlessly following for economic reasons. It is true that children in this situation do sometimes leave with a parent’s agreement, but all too often it is about seeking asylum which is a necessity. This provision would not kick in unless the sponsor was recognised as a refugee. I hope that that reassures noble Lords.
I dare say that someone might argue that such a provision would endanger that sponsor, who might be a child, because of the danger of getting to the UK. As always, the answer is to create safe and legal routes, as this amendment would do for those who are sponsored. It would also help with the recovery and integration of refugees in this country. I hope that it is not necessary to explain to the Committee the importance of families being together. They belong together.
In January of this year, other noble Lords may have received, as I did, emails from a primary school where children had read a book about a boy refugee trying to be reunited with his family. This was as the Government were repealing Section 17 of the 2018 EU withdrawal Act. At the time, I quoted a child who said:
“I thought my country was better than this.”—[Official Report, 15/1/20; col. 755.]
Another child castigated us. He said:
“You’re all leaders. You’re all meant to lead by example, yet you’ve made us feel so ashamed that we are prevented from helping these children. What if you were in their position? You’d want to be brought to safety, wouldn’t you?”
Well, I know the answer to that.
Another child said:
“There’s no war in the UK and if children have family here, they should have the right to go to them. I think it must be very scary to be alone, not speaking the same language as people around you, in a big new country surrounded by new people. These children don’t know what is going to happen to them. Knowing they were able to go to a relation in this country would be a relief for them and we would know we’ve helped.”
Finally by way of example, I will quote a young refugee assisted by the Red Cross:
“I was so little when I left my home and my family. I left but my family unfortunately did not have the chance to leave with me. I wish they were here with me. We’re forced to leave. We leave as children and we still need our parents’ figures in our lives. I worry about my brothers because I know they will be in danger. I worry about my younger sister, who’s 14. I want to get her out of there. It is so important that we are all together again.”
As I said, there are three amendments in this group. The fact that noble Lords from around the House are showing concern for refugees in different situations— and this is not the whole of it—indicates how widely shared the view is that we as a country should be doing more.
I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 62—spoken to in a very moving way by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—which seeks to expand family reunion rules. I also support Amendment 79, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which ensures that family reunification should not be restricted by any lack of income or assets affecting relevant parties.
Amendment 64, in my name, allows visas to be issued on humanitarian grounds. Three conditions are stipulated: the person needs medical treatment, is an orphaned child, or is a child who is a dependant of a person in the United Kingdom. These conditions are covered in Section 3. However, Section 4 enables the Secretary of State to add to them if required.
As outlined, therefore, Amendment 64 does not address family reunion. Instead, it deals with people who need to come to the United Kingdom for medical attention, orphaned children, and those who do not qualify for family reunion but who are dependent upon another person, or people, in the United Kingdom. Post Brexit, this amendment may thus prove useful for the continuity of the United Kingdom’s excellent record of sustained high standards of humanitarian good practice, such as receiving here for emergency surgery the Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai, after she had been shot in the head by Islamist terrorists, and, during the recent lockdown—and for this my noble friend the Minister and her government colleagues deserve a great deal of credit—the relocation to the United Kingdom of dozens of unaccompanied minors from Moria refugee camp in Greece when it was recently destroyed by arson.
Secondly, the measures proposed may also help many to avoid become prey to human smugglers and traffickers. An absence of humanitarian visas, which the amendment seeks to redress, is also an advantage to human smugglers and traffickers. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister can accept Amendment 64.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I was delighted to sign. I also wish to express my support for Amendment 64, which the noble Earl has so ably presented, and to speak to my own Amendment 79. The first two refer to people who need refuge; mine refers to a different group and I will get to that in a second.
As I was listening to the powerful presentations from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, I was thinking back to January 2016 when I was at a memorial service for a 15 year-old Afghan boy. His name was Masud, and he died in the back of lorry trying to get to the UK to rejoin his brother. This relates to the discussion we were having before about the situation on Lesbos. We have to provide safe, legal, orderly routes for people to reach the UK, and to achieve the refuge they should be entitled to.
I note my position as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and identify what may well be a rising issue. The Government have stepped forward and said that they want to help people who need to leave Hong Kong because of what is happening there with regard to human rights. I very much hope that we will see action on providing orderly routes for people to be able to do that, and for people all around the world.
I mostly want to speak on Amendment 79. As I said, this does not relate to refugees. This relates to a situation involving those generally known as Skype children, the numbers of whom are, of course, likely to be significantly enhanced. At the moment, for non-EU and EAA citizens who are the spousal partner of a British citizen, the British citizen has to have an income of £18,600 a year to bring them to the UK—more with children—and at the end of the transition period this Bill will extend that to many more people and many more children.
This is a more limited amendment than Amendment 23, which we debated last week, which addressed couples being able to stay together as well as children. While I prefer Amendment 23, I am hoping that the Conservative Government might be more prepared to consider amending the legislation specifically so that it is not tearing children out of their parents’ arms. It is, at the moment, not using the wisdom of Solomon but actually delivering the verdict of Solomon and forcing parents to let their children go to be separated from them for years. As we all know from the situation with Covid-19, yes, you may be able to keep in contact through a screen, but it is certainly not the same thing.
I note that in 2018 the Children’s Commissioner for England commissioned a report showing that up to 15,000 British children were already growing up in this situation. This is without adding in people affected by Brexit. Many children were reportedly suffering from significant stress and anxiety from the separation.
So have the Government made an estimate of the number of children likely to be affected annually by the minimum income requirement once the immigration Act, as it will be, comes into effect? The research by the Children’s Commissioner found that Britain had the least family-friendly reunification policies of 38 developed countries, largely because of that minimum income requirement. That is of course £18,600 a year, which was then 138% of the minimum wage. It will not be quite so bad now. The Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said at the time:
“There is a wealth of evidence which indicates that children are far more likely to thrive when they are raised by parents in a warm, stable and loving family environment.”
There is evidence, she said, that this affects
“their well-being and development. It is also likely to have an impact on their educational attainment and outcomes.”
As one of the authors of the report commissioned by the Children’s Commissioner pointed out, the great majority of children affected by this are British citizens. They are being forced to grow up effectively in single-parent families, when their parents want to be together. So I hope that the Government will reflect on the comparison with Solomon and think about accepting this amendment.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 64 to which I have added my name, which has already been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. The concept here is a very simple one because, as I understand it, we are already doing it in part. The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, for example, which takes some Syrian refugees from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, already seems to be giving effect to a proposal similar to that in this amendment. The question is: why can we not apply that to people in Europe? That is the purpose of this amendment. It seems to be a very simple point, and it would also take away some of the pressure.
At the moment, if we are taking children from an EU country, there is quite a complicated bureaucratic procedure; they have to apply and then they have to be registered before we accept them. Would it not be easier if we had a humanitarian visa, so that it could be granted to children in that category and they could come straight here without any bureaucratic toing and froing? The concept is a simple one.
I appreciate that the idea of a humanitarian visa, generally, has been floated for a long time. I do not know whether it has the support of the UNHCR—I believe it does—but of course the scheme I referred to, the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme from that region, is based on the identification by UNHCR of individuals who are vulnerable, so the same arrangement could apply for the granting of a humanitarian visa. It seems to be a fairly straightforward proposal and one that would add to the other measures to provide a legal and safe way for people in desperate need to come to this country.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I commend those noble Lords who have followed this Bill in detail and identified so many anomalies and injustices that may arise with the ending of free movement. I have intervened to give them support and to identify amendments in which I have a particular interest.
My brief intervention here is in support of Amendment 64 which, like a number of others, highlights the hardship and injustice that may arise not by deliberate intent but because, when a freedom that has been available for so long is terminated, something that is currently not an issue becomes one.
In Scotland, we have leading centres of medical excellence. In my home region, in Aberdeen, we have the oldest teaching hospital in the English-speaking world, which has pioneered a number of innovations including the MRI scanner. Medical centres of renown exist in Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Under the present rules, treatment can be provided to EEA nationals without recourse to a visa. It would surely be inhumane if, under the terms of this amendment, a visa were to be denied in future. Similarly, it is surely right on compassionate grounds if an orphaned child can best be placed in foster care in the UK—for example, where a sibling is already placed or some other particular circumstances apply. If the child is the dependant of someone living in the UK who has the right to remain, it is surely absolutely right that they can be united with them in the UK. This should be sufficient grounds for the automatic right to a visa.
We have seen cases in which UK citizens have availed themselves of medical treatment elsewhere in the EU, and previous contributions have discussed treatment being provided to people from elsewhere, so it is to be hoped that accepting this amendment would help to ensure that EU countries provide similar reciprocal arrangements.
So much will change next year, sadly, in my view, to the detriment of UK citizens in most cases, and also inflicting potential hardship on our fellow EU citizens whose access to the UK has not been restricted hitherto. This amendment is a simple example of how we can modify our visa arrangements post Brexit on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I hope it will be accepted in that spirit.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee in the Commons, the Government stated that they were
“committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children”
and that they
“recognise that families can become separated because of … conflict and persecution”,
including through
“the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country.” —[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/20; col. 263.]
Eligibility for refugee family reunion is covered in the UK’s Immigration Rules, which provide that refugees in the UK can be joined, via family reunion, by their spouse or partner and their dependent children under the age of 18.
Amendment 62 increases the family members whom EEA and Swiss nationals, who have exercised a right ended by Clause 1 of this Bill and are refugees in the UK, are allowed to sponsor to join them. In reality, the existing UK policy leaves some of the most vulnerable children separated from their parents at a time when they need their families more than ever—an issue that Amendment 62 seeks to address.
Amendment 64, to which my noble friend Lord Dubs’s name is attached, seeks to remedy this by requiring the Secretary of State to make provision for a visa to enter or remain in the UK on humanitarian grounds. This would apply to an EEA or Swiss national—that is done to keep the amendment in scope of the Bill—who requires medical treatment in the UK that is not available where they are resident; who is an orphan child, and a foster family or other foster care is available to the child in the UK and leave to enter or remain in the UK would be in the child’s best interests; or who is a dependent child of someone who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. In their reply, perhaps the Government could say what they estimate would be the number of people entering the UK each year under the terms of such a humanitarian visa, compared with the latest annual net migration figure, for example.
The third amendment in this group provides that a person should be granted leave to enter or remain in the UK if they are an EEA or Swiss national and either have a child with a British citizen or person who has leave to remain in the UK, or are a child of a British citizen or person who has leave to remain in the UK.
I conclude by saying only that if the Government are
“committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children”,—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/20; col. 263.]
as they said in the Commons when this Bill was being discussed, surely they can accept one or more of the amendments in this group.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her amendment and my noble friend Lord Dundee, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I turn first to Amendment 62 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I note that she has raised this amendment to probe the need to expand the UK’s refugee family reunion rules. I will address each part of the amendment in turn.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause seeks to allow refugees to reunite with their dependent children under the age of 25, as long as they were under 18 or unmarried at the time their parents left their country. The refugee family reunion guidance is clear that where a family reunion application does not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules, caseworkers must consider whether there are any exceptional circumstances or compassionate factors that may justify a grant of leave outside the Immigration Rules. To this end, particular reference is given in the guidance to the example of children over 18 who are not leading an independent life and would otherwise be left alone in a dangerous situation. I can confirm that this discretion is used to allow dependent adult children to reunite with their parents in the UK where appropriate.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed new clause relates to refugees sponsoring parents. The noble Baroness will know that the Government have been very clear on their established position on this issue, as we are very concerned that allowing children to sponsor their parents would lead to more children being encouraged—even forced—to leave their families and risk dangerous journeys to the UK. However, discretion can be applied where a caseworker feels that a refusal of entry clearance would breach Article 8 of the ECHR or result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family. Furthermore, Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules already allows refugees to sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them where, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by relatives in the UK.
Paragraph (c) of the proposed new clause relates to refugees sponsoring dependent siblings under the age of 25, as long as they were under 18 or unmarried at the time their sibling left their country. I draw noble Lords’ attention to paragraph 319X of the Immigration Rules, which allows extended family, including siblings, to sponsor children to come here where there are serious and compelling circumstances. Again, consideration will also be given to any factors that might warrant a grant of leave outside the rules, where the rules are not met.
I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that there are vehicles within the existing policy framework to reunite the family members her amendment seeks to cover. An expansion of the policy could significantly increase the numbers who could qualify to come here from not just conflict regions but any country from which someone is granted protection. This would mean extended family members who themselves do not need protection being able to come here, which risks reducing our capacity to assist the most vulnerable refugees.
On numbers, I highlight that the UK has now issued over 29,000 family reunion visas in only the last five years, with more than half of those issued to children—a substantial number that should not be underestimated.
I agree with the intention of compassion and humanity that motivates Amendment 64, proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee. However, we do not support this amendment, which seeks to create a humanitarian visa for EEA and Swiss nationals. It is unclear to me and the Government why those citizens have humanitarian needs that cannot be addressed by their own European country.
The Government have an excellent humanitarian record in assisting vulnerable people, including children. The UK is one of the world’s leading refugee resettlement states, resettling more refugees than any other country in Europe, and is in the top five countries worldwide. Since 2015 we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees, around half of whom have been children.
Once we have delivered our current commitments under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, we will consolidate our main schemes into a new global UK resettlement scheme. Our priority will be to continue to identify and resettle vulnerable refugees in need of protection, as identified and referred by the UNHCR. The focus of our humanitarian record is on those most in need, and I suggest that today’s amendment does not cover those most in need.
I turn to each proposed condition of the humanitarian visa in detail. Overall, it is unclear why, regarding the condition set out in subsection 3(a) of the proposed new clause, the UK should pick up healthcare provision for EEA and Swiss citizens, whether they are residing in their country of nationality or not, as these countries have excellent healthcare systems. However, our current discretionary leave policy allows us to grant leave to remain to individuals who do not qualify for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules but where there are exceptional or compassionate reasons for allowing them to remain in the UK, including on medical grounds and ill health.
The discretionary leave policy can, for example, address the needs of those who face a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in their state of health as a result of the absence of appropriate medical treatment in their home country. The policy also allows us to balance this care, and our international obligations under the ECHR, with the need to protect the finite resources of the NHS. The threshold for a person to be considered for discretionary leave on the basis of their medical condition is very clearly set out in our policy on medical claims and is intentionally high for this reason.
Furthermore, we are already dedicated to ensuring that vulnerable groups can access the NHS without charge. There are several groups applying for leave to remain in the UK who are exempt from the requirement to pay the immigration health charge, including asylum claimants and victims of modern slavery who apply for discretionary leave to remain. Those who are exempt from paying the IHC, or for whom the requirement is waived, are entitled to use the NHS generally without charge.
On the condition set out in proposed new subsection 3(b), the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable children. This amendment fails to recognise the safe and legal routes in the current immigration system for reuniting families, including the previously mentioned refugee family reunion rules, as well as Part 8 and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, all of which will remain in place at the end of the transition period.
The proposed amendment would also require the Government to create a new visa route for orphaned children who are EEA or Swiss nationals to come to the UK to be placed in local authority foster care where it is in their best interests. It is unclear why an orphaned child who is German, Italian or Greek, for example, should come to the UK on humanitarian grounds and be placed in local authority care here. These are safe European countries, and it is not appropriate for the UK to take children out of care in their own home countries and bring them here. Local authorities in the UK are already facing significant pressures, currently caring for over 5,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which is an increase of 146% since 2014.
On the condition set out in proposed new subsection 3(c), child dependants of those with leave in the UK are very well catered for in the Immigration Rules, which means that there is no need for primary legislation to create provision that already exists.
Turning to Amendment 79, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intent behind the amendment, which seeks to create a means whereby, in the future, EEA and Swiss citizens will be able to join a spouse, partner, parent or a child in the UK who is either a British citizen or holds valid leave here, but without being subject to the current and established financial requirements for family migration.
There are a number of additional factors that I would like to turn to, which are also reasons for objecting to this amendment. I remind noble Lords that the minimum income requirement is based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It did not find any clear case for differentiation in the level of the minimum income requirement between UK countries and regions. A single national threshold provides clarity and simplicity. Data also show that the gross median earnings in 2019 exceeded the minimum income requirement in every country and region of the UK. So it is true to say that the minimum income requirement is set at a suitable and consistent level and promotes financial independence, thereby avoiding burdens on the taxpayer and ensuring that families can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate integration into British society.
In all family cases, the decision-maker will consider whether the Immigration Rules are otherwise met and, if not, will go on to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances that would render refusal a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR because it would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family. Each application is considered on its merits and on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances. The rules also give direct effect to the Secretary of State’s statutory duty to have regard, as a primary consideration, to a child’s best interests in making an immigration decision affecting them. In the future, British citizens and settled persons who want to be joined by family members who are EEA or Swiss citizens will benefit from these considerations without the need for Amendment 79.
Amendment 79 undermines the sound basis on which family migration to this country has been placed in recent years. It would circumvent the need for family migration to be on a basis whereby families are financially independent and able to contribute to the UK. It is for this reason that the income requirement was set out in the Immigration Rules. The Supreme Court has upheld this requirement as lawful and judged that it is not discriminatory. The amendment therefore seeks to contradict this ruling. There is no justifiable reason to avoid this requirement in the future by giving preferential treatment to family members based solely on their nationality. It is also unlikely to be lawful to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked if I had figures on the numbers who are affected, or who are projected to be affected. I do not have them on me. If we have them, I will provide them for her.
I hope that, on that basis, noble Lords are happy not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I do not always agree with the Home Office, but I do commend the answers that the Minister has just given on these three amendments.
I want to make some brief comments on Amendment 79. As the Minister just pointed out, the present income threshold for a spousal visa is designed to ensure that those coming to the UK for family reunion have enough resources to play a full part in British life and do not become a burden on the taxpayer. That is surely a sensible approach. As she mentioned, this has been to the Supreme Court, which ruled the policy to be lawful. Indeed, far from removing the threshold, there are, in certain cases, strong arguments for raising it.
The Migration Advisory Committee has said that, on average, for the family income to cover the cost of all public services, a higher threshold is required: namely, £25,700, rather than the current level of £18,600—a difference of £7,100. Even that threshold would not be enough, it says, for a non-EU household to make a net contribution to public finances. For them, the figure would be £38,000 a year. We must have in mind the impact of changes to these rules on the taxpayer and the reaction that they may have to that.
Finally, it is perhaps important to note that a reduction in the threshold would run entirely contrary to the Government’s 2017 election manifesto, which promised to raise the level of the threshold. That, of course, has still not been done.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I pretty much agree with him on every point.
On the higher threshold, the MAC will not be passive in commenting on the various aspects of the new immigration system, and I am sure that the threshold will be one of them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, on the minimum income requirement, what is lawful is still not necessarily the system that many people want, including British citizens who, to their surprise, are affected by the rules. The Minister said that they were clear, but what counts towards assessing whether an income is £18,600 is a problem and has been for some time. It has also been changed from time to time, and the income of the person sponsored does not count. I do not have up-to-date figures, but it puts this arrangement out of reach for about half the wage earners in this country.
However, we are not here to debate the minimum income requirement, so I will go back to the family reunion point—it is all intertwined, of course. My noble friend Lord Bruce said he had been struck by how something that was not a problem can become one. Here, we are seeking to address something that has been a problem for some time and which will become a bigger problem. I am of course aware that Appendix FM and paragraph 319X of the Immigration Rules deal with exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the situations we are debating are not exceptional. To exercise discretion outside of the rules is an unsatisfactory position when we could have rules. The Minister talked about dependents being left alone. More often they are left with a single parent.
The organisations on the ground are concerned about this. This is not something manufactured in my head. It is an issue that we will have to go on pursuing. I thought that the humanitarian case to which the Minister subscribed was undermined at the end by her referring to numbers. Since the numbers are never going to be overwhelming, I would prefer to stick to the humanitarian case. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 62.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 63. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 63
Lord Rosser
“Duty to raise awareness of citizenship rights
(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to register as a British citizen to persons to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This section applies to any person who has lost rights under section 1 and Schedule 1.(3) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing the steps taken to raise awareness of rights under subsection (1), and lay it before Parliament.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 63 would lay a duty on the Secretary of State to raise awareness of people’s rights to register as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981, with the people concerned being those who lose rights under Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report within six months of this Bill becoming an Act, detailing the action taken to raise awareness of rights to register as a British citizen.
As I understand it, before the 1981 Act anyone born in the UK was born British. The 1981 Act ended that and laid down who is and who is not a British citizen, and who is entitled to citizenship. Someone born in the UK now is only a British citizen if one of their parents is a British citizen or settled in the UK. Apart from the Home Secretary having a general power to register any child as a British citizen, all registration under the British Nationality Act 1981 is by entitlement. A child or an adult who satisfies the criteria for registration is entitled to British citizenship. The 1981 Act does not give the Home Secretary the decision of whether someone is entitled to British citizenship. This is different from naturalisation as a British citizen, which is only at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and only adults can be naturalised.
The EU settlement scheme, which provides for pre-settled and settled status, raises an issue. Some of those about to lose EU free movement rights in the UK will have rights to register as British citizens that they have not yet exercised, and they would quite probably wish to do so as people of EEA or Swiss nationality or parentage in the UK if the alternative was settled status. Citizenship means much more than settled status, and there being no available evidence of citizenship can have significant adverse consequences if changes are subsequently made to immigration policies, as the Windrush generation have found out.
In the shadow of the Windrush scandal, the Government should not be casual in their attitude to people’s right of access to citizenship. They should be working proactively to ensure that those, including children, who have the right to register as British citizens, with the same rights as all of us, are aware of that right and can access it. With the end of free movement and the focus on the EU settlement scheme, there is a risk of those who have the right to access British citizenship and register as British citizens ending up with at best an immigration status. This amendment seeks to minimise the risk of this happening.
In their response, can the Government update the Committee on what work is being done by the Home Secretary and the Home Office to proactively raise awareness and encourage and assist those who have the right to be British citizens to enjoy those rights? If the answer is that no such work is being undertaken on this citizenship issue, can the Government explain why not? I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 67 in my name and those of other noble Lords who will be speaking. I am grateful for their support. I express support for Amendment 63, moved so well by my noble friend Lord Rosser. Once again, I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and to Amnesty International UK for its briefing.
Amendment 67 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to encourage, promote and facilitate awareness and the exercising of rights to British citizenship among EEA and Swiss nationals. It would also introduce a positive duty to confirm information known to the Home Office that is relevant to establishing a person’s right to citizenship. I am told that at present such information is all too often not forthcoming—a particular problem for many looked-after children—but there appears to be a greater readiness to check and act on such information when it confirms that there is no entitlement to citizenship.
The intention of the amendment is to shift the Home Office’s mindset, in the spirit of Wendy Williams’s Windrush report. That mindset resulted in the active discouragement of members of the Windrush generation from exercising their rights to British citizenship. As we have heard, there are real fears that the lessons of that review are not being learned when it comes to children of EEA and Swiss citizens who were born in the UK or who have grown up here from an early age. Research by the European Children’s Rights Unit, funded by the Home Office, indicates that Roma children, who are an especially vulnerable group, may be particularly at risk.
More generally, PRCBC gives the example of Matteo, who was born in the UK to Italian parents. He has lived here all his life apart from occasional visits to Italy and a gap year in continental Europe. When he became an adult, he discovered to his great distress that he was not regarded as a British citizen when he was refused inclusion on the electoral register for the general election and was twice refused a British passport. Before contacting PRCBC, he had been given poor legal advice that he should apply for settled status under the EU settlement scheme and be naturalised as a British citizen at a future date. Having established what his situation was, PRCBC was able to help him register his entitlement to British citizenship under the 1981 Act. No one had previously advised him of this right, and he had suffered serious mental distress as a result. A young man in this situation should not have to rely on the chance of finding his way into an organisation like that. How many are not finding their way to such organisations?
Can the Minister explain what exactly the Home Office is doing to proactively encourage the exercise of the right to register citizenship, both directly and through local authorities, to ensure that children and young people such as Matteo are not missing out on their chance of registering as citizens? What steps is it now taking to ensure that no one who is entitled to register as a British citizen is wrongly channelled through the EUSS as an immigrant without being informed of their existing right to register as a citizen? Are any specific steps being taken to ensure that Roma children have the information and support they need? Also, can she give us some idea of the number of children overall likely to be affected?
These are important questions. The right to British citizenship of an unknown number of children is at stake. I and others emphasised the importance of citizenship in moving an earlier amendment, and there was a lot of support in the Committee for citizenship’s importance. The answer to these questions will give us some idea of the importance the Home Office attaches to it, and how far it is genuinely willing to shift its mindset in the wake of the Windrush scandal and the Lessons Learned report on it. In that report, Wendy Williams wrote of the need for “deep cultural reform”. The response to these amendments will serve as an indicator of whether the Home Office is genuinely committed to such reform.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on protecting rights to British citizenship. We have already debated her first one, Amendment 68. This urges that applicants should not be disadvantaged just because registration costs might become too much for them to afford. We are now considering her Amendment 67, which advises that our system should set out to be proactive, helpful and encouraging towards applicants. Correspondingly, Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, correctly argues that in the first place, steps should be taken to raise awareness of available British citizenship rights under the British Nationality Act 1981. I hope the Minister is able to endorse these recommendations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 67, to which I am a signatory, returns to the issue of citizenship. It is a pleasure to follow both the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was particularly pleased that she referenced the position of the Roma, an issue I raised earlier this week in our previous debates. I hope the Minister will be able to answer the question put to her by the noble Baroness. I also strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said in the context of Amendment 63, but let me add in parenthesis that I think it unfortunate that citizenship is so often viewed through the lens of immigration policy.
Amendment 67 was originally coupled with Amendment 68, which focused on the issue of citizenship fees, as referred to by the noble Earl a moment ago, and which we debated last week. At the conclusion of that debate, the Minister said the Government intended to appeal the decision of the High Court in the case, Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v the Secretary of State for the Home Department—a case in which, as she knows, I provided a witness statement.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 67 and 63. I support the comments made by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Lister—she posed excellent questions—and I am pleased to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Much has been said and I shall make only a few comments.
My first point concerns the crucial question of citizenship, which is of great importance to children. Significantly, it is a matter of identity, belonging and security, including, I regret to say, being free from the Home Office’s immigration powers and controls.
Many children born in the United Kingdom or with lengthy residence here have a right in law, under the British Nationality Act 1981, to register as British citizens—they are British citizens—but, as my noble friend Lord Rosser pointed out, the provisions in Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are in danger of undermining that right. These children include those born in the United Kingdom to European and Swiss citizens, stateless children born in the UK and looked-after children.
I looked at the debates on the British Nationality Bill to see what the clear intention of Parliament was. I would not recommend it as bedtime reading, but it clearly conveys the right to citizenship. It says that it is a right and that it should be given to individuals as specified, according to the intention of Parliament in debating that Bill.
Registering this right has become extremely important, particularly for children. Perhaps in the past much less emphasis was placed on the importance of registering, but, as the debates on this Bill have demonstrated, the hostile environment that has developed over the years means that thousands of children and young people are not being informed by the Government of their right to British citizenship. We know that citizenship means that a child or young adult obtains all the advantages that come with it, including the right to remain in Britain, freedom from immigration controls, and access to student loans, employment, health services and social security. Those are all rights that, tragically, we saw being denied to people in the Windrush scandal, and another generation could be at risk from the actions being taken here. Intentional or not, the outcome is the same.
Many children who were born in the United Kingdom or who have lived here from an early age do not have British citizenship or leave to remain. Currently, at worst, a child or young adult who is not registered is at risk of being removed. As many as 120,000 children, 65,000 of whom were born here, could be affected by this question of citizenship.
However, it is not just children who are not aware of their right. Similarly, parents, foster parents and corporate parents, such as social services, often do not know that these children are in fact entitled to British citizenship. That is not really surprising, given, I regret to say, that the Government do not systematically publicise the right to citizenship and encourage people to register.
As my noble friend Lord Rosser said, the Act does not give the Home Office the power to decide whether someone is entitled to citizenship. It is not a gift; it is a right in law. The role of the Home Office is simply to recognise the child’s legal right and register their citizenship. We do not need confusion around this matter. We do not need young people to be unaware of their rights. We need to ensure that the enormous danger of yet another generation being denied their right to British citizenship does not arise, and the amendment provides a way of doing that.
We cannot allow people to be denied their rights because of incompetent administration, a lack of knowledge of procedures or sometimes, I regret to say, callous responses from the Home Office. Amendments 63 and 67 seek to place a duty on the Secretary of State to raise awareness of people’s rights and ensure that they are able to achieve those rights, giving them security here as British citizens.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to many of these arguments. I hope that when she responds she will answer the questions posed by my noble friends and that she will also explain to the Committee how, once and for all, this Government will make sure that those who are entitled can become British citizens without barriers or preventions deterring them from achieving those rights. I look forward to her response.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, and particularly her last sentence. It should be written down and put on a banner strung from the balcony here—although, if we did that, we would probably be investigated for terrorism.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said that it is necessary to shift the mindset of the Home Office. If it was not her, she should have said it and we should all agree to it. She also thanked all the people who had put their names down to speak in support of the amendment. I always admonish people when they say that, as they should wait to hear what is said before doing so. However, in this case I completely support those who have introduced both amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
I am no expert in these areas. Every time I get involved in a citizenship or immigration case, as I do from time to time—either in the past as a councillor or, nowadays, as a Member of the House of Lords, or just as someone people know—I become ever more appalled by the hoops and obstacles that many people have to go through. Not everybody has to do that; some people sail through the system quite easily. That is not always because they are the sorts of people who can cope with systems, bureaucracies, organisations, administrations and so on. It seems random. Some people who seem to be in a similar position to others have enormous difficulty, but others less so.
One problem with the mindset in the Home Office is that, once it has said no or has raised serious obstacles, it does not like to admit that it was wrong. I have found that to be so throughout the culture of the organisation. It might apply to only a minority of people—I do not know—but once people are in difficulty, they just seem to get further and further into the morass.
The costs of achieving citizenship are ridiculous. We should encourage people, not try to rip them off. There is a high degree of bureaucracy involving the provision of documents. If something is slightly wrong with those documents, more obstacles are put forward, whereas very often common sense should dictate that they suffice. For people who want to be naturalised, there is also the utterly ludicrous testing of knowledge of British life, although it would not apply to people who are exercising a right.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his characteristically forceful speech, particularly the striking and moving anecdote about the young man who lost his driving licence. I fear that that kind of experience is not unique and is repeated too often, in too many ways.
I put on record my strongest possible appreciation and support for these two amendments. They are vital. I also want to say how cheered I have been by the strength of argument and emotion with which my noble friend Lord Rosser introduced the debate, and by the way that my noble friend Lady Lister backed him up with her commitment. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has just pointed out, the first bit of the Member’s explanatory statement for this amendment says that it
“is to probe the case for a statutory duty to encourage, promote and facilitate”.
These are key words. The statement runs on to say that it is to ensure the Secretary of State
“does not exercise certain of her powers and responsibilities in any way that may impede the exercise of those rights”.
That hardly needs to be said; at the same time, it needs to be underlined because one cannot be altogether certain on that front.
Rights are rights but there are too many indications of considerable numbers of people—young people and children, in particular—who are not really yet switched on to what their rights are and what is necessary to register them under the new arrangements. There may be a host of reasons why they are not acutely aware of what they must do, but that problem exists with a considerable number of people. I would like to feel that we had a Home Office with political leadership that supports civil servants in saying that their job is to ensure that everyone with a right is going to be able to register to continue the fulfilment of those rights. That is the kind of commitment and drive we need from Ministers and civil servants.
In the context of a Select Committee to which I belonged at the time, I was one of those who had the good fortune to attend a couple of briefings, and I also went to the Home Office to be briefed by civil servants on the arrangements that they were making under the necessary processes following the removal of European Union citizenship in Britain. I was impressed then, because there seemed to be a real commitment by the team working on this issue to tackle the situation effectively. Now, however, I have the feeling that there is not so much inertia but more a sense that our job is to provide the facilities and make them as accessible as possible. We have to be more proactive than that, but that is not going to happen on the scale and with the thoroughness that it should unless leadership comes from the top.
I thank my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Lister, and all the others who have spoken so effectively and convincingly on this issue. I cannot believe that the Minister, being the sort of person she is and on hearing these arguments, will not find a way in which she can convincingly respond to them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support to Amendments 63 and 67. We have already heard many powerful speeches, so I will be brief.
I want to address Amendment 67 in particular, because it has full cross-party support, in so far as that can be expressed by the procedures of your Lordships’ House. I note that Members from the three largest parties and the Cross Benches have signed it. It struck me in looking at this that perhaps I might make representations about our procedures to show the full breadth of cross-party support in our multiparty age; there might need to be the possibility of more signatures to be available on the Order Paper, but that is something for another time.
I want to focus on some of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She spoke about the imbalance between the Home Office’s actions: its clear desire to enforce action against people who it perceives not to be British citizens and not to have the right to be here versus its extreme inaction in informing and educating people about their rights and making sure that they are not excluded from those rights. As many noble Lords have noted, there is not much use in having rights if you do not know about them; that is effectively being denied your rights. I was reflecting on that and thinking that, effectively, the Home Office is defying the will of Parliament in defying the rights that Parliament has granted to people, by failing to inform them. That is not what should be happening, but it clearly is. That is why I think it is really important to support both these amendments, which work in much the same ways, and will push to see them in the Bill.
We saw with the Windrush scandal, which one just cannot avoid referring to in this context, that the Home Office denied people their personal rights. It denied them their life in some cases—the actions taken by the Home Office were deadly.
I also note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that all too often these issues are mixed up with immigration, but they are absolutely distinct. We are talking about British people being able to live in their own country and exercise the rights that they enjoy. I commend both these amendments to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 67 on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, because we have all heard too many stories of individuals who did not realise the significance of their rights. Many speakers have stressed the term “rights”, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Primarolo and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and referred to people who did not know their rights until the crunch point when they encountered the difficulties of proving those rights.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have partaken in this debate. I do not disagree that people should have their rights communicated to them and generally should feel part of the communities in which they live, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says.
At this stage, it is worth decoupling two distinct matters: one is the end of the transition period and the other is the consideration of whether someone is British or should become so. However, I do not think the latter is at issue. For the former, which is the subject of this Bill, we have made extensive arrangements to ensure that the rights enjoyed by those who have resided here under free movement can continue until the end of this year.
British citizenship, as noble Lords have said, is determined by the British Nationality Act 1981, which sets out how someone may already be British—for example, through their birth here—and, for those who are not, the means by which a person may seek to become so. This might be through naturalisation or registration, depending on the individual’s circumstances and connections. Any applications submitted will utilise information that we already hold on an individual as far as possible, although there may always be circumstances in which further information may be needed. We treat all applications to become British equally, regardless of the nationality that the applicant may currently hold. The important consideration is whether they meet the requirements set out in statute. Equally, our guidance on the application process is published and available to all.
Last year we received nearly 175,000 nationality applications, which indicates that people generally are aware of the application process, the benefits of becoming British and what it might mean to individuals when they are ready to apply. That does not mean that we cannot consider alternative approaches. Noble Lords will remember, and a noble Lord referred to the fact, that the Home Secretary announced on 21 July in a Statement that alongside the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, she proposed—along with evaluating changes to immigration and nationality laws to ensure that they are fit for purpose for today’s world—to make sure that the changes were now communicated effectively where they had not previously been so. Many of the speeches touched upon that aspect of things.
While there has not been a suggestion by noble Lords that it is a change of law per se that is of concern to them—I absolutely get where noble Lords are coming from—but perhaps more general awareness for a group who may have previously not considered becoming British, I am happy to put on record that I will ask the Home Secretary whether raising awareness of citizenship more generally could form part of that ongoing process and to consider ways how that might be achieved. I will also pass on the request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to meet the Home Secretary, but any change should be for all people potentially affected, not only those who would lose freedom of movement rights—I do not think he was suggesting otherwise. He also asked how much the legal cost of court appeals had been. He will not be surprised that I cannot recall that off the top of my head, but I do not disagree with the general principle that an awful lot of money on all sorts of sides is spent on court cases. I hope that with those undertakings, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I understand from what she said that she has undertaken to discuss the issue of further raising awareness with the Home Secretary. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments in this group.
I think I am right in saying that the Minister did not respond to the question as to what the numbers are of those who are still entitled to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981 but have yet to apply. If we are not aware of the number, that in itself is a real case. I know that the Minister has undertaken to look at this matter further, but it makes the real case for making sure that we raise awareness as much as possible to people who might be in that situation to urge them to consider exercising their right to British citizenship. Surely we need to ensure that all those entitled to register for British citizenship either have it confirmed that that is already their status or are advised that they can register for that citizenship to which they are entitled under the 1981 Act.
We are, after all, talking about an entitlement—a right—to British citizenship, as I know the Minister has recognised. Surely, as people who are proud to be British, we should actively want to ensure that all those who have that entitlement are made aware of it and encouraged to exercise it, with the key responsibility for doing so and facilitating that entitlement to citizenship resting clearly with the Secretary of State and the Government. I hope very much that the discussions that I believe the Minister has said that she will have with the Home Secretary will lead to further very strenuous efforts to raise awareness of this right. Indeed, I hope that the Government will go further, as proposed in Amendment 67, to encourage people to exercise their entitlement and to do their utmost to facilitate matters so that the entitlement can be exercised with ease. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
That brings us on to the group beginning with Amendment 77. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 77
“Charter for EU Immigration and Demographic Change
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a document, to be known as the Charter for EU Immigration and Demographic Change, explaining the formulation of the policies of Her Majesty’s Government relating to immigration from the European Union.(2) The Charter must, in particular, set out—(a) the Government’s demographic objectives in relation to such immigration, and(b) the means by which such objectives will be attained.(3) The Government must lay the Charter before Parliament within one year of the commencement of this Act.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 78, which forms part of this group. I do not often quote Lenin, but he is supposed to have said, “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Our present era is one of the latter. It presents challenges and opportunities to the people in this country and across the world, and a challenge for Governments in managing these changes in a way that enhances our overall quality of life while balancing the inevitable tension between preservation and progress. However, politicians of all persuasions find it hard to address these mega-issues, which have a 10, 20 or even 30-year timescale. Inevitably, and quite properly, they have their eyes fixed on the five-year electoral cycle. Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that, for many politicians, the long grass is an effective way out.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware of my long-standing interest in demography and the impact of demographic change. The results of increases or decreases in population—I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her place, because she referred to the dangers of decreases in her speech when I was not here last Wednesday; she was quite right about that—are inexorable in their effect and are of extreme importance to the settled population of this country. When I refer to the “settled population” I mean every person legally entitled to be in this country, irrespective of race, colour or creed, or whether they have lived here for five months or 500 years. The views of the settled population on the issue of population growth could not be clearer. Recent polling found that 64% of us think that the UK is too crowded and 74% felt that the Government should have policies to address this challenge.
Nevertheless, there remains an influential minority, particularly among the commentariat, who agree that this is all too difficult and what will be will be. On the right, the argument is that the market will decide. On the left, the brotherhood of man means that we should keep our arms and our borders open. However, I am afraid that these arguments would not be supported by the overwhelming majority of this country. For many, a perpetually growing population in a relatively small island has not obviously resulted in an improvement in their prosperity or their way of life.
A couple of figures help set the matter in context. In the late 1990s, when the Blair Government decided to encourage large-scale immigration, the population of the United Kingdom was 58.1 million. Today, it is 66.4 million—an increase of more than 8 million. The ONS mid-projection for 25 years from now is 72 million —another 6 million increase. Therefore, over half a century our population will have increased 14 million, or 24%—a particularly significant figure in a country with some very densely populated regions.
Even reciting these figures gives critics the chance to allege a little Englander mentality, with machine guns on the white cliffs of Dover. That is not so: I absolutely recognise that new arrivals bring an economic and cultural dynamic from which our society has benefited greatly. This is an argument about scale, the wider impact of population growth and responding to the concerns of the people of this country in a way that builds trust in government.
Most of the arguments in favour of the demographic policies followed to date have been economic ones. Total GDP is often waved about by politicians as some sort of totemic symbol of success. Like many, I find that argument unappealing. GDP per head would surely be a more accurate measurement, and since economic gains are often not fairly shared, median GDP per head would be even better. We can argue about these and many other economic factors and we have done so at great length in this House over the years. What is unarguable is that no one is weighing in the scale the long-term non-economic challenges for our environment, our ecology and our society.
According to the latest ONS figures, released a couple of weeks ago, our population is currently growing by an average of 1,172 per day—428,000 per year. We live 2.3 people per dwelling. So on that metric, the inevitable maths show that we need to build 509 dwellings every day, 21 an hour, one every three minutes. By 2040, we seem likely to have built over an area the size of Bedfordshire—this after a decade in which Danny Dorling, professor of geography at Oxford University, has said:
“In absolute terms this is very likely to be the largest increase in the number of square miles that have been tarmacked or paved over in any decade in British history”.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend was able to get these amendments tabled. I think we should pay tribute to the wisdom of the clerks on this issue in extending it as far as they have. This is the right way to approach immigration policy—from the point of view of demography and population growth. We should assess the optimum level of population for a country such as the UK and, once that has been settled, we should decide what our policy is on immigration.
My noble friend has set out this subject with great clarity in his pamphlet Overcrowded Islands, produced with the help of Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society—an entirely appropriate body, if I may say so, for this question. It is well researched, cogently written, beautifully illustrated and I urge noble Lords to read it if they get an opportunity. I may say in passing that it is far better than most government White Papers in this area, which are rather turgid by comparison. They could well take a leaf out of his pamphlet.
My noble friend has covered the ground very well in his remarks this evening, so I will confine myself to two points, remembering the advice of Lloyd George to Harold Macmillan after his maiden speech that a good speech should make no more than two points, and if the audience remembers even one of them you have done well.
My first point is that, despite being an economist myself, I wholly agree with my noble friend’s sentiments about the role of economics. It is entirely the wrong way to approach immigration through the prism of economic policy. Business and many commentators and, sadly, the Government, do this in spades. The Government’s main adviser in this area is the Migration Advisory Council and they invoke it at every turn. However, the fact is that the MAC is composed almost entirely of academic economists specialising in manpower issues.
The MAC does a good job within its narrow remit, under a lot of pressure from business interests. I have met the new chairman of the MAC, Professor Brian Bell, and he is an impressive man. But, as my noble friend said, immigration involves much broader issues than simply economic policy. There is the question of democracy and population. There are environmental issues. Quoted in my noble friend’s pamphlet is a certain Boris Johnson, who said in an article in 2007:
“Do we want the south-east of Britain to resemble a giant suburbia?”
Frankly, he seems to be going the right way about that at the moment, judging by his housing policy. He seems to have forgotten all about his excellent sentiments of 2007. However, that is another matter.
There are ecological issues as well as environmental issues. There is the quality of life issue. Do we want all the good things about Britain to be perpetually unavailable because of overcrowding? There is the question of social cohesion. There is even a moral dimension—I have attached great importance to this. What right has Britain, a rich, developed country, to scour the world for talent from poorer developing countries that need it more than we do? All these issues should be addressed and the sort of unit that my noble friend envisages has the right approach to do that.
Again, speaking as an economist, I should say also that the assumptions underlying the usual economic argument that large-scale immigration is essential for business are simply wrong. Large-scale immigration damages economic growth. The simple point is that growth depends on increasing productivity. Productivity comes from increasing capital assets per person. When a person comes to this country, they occasionally bring significant capital assets but usually do not, and therefore productivity decreases and economic growth is damaged. It is no surprise to me that the large-scale immigration we have had over the last 10 or 20 years has been accompanied by very poor levels of productivity in this country. It is a major problem and the two are not unconnected.
Those are the simple economics. In addition, allowing business to recruit immigrants on a large scale reduces the incentive to train people who are already here. That is one reason why technical education and apprenticeships have been so poor in this country. We have supported higher education too much and further education too little. Arguing that we need immigration for economic reasons leaves out all those other subjects that are so important. In my view, it is also bad economics and bad business.
My noble friend mentioned the views of the people. My final point is that it is about time that we listened to the views of the people. They have been saying consistently and for years that they do not want any more immigration. They have been ignored. This is one of the issues that led to Brexit. Now we have Brexit, and still the people’s views are ignored. Especially in a Covid-haunted situation, where jobs are scarce, I cannot imagine what the political explosion will be. The only sensible way out of this is to put a cap on immigration at a reasonable level, decided with the help of a body such as that proposed by my noble friend.
I appreciate, in addressing the Minister, that these are large issues that his brief may not cover to the extent which we would like. But he is from the north of England, as I am from the north of England, and I am sure he is well aware of opinion on matters of this kind in the north of England. I hope that he will convey to his colleagues in government the importance and urgency of understanding these issues.
Viscount Craigavon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to express my support for these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I particularly support the tour d’horizon of his opening speech.
I accept that these amendments are trying to sow the seeds of defining a wider principle than is focused on in the Bill, which is just on the EU. In my opinion, the two key words in these amendments are “demographic objectives.” As has been said, these will be defined by the Government and assessed by this new body, the office for demographic change. That office will focus exclusively on the agenda as put forward by the Government; it will not range freely wherever the current fashion happens to take it. However, it will focus on the current demographic objectives, while maybe revealing any shortcomings in them in practice.
Debate on this Bill has highlighted the need for a more systematic and dispassionate examination of this issue. There is, more than ever, a need for the public to have confidence in the statistics and aims on immigration to which the Government aspire. In the longer term, it is important that the department has some independent touchstone by which the public and Parliament can begin to assess the success or otherwise of what is being done in their name. The independence of the Treasury model gives some guidance as to how that might be achieved.
As a strong supporter of Brexit, and to the extent that we are no longer basing ourselves on the EU framework, I believe that we are now in a position to develop our own independent structures on immigration. Developing this new purported office or organisation to shadow how the department is framing its demographic objectives would be a vital process. This new office would not be an organisation that can range at will on the subject of immigration. Just to emphasise that, it is correctly restrained by the last line of Amendment 78, that it is not allowed to go wherever it wants and that it
“may not consider the impact of any alternative policies”—
that is, alternative to the Government’s.
Finally, following the stresses expected over the next few months, I would hope that the department and the Government could put this issue on their agenda for the future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to offer my support to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts in his quest for a mechanism to inject a careful, objective study of demographic change into government work, particularly on immigration. I start by congratulating my noble friend on his excellent and thoughtful report for Civitas, Overcrowded Islands? This report is full of facts and perspectives that make the case for the action that we are discussing. I wish to highlight three very different points from the report, which I think make the case for today’s amendments.
First, our population continues to grow fast—on average by just under 1,100 people a day. Only 316 of these are from natural increase, while 202 represent net immigration from Europe, the subject of this Bill, and 679 are from net immigration from outside Europe, which is partly balanced by 134 departing Brits. This growth is unbalanced, with more in the south-east, and by the mid-century the UK will overtake Germany in having the largest population in Europe and the most dense. The numbers I cited are also an underestimate of migration, given the weakness of official statistics—a consistent problem since at least the 1990s, when I worked on home affairs at Downing Street. For example, national insurance card numbers suggest that the migrant figures are significantly higher than those that I have just mentioned.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will start by highlighting how immigration is enriching our society. I am totally committed to the cultural and racial diversity that it has made possible. These amendments require the Government to prepare a charter setting out the objectives for EU immigration and to establish an office for demographic change which would examine and report on the impact of the Government’s demographic objectives in relation to immigration. I strongly support these objectives and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on his extremely important report. The report highlights that the population of the UK has grown by 6.6 million since 2001 and is estimated to grow by another 5.6 million by 2041. Our population is growing by 1,100 people every day and 61% of new migrants are from nations outside the EU.
As chief executive of the International Longevity Centre UK, I contributed to the noble Lord’s Civitas report and highlighted that by 2030 the number of older people in Britain is set to increase by half. The UK faces a situation where there are increased numbers of older workers crowded out of employment due to population increases. There are currently 1 million unemployed people over the age of 50 in the UK. Some 41% of people over 50 have at some stage been unemployed for over 12 months, which is a higher figure than for any other age group. The Government have a strategy to ensure that people can enjoy at least five extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035. Current population growth in the UK puts this strategy at risk, as older people have reduced opportunities for work and income—plus it puts a greater strain on the NHS, as we know, and the other government services required to deliver this strategy.
I spoke at Second Reading of the impact on the social care sector which, like the NHS, relies on immigration to fill vacancies. There are 122,000 vacancies in social care at any one time. Part of developing sustainable demographic objectives for the UK should include having a health and social care system that is not reliant on the immigration system alone in order to function.
These amendments are an opportunity for the UK to set demographic objectives that ensure greater sustainability and maintain a quality of life for the people of the United Kingdom, whatever their age.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 77 and 78 contain an interesting and potentially very valuable idea. I pay tribute to the original thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, brings to so many of his contributions to this House. I warmly endorse the arguments that he made, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I particularly welcome the wider perspective that these amendments bring to the issues surrounding immigration. The detail is always important, but so is the wider perspective, especially when very significant changes are being proposed.
As noble Lords may be aware, I have been closely involved in immigration policy matters for nearly 20 years. I think I am now on my 10th Home Secretary and my 16th Minister of Immigration. An office for immigration and demographic change, which the noble Lord proposes, would bring together the study of the key elements that cross the boundaries of so many Whitehall departments, most of which have departmental interests in higher immigration, rather than lower.
As the noble Lord mentioned, we already have the OBR, which provides a wider framework for economic policy. The Migration Advisory Committee is focused on immigration but, as has been remarked on a number of times in these debates, it comprises mainly economists and is largely focused on economics. It does not, nor is it asked to, take the longer view of the wider impacts that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is advocating. The reality is that nobody in government is pulling together the demographic, economic, social and, perhaps, climatic elements that set the frame for the whole future development of our society.
Demography has its own uncertainties, of course. Death rates are fairly stable, but birth rates can change quite rapidly, especially for different groups in our society. But immigration has been, for some years, the key variable. Before the full impact of the Covid crisis became clear, immigration remained close to its highest level in our history. It is now the major factor in our demographic future. For the time being, the Covid crisis has distorted the impact of immigration but, if it were allowed to continue at recent levels, it would have huge consequences for education, health, housing and pensions. Nobody is considering that in an organised way. We need close and co-ordinated consideration of all these aspects, and where it is all leading to. We need to decide whether this is where we want to go and, whatever we decide, how best we can prepare for such a future.
So I commend the noble Lord’s valuable contribution to the immigration debate, and I support his amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I concede that these amendments have a sincere purpose, but I am not sure that they really work. In Amendment 77, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, proposes that the Government issue a charter for EU immigration and demographic change, explaining the formulation of their policies on immigration. But the Government can already do this in other ways; indeed, they issued their White Paper on a points-based system a few months ago. The proposed charter would be laid before Parliament, but there is no description of what Parliament would then do. Would it approve, endorse or reject? I also query why the charter would set out demographic objectives only in relation to immigration when other factors are mentioned elsewhere in the two amendments. Of course, the other major factor in demographic change is the birth rate.
Amendment 78 aims to set up a new quango called the office of EU immigration and demographic change. Again, I am not sure why the Government cannot do this work, because it is the Government who issue the charter. It is proposed that the office should report on the impact of the Government’s demographic objectives for EU immigration, but it would be barred from considering the impact of any alternative policies. The noble Lord sought to explain, or justify, that constraint, but it seems to take away something—critiquing the Government’s policy and suggesting alternatives—which could be valuable. Again, no role is specified for Parliament as regards reports from this new office. I cannot in all honesty see the added value of such a body to the duo that we already have—the Migration Advisory Committee and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned, the Office for National Statistics, which already does population projections. I had a quick look and saw that it did one in October 2019; I do not know when the next one is due. And then there are surely academics on whose work either the MAC or the ONS could draw.
So I will not make the point that these amendments relate to immigration only from the EU, since such an objection would be disingenuous, given that I recognise the constraint imposed by the scope of the Bill. We have been a round that circuit several times in the last few days. I can do no more than say that these amendments, while interesting, do not really fly, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 77, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and Amendment 78, also in his name, seek to add two new clauses to the Bill. Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish a document, to be called the
“Charter for EU Immigration and Demographic Change”,
which would explain the policies of the Government and their formulation with respect to immigration from the EU.
I am afraid that when the noble Lord started quoting Lenin, he lost me. I take the view that this amendment is not necessary. The Government have already set out their position with respect to immigration, and he can either agree or disagree with it. I am not persuaded of the benefit or the necessity of the amendment. As I am not supporting Amendment 77, it should be no surprise that I am not supporting Amendment 78 either. It is not necessary and just adds to the cost to the taxpayer.
The case just has not been made for these amendments. We have discussed many amendments during our four days in Committee, and there are many others which we should support: the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs today and on Monday; those moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on providing physical documentary proof; and those of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the problems of freelancers working here and in the European Union. These issues need to be addressed in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned “trust” in government. I think it is fair to say that the Government have a trust problem. A little bit of advice to the Benches opposite: it is going to get worse and worse, because your communications are dreadful. Not everything can be run out of No. 10—you need motivated civil servants and effective Ministers running departments to deliver the policies of the Government, with the freedom to act and get on with the job without being second-guessed all the time.
There are a number of boils that need lancing; it is quite a long list actually, but I will not go through them all. I think there is an issue with the influence of think tanks on the Government. I am a treasurer of a think tank, the Fabian Society, and it is very clear who funds it. Civitas, however, is one of the opaquest organisations in terms of funding, of who funds who. Maybe the noble Lord can tell us who funds Civitas and who paid for the report—we do not know. We had similar problems with Policy Exchange, the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy Studies, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the TaxPayers’ Alliance. We do not know who funds these bodies, so it would be interesting to find out.
Does the Minister believe that we live in an overcrowded island? I think that was the challenge posed by the noble Lord, Lord Horam. It would be good to get a response from the Minister on that—yes or no?
There are many other issues. We can talk about industrial productivity, and I would suggest we look at Germany. Germany has much better industrial relations and does great work with its Mittelstand, its small family-owned companies. We have a lot to learn from what goes on in Germany. We also have a housing crisis. I go on about the housing crisis all the time, but I cannot get the Government to talk about social housing; we always talk about affordable housing. Those are issues we need to deal with.
Sadly, although I like the noble Lord very much, I am not with him today on these amendments.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling these amendments, and all noble Lords who have participated in what has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. As the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said, it has been a veritable tour d’horizon, taking in Lenin, Solzhenitsyn, Kissinger and the tips of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on good governance. I am slightly surprised, given the environmental and ecological elements of the amendments, not to have heard from either of the noble Lords from the Green Party, but those have been well covered by other noble Lords.
It is self-evident that immigration has an impact on the demography of a nation, and very clear that ending free movement will therefore mean a demographic change for the UK. The current automatic preference for EEA citizens will cease and, as we deliver a new immigration system that works in the interests of the whole of the UK, it is right that the impacts of immigration arrangements on all aspects of UK life are monitored and reviewed regularly.
In tabling these amendments my noble friend is therefore shining a light on the need for objective, transparent and independent scrutiny of a very important issue, one which does not always get the attention it deserves, as he and my noble friend Lord Horam mentioned. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, it was a topic that I touched on in my first speech in your Lordships’ House. I refer him back to that for my views.
I could not agree more with my noble friend, and the Government are clear that we will introduce new arrangements in a phased way, monitor any pressures in key sectors and keep labour market data under careful scrutiny. As I have said previously in Committee, that is particularly important when the changes are as significant as the ones we will introduce with our new points-based immigration system.
I can assure noble Lords that the Government have not made decisions in isolation. We have engaged extensively, even during the current pandemic, to build awareness and promote understanding of the new system, ensuring that those affected by the changes are fully aware of what it means for them and understand how it will operate. We have established a series of advisory groups, designed to bring together a wide range of views, to provide critical challenge to our proposals. We have also sought to go beyond the expected impact of the future immigration system in the Bill’s published impact assessment.
However, we recognise that we need to go further than predictions and estimates, or, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, the published statistics. We need to assess the realities once the system is operating and understand the experiences of those who are using the system, including individual people, employers and educational institutions. However, while the Government are absolutely committed to understanding the impact of those changes, I am afraid I diverge from my noble friend’s view as I do not believe we need a whole new body and process to do that.
The Government have outlined their proposals in two published policy statements, making clear their intention to take back full control of our borders by ending free movement and introducing a single global immigration system, transforming the way in which people from all over the world come to the UK to work, study, visit or join their family. I do not believe the charter proposed in Amendment 77 would make our immigration objectives any clearer.
Furthermore, in terms of holding the Government to account for the impact of their immigration policies, the Migration Advisory Committee is widely recognised for its expertise and impartiality. I acknowledge the points some noble Lords have made about the MAC’s expertise being focused solely on economics but, again, I must disagree. One of the strengths of the MAC is that it does not represent any one sector or industry; it looks at these things as a whole.
The Migration Advisory Committee is well used to running large-scale consultations. It accumulates evidence from many employers, businesses and sectors to produce carefully considered conclusions which apply to the best interests of the whole United Kingdom. This will not change under the future system. I re-emphasise to noble Lords who have made these points that this Government have expanded the remit of the Migration Advisory Committee. It is no longer constrained to specific government commissions. It now has licence to consider and comment on any aspect of immigration policy, both reactively monitoring trends in the UK labour market and proactively advising the Government about changes to the migration system that it thinks might be necessary.
It would therefore be well within the MAC’s remit to look at the wider view, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, put it: the environmental, ecological and societal impacts, as proposed by Amendment 78, as well as economic impacts. To that end, we have asked the MAC to start producing annual reports which cover not only issues such as its budget or staffing but commentary on the operation of the immigration system as a whole. The committee has accepted this challenge and we can look forward to the first such report later this year.
Finally, given the scope of the Bill, these amendments relate only to EU migration. Ending free movement from the EU is our opportunity to introduce a firmer and, more importantly, fairer system, one which applies to EEA and non-EEA citizens alike. Introducing a charter or body which looked only at EU migration would not reflect that system and would run counter to the Government’s intentions. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have two requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, the Minister had clearly not been informed that I was already waiting to ask a question, so I hope this does not come as too much of a shock to him. However, in the interests of clarity in this debate, I am sure he will agree to note the fact that the human ecological footprint is a product of a number of people in an area or nation, or on the globe, multiplied by their consumption level. I am sure he will know that the people of the UK collectively consume our share of three planets’ resources each year, but we have only one planet. Even if we had half the number of people in the UK that we have now, we would greatly exceed the planetary limits.
Can the Minister confirm the Government’s understanding of the essential environmental approach in areas ranging from the climate emergency—noting our special responsibilities as COP26 chair—to the nature crisis and water concerns that we discussed earlier in Oral Questions? The key approach is transforming our currently wasteful, destructive treatment of the planet as a mine and dumping ground, which has produced a miserable, insecure and vulnerable society—as exposed by Covid-19—that exceeds a significant number of planetary boundaries.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is not a shock but a pleasure to hear from the noble Baroness, and a particular pleasure to agree with what she says about it being not just the level of consumption but the overall number of people that has an ecological impact. That is why I am pleased to be part of a Government who are pursuing our world-leading target of achieving net zero.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for referring me to his personal views about the overcrowding question. I will look at them but I am also conscious that he was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, his noble friend on the Conservative Benches. The Minister is sitting there, and the question was posed to him, as a member of Her Majesty’s Government. We would like to know the Government’s position in respect of whether we live on an overcrowded island—not his personal view, the view of Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this Government are introducing an immigration system that will allow us to have full control over our borders for the first time, so that elected Governments can respond to the views of the people and achieve the level that they say they want to see. I hope all democrats would welcome that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no further requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I thank all who participated in this debate. This was the first time we have taken the car out on the track and I think we got around without a wheel coming off. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Horam and Lady Neville-Rolfe on the economics, the importance of productivity and the problem of crowding out and to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. When I was preparing my pamphlet, I went to see a captain of industry about employing older people. He said “Of course, we are very keen to employ older people”, and I said “Well, let us look at your human resources booklet”. It did not have a person over 30 in it. The way our society looks at people is unfair.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Green, has forgotten more about immigration than I will ever know. To the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I say—without wishing to flog my pamphlet—that there is a map of the ecological footprint of London in it, on which you can see the numbers she referred to. I thought I got half— no, a quarter—of a loaf out of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. It was a principled refusal but the car needed a bit of tinkering to get her to come onside.
To the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I say that we had a classic knockabout. We were all biffed about. I will make one serious point, which is meant to be gentle. If the Labour Party does not get its act together and its policy clear on the issues of people coming to this country, it will not regain the red-wall seats that went blue. People outside the M25 feel passionately about this. How you tackle it is up to his party but just saying “Never mind; it will all be alright” does not, to be honest, sound like a good political strategy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 80. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 80
Baroness Hamwee
“Protections under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020
At least three months before the commencement of Part 1 for any purpose, the Secretary of State must publish drafts of such statutory instruments as are proposed to be laid under the powers contained in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to protect the rights of EEA citizens and their family members’ rights of residence, entry and exit until 30 June 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to clarify the rights that would be available to EEA citizens during the ‘grace period’ under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
To follow the previous speech, this may be the first time we are taking this particular car round the track but I do not think it will be the last, because this amendment is aiming
“to clarify the rights … available to EEA citizens during the ‘grace period’ under”
the recently published SI. It is about the period to the end of June 2021. I say it aims to clarify the issues but it is more about putting some issues on the table. The Minister will be able to say that the amendment is not necessary because we have already done it. I thank her or possibly him—I am peering at a computer screen—for that and for what I saw being called the “bounty” of the recently published draft SIs. I think that was a reference to their length and complexity.
The instrument in question is the draft citizens’ rights (application deadline and temporary protection) (EU exit) regulations 2020. However, I am afraid that the debate now will not be the end of it. After this debate, as well as before it, stakeholders will be grappling with the detail of it and the other published SIs. I do not regard myself as having the knowledge required to appreciate the significance of the modifications to all the provisions listed across the 14 pages of this instrument.
My first question is about the status of the draft, which has been referred to throughout as an “illustrative draft”. What does illustrative mean? Is this simply because draft statutory instruments have a formal status, while this publication has not reached that status?
Exactly who is protected by the grace period provisions? Is it only those exercising treaty rights by the end of 2020, while, for instance, people who are self-sufficient and without comprehensive sickness insurance—what might better be called in this country private health insurance—are not covered? When the 2020 withdrawal Act was going through Parliament, there were clear assurances that everyone eligible for status via the EU settled status scheme would be protected during the grace period. The Minister will appreciate the importance of the issue: protection is not to be withdrawn from those currently eligible otherwise than through treaty rights who have not applied by the end of the year. In previous debates, I raised the importance of information being not just available but actively provided to those who are affected, in the context of who will be applying after next June. If this SI is to restrict applications, the matter is really very urgent.
The Minister, Kevin Foster, said that the regulations would be
“debated and made in good time prior to their entry into force at the end of the transition period.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 191.]
I am sure noble Lords will understand that what is “in good time” for the Home Office could be very last minute for the individuals affected.
Will the Minister comment on one of the draft illustrative regulations? Regulation 7 in Schedule 1 to the 2016 regulations, which this modifies, acknowledges the discretion of member states
“acting within parameters set by the EU Treaties”
in taking a decision conducive to the public good. This discretion will become:
“acting within parameters set by the law, to define its own standards of public policy and public security, for purposes tailored to its individual context from time to time.”
I will not go down the route of saying that this is quite topical, given both the political and politico-legal debate that is going on, but I am sure the Minister will understand that there is a worry about moving the goalposts.
Will the Minister agree to meet parliamentarians if necessary—I understand there is a similar concern in the Commons—and for officials to be able to meet stakeholders, and the legal experts who are advising them, who are considering this draft and the other draft published at the same time? They are concerned, and they need the time. I ask that knowing that there is the opportunity for the Government to withdraw a published draft and reissue it, but it is always much easier, because of how human beings behave—they do not like to be thought to be backing down, and so on—to have the conversations before the final form is published, when it will be that much more difficult to withdraw.
My amendment provides the opportunity to make those requests for what I am sure could be productive discussions with people who are not in the Chamber at the moment and who will have other points they could usefully make. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We had a short debate on this issue when we debated Amendment 52, and I raised one or two questions about the draft SI, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, is called the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. One of the questions I raised, to which I do not think I had an answer, related to Regulation 13, which states:
“Where any question arises as to whether a person is or was lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at a particular point in time … it is for the individual in question to prove that they were”.
I asked in what situation the Government expect that people would have to prove their ongoing status; how they envisage people will do this, in the sense of what documentation they might need, for example; and, crucially, what support there would be for a person who found themselves in this situation and who might well in fact be perfectly lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.
I share the view that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, expressed, that we need an opportunity for discussion of the provisions of the draft SI, and that it is a fairly complex process. At this stage, I have two further questions. First, are there any EEA citizens, and their families, resident in the UK by the end of the transition period whose full existing rights are not going to be protected during the grace period through secondary legislation made under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? Secondly, will the Minister spell out precisely whose full existing rights are protected by the draft SI?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to her Amendment 80. Its purpose, as she said, is to require the Government to publish draft statutory instruments protecting the rights of EEA citizens who are eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme but have not done so by the end of the transition period. It concerns, as she said, the statutory instrument that will be made under Section 7 of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. As noble Lords are aware, and as the noble Baroness mentioned, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford wrote to all noble Lords on 4 September, sharing a copy of this draft statutory instrument together with a copy of the draft regulations to be made under Clause 4 of this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the nature of the use of the word “illustrative”. My understanding is that it is used to differentiate from “Draft” with a capital D, which has a formal meaning—so yes, they are illustrative. In making these draft documents available, the Government’s intention is to support your Lordships’ House in its consideration of the Bill. They are also made available to Members in another place and published in the Libraries of both Houses.
The instrument will set the deadline for applications to the EU settlement scheme as 30 June 2021. It will also save relevant existing rights, in relation to residency and access to benefits and services for EEA citizens and their eligible family members who make an application by 30 June 2021, until it is finally determined. This includes pending the outcome of an appeal against any decision to refuse status under the EU settlement scheme. This means that if somebody has not yet applied or been granted status under the EU settlement scheme by the end of the transition period, they can continue to work and live in the UK as they do now, provided they apply by 30 June 2021. The Government will shortly lay this statutory instrument, which will be subject to debate and approval by Parliament and will need to come into force at the end of the transition period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about CSI. The grace period statutory instrument does not change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme and those criteria do not include CSI. I can confirm that the Government are not changing the requirements for applications to the EU settlement scheme. The grace period SI maintains CSI as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period for a student or self-sufficient person under the saved EEA regulations, as is consistent with EU law.
The noble Baroness asked a question on a specific draft statutory instrument. In the interests of brevity and accuracy, I shall write to her about that, as I will on any other questions I have not covered. I am certainly happy to give an undertaking to meet parliamentarians and those who are interested in this issue, so that we can look at it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what documentation people might need. During the grace period, EEA citizens will be able to give evidence of their rights to work and rent property by showing their passport or identity card. If EEA citizens apply for benefits during the grace period, they may need to demonstrate that they were also lawfully resident under the EEA regulations at the end of the transition period, for example that they were employed, which they might demonstrate by providing a wage slip or a letter from their employer. That is a requirement that they must meet now.
As I said, I am happy to write with further answers on the questions that I have not covered but I hope that this gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she needs to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to the debate on her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Of course, when one is dealing with something so technical, it is difficult to know whether one has thought of the right questions. I am therefore particularly grateful for the Minister’s offer of a meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned Regulation 13. He asked what support would be given to people who need to prove their position. I marked that and, immediately afterwards, marked the comment at the end of the Explanatory Note that there is no full impact assessment for the instrument
“as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”
That made me think of the support that has had to be given to the voluntary sector in particular and the work for others in rolling out and attracting applications for the settled status scheme.
As I said, however, I thank the Minister. I suspect that this is not the end of our discussions on what I hope will not be set in stone until its impact is fully understood by everyone involved and until everyone is satisfied that it is a proper way to approach the matter.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 81. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 81
Lord Morrow
“Requirements before making and amending immigration rules
Prior to making any regulations under subsection 4(1) to amend or create immigration rules the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament assessing the impact of the regulations on victims of modern slavery.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of changes to the Immigration Rules arising from this Bill on victims of modern slavery.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 81 because I have real concerns about the proposed arrangements with respect to the end of free movement as they relate to victims of modern slavery. As I stated during the first day of this Committee’s proceedings,
“it is politically unthinkable that we should now stand by and allow an erosion in the rights of victims of modern slavery in this country.”
However, I fear that we are in danger of doing precisely that.
By way of introduction, I should perhaps anticipate the Minister. He made this point in relation to Amendment 7 and might make it again; I hope that my presumption is wrong. He stated that
“the system of identification and support for victims of modern slavery and the legal framework around it go far beyond the scope of the Bill we are debating. Indeed, the most commonly represented nationality among those referred to the national referral mechanism in 2019 was British. It is important to see this as distinct from an immigration issue alone.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; cols. 618-21.]
It is certainly important for us to recognise the reality of internal trafficking. However, this must not be allowed to obscure the fact that by far the largest number of trafficked persons in the UK are foreign nationals, for whom immigration status is of huge importance. It can be a source of vulnerability that leads them to be exploited; it can affect their rights to services and support; and it can affect the way in which they are dealt with by professionals and the general public. Immigration policy will therefore be of central importance to addressing human trafficking successfully. In this context, I make no apology for my amendment.
Amendment 81 would require that, before making and amending the Immigration Rules to establish the system that will take the place of free movement,
“under subsection 4(1) … the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament assessing the impact of the regulations on victims of modern slavery.”
In considering the importance of this provision, we should recall that when the Government announced in February their intention to replace the rights associated with free movement for EEA nationals—including EEA nationals who are victims of modern slavery—with a points-based system, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, responded with a warning:
“traffickers will seek every opportunity to abuse new immigration policies and so the protection of vulnerable people needs to be front and centre of the debate.”
The purpose of Amendment 81, which mandates that there should be an assessment of the impact of the new Immigration Rules specifically on victims of modern slavery, is to give effect to the anti-slavery commissioner’s important recommendation that the protection of vulnerable people needs to be at the front and centre of the debate.
One area of concern is what will happen under the new Immigration Rules to a victim of modern slavery who is not British once they have been confirmed as a victim by the national referral mechanism. Under Section 18 of Northern Ireland’s human trafficking and exploitation Act, victims are guaranteed “assistance and support” and, under subsection (9), the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is able to continue providing support after a positive conclusive grounds decision where it deems it necessary. However, the Northern Ireland Executive have no power to grant immigration leave to victims to enable them to remain in the UK even if they deem that support necessary.
At the moment, many victims who are EEA nationals, including confirmed victims of modern slavery, are able to stay in Northern Ireland and the wider UK under free movement rights, thus enabling them to access regular benefits and statutory services, to work and to study, and potentially to receive additional trafficking support from our Department of Justice on a discretionary basis as they continue their recovery. However, once free movement comes to an end, EEA nationals newly arriving in the UK will no longer have the right to live and work in any part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, unless they have relevant skills and are sponsored by an employer to get a highly skilled worker visa, which is unlikely to be the case for victims of slavery. Nor will they have recourse to public funds to access benefits and services that will help them in their recovery beyond the immediate crisis period of the NRM.
At Second Reading, I mentioned the Centre for Social Justice’s timely report, It Still Happens Here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s, which was published in July. It states:
“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”
Rather than responding to this key finding by extending access to recourse to public funds, it seems that we are about to remove the key provision from some victims of human trafficking that is central to victim recovery. Providing victims with secure immigration status and recourse to public funds is not simply a means to support their recovery; rather, it is also a vital measure to prevent them being retrafficked in the future.
The only option for a victim who arrives in the UK after 1 January to secure the right to remain in the UK and to access publicly funded benefits and services will be to apply for discretionary leave to remain, known as DLR, since EEA nationals are unlikely to be granted asylum. But, unlike victims from other countries, EEA nationals are not currently automatically considered for DLR. They have to make their own applications.
There are two significant additional problems with DLR. First, applying takes time, during which confirmed victims are vulnerable to destitution and re-trafficking. Secondly, to date only a very small proportion of confirmed victims of modern slavery have been granted DLR, with the attached access to public funds and support needed for their recovery, because it is available only in limited and defined circumstances. Deciding to depend on DLR in this knowledge, therefore, would be tantamount to voting to erode support for confirmed victims of modern slavery.
I am not opposed to the end of free movement. We have to give effect to that in order to honour the outcome of the referendum. However, it absolutely does not follow that we have to create a situation in which a significant proportion of trafficking victims have uncertain immigration status and will lose recourse to public funds. I can only assume that the failure to put in place clear and accessible alternative routes for EEA nationals to remain in the UK with public funds for a period of recovery beyond the NRM results from the absence of any formal requirement to assess the impact of the wide-reaching changes to free movement on this specific and particularly vulnerable group.
We must ensure that any future changes to the DLR system serve to make it more accessible for EEA nationals, and that the full impact on victims of modern slavery is assessed, which is why I introduced Amendment 81. As well as seeking to assess the impact of immigration rules on victims after they have escaped their exploitation, it seeks to provide an opportunity for scrutiny of how immigration rules may protect people, or inadvertently put them at risk of trafficking.
In this context, I raise the issue of temporary migration routes such as the seasonal workers pilot scheme, which has been running since last year. A report published last year by the International Organization for Migration, Migrants and their Vulnerability to Human Trafficking, Modern Slavery and Forced Labour, found:
“Restrictive immigration policies (such as restrictions applied to certain visas or arbitrary changes to asylum procedures for nationals from certain countries) and weak migration governance structures are frequently noted as major causes of vulnerability to modern slavery, especially when combined with low-wage migration.”
Elsewhere, the report says that
“migrants whose visas are tied to a specific employer are also at higher risk of exploitation.”
Experts in labour exploitation, such as Focus on Labour Exploitation, have cautioned that temporary migration schemes are
“well-recognised to increase the risks of abuse and exploitation of workers”.
In July the Government published a document called UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement, which includes the following text:
“As we replace freedom of movement with the Points-Based System, we remain committed to protecting individuals from modern slavery and exploitation by criminal traffickers and unscrupulous employers.”
I welcome the Government’s statement, but sadly it reads as pure assertion. It does not demonstrate any kind of means to secure this end. I very much hope that the Minister will appreciate how, in the context of the proposed removal of a route to protection from re-trafficking offered by remaining in the UK and having recourse to public funds, and without a guarantee of a safe route for migration for EEA nationals who do not qualify for the skilled worker scheme, this assertion, divorced from any delivery mechanism, is vulnerable to seeming profoundly disingenuous.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 81 in the name of my noble friend Lord Morrow. During our consideration of the Bill we have heard a great deal about the impact of the shape of immigration rules on confirmed victims of modern slavery. I share the concerns articulated by other noble Lords about not permitting the changes to the immigration system to leave victims with fewer rights to remain, or more restricted access to services and support than is currently available.
This country has a proud history of providing asylum, refuge and protection to vulnerable people, and ending freedom of movement is not meant to pull the rug out from underneath vulnerable victims of modern slavery. That is not what the public voted for, and I urge the Minister to reflect urgently with colleagues on what can be put in place before the end of the year to ensure that rights to remain in the UK for a minimum of 12 months to receive support beyond the NRM, including the opportunity to engage in work and study, will be made available to victims of modern slavery from EEA countries.
In the specific context of Amendment 81, in July the Government published a 130-page document called UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement. Paragraph 3 on page 11, under the heading “Principles of the Points-Based System”, says:
“As we replace freedom of movement with the Points-Based System, we remain committed to protecting individuals from modern slavery and exploitation by criminal traffickers and unscrupulous employers.”
That is a noble commitment, but it rings rather hollow in the absence of a delivery mechanism, which is why Amendment 81 is, as I will argue, of such strategic importance.
The need for a delivery mechanism is highlighted by the implication of the 2018 figures from Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which show that one-fifth of agricultural workers in the Province are from countries outside the UK and Ireland, and most come from the EU. Some 15% of the agriculture businesses surveyed employ seasonal migrant workers. Agriculture is, unfortunately, already well known to be a risk sector for human trafficking, and the combination of a change to the rules around recruiting migrant workers with those existing risks cannot be ignored.
A report published by the International Organization for Migration last year, Migrants and their Vulnerability to Human Trafficking, Modern Slavery and Forced Labour, found that:
“Restrictive immigration policies (such as restrictions applied to certain visas or arbitrary changes to asylum procedures for nationals from certain countries) and weak migration governance structures are frequently noted as major causes of vulnerability to modern slavery, especially when combined with low-wage migration”,
and that,
“migrants whose visas are tied to a specific employer are also at higher risk of exploitation”.
In this context, it comes as no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has huge experience in dealing with modern slavery issues, having developed, introduced and successfully taken through Stormont what is now known as the human trafficking and exploitation Act, has brought forward the amendment to provide the requisite delivery mechanism. I very much hope that the Government will accept it.
I urge the Government, further to this debate and that on Amendment 7, to prevent the integrity of the Brexit protocols being tarnished by allowing 1 January 2021 to become a day on which the rights of victims of modern slavery and some of the most vulnerable members of our society are eroded. The best way in which to get ahead of the game and demonstrate that, far from being about a race to the bottom, Brexit is about using our sovereignty to generate better laws, would be to adopt the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith. I urge the Government to adopt not merely the amendment but that Bill without delay.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has done such heroic work, both here and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, in championing the rights of people who are being trafficked. I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, has said.
I should declare that I am a trustee of the anti-trafficking charity the Arise Foundation, which focuses on prevention of trafficking in source countries and has seen a huge increase in vulnerability, due to lack of available work during the Covid pandemic. When ready for publication, I suspect that we will see a substantial increase in trafficking numbers. Has the Minister seen any harbingers or indicators of that?
Undoubtedly, from the reports being received by Arise, Covid has had a devastating effect on heightening vulnerability in source countries, making it more likely that people will be at risk of making unsafe journeys. That is even more reason to incorporate the amendment. I also remind the Minister of the remarks I read into Hansard last week from the former independent commissioner on human trafficking, Kevin Hyland.
I am greatly concerned that, as things stand, when proposed changes to immigration law come into effect on 1 January 2021, they will diminish the rights of victims of modern slavery, and the amendment would help to prevent that from happening. Whereas today EEA nationals who are victims of modern slavery are able to remain in the UK, accessing a variety of publicly funded benefits and employment opportunities to help them recover, they will lose this in the same way as EEA nationals who are not victims of modern slavery. Nothing comparable is being put in its place. Their only hope is to apply for discretionary leave to remain, but we know that in practice very few victims receive such grants of leave—about 12%. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that.
Then I see from reading the Government’s response to Amendment 7 that, although they have committed not to, in effect, directly knock out rights from the EU anti-trafficking directive that are part of EU retained law, they cannot tell us whether all the rights currently available to victims will be part of EU retained law. The Government have a chance again to do that this evening. Unless they do so, this will continue to engender fear that 1 January 2021 will usher in the end of some effective rights of victims of modern slavery.
That would be particularly tragic for the Government because they can take great credit for passing the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I was happy to have been a participant in those proceedings. Of course, that legislation came forward only because of the work of the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. It is a permanent and lasting legacy and achievement of hers and of both Houses, working with one another across the political divide. I would be deeply saddened if I thought that anything we were doing now would in any way diminish the importance and effectiveness of that legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has said, one of the arguments advanced by those in favour of leaving the European Union, was that the UK would now have the option of not merely maintaining EU standards but going beyond them. Here is an opportunity to test that proposition. The Government could and should go further by urgently adopting the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and the former Conservative Party leader, Iain Duncan Smith.
In the time available to me, however, I want particularly to comment on the value of the amendment from the perspective of preventing human trafficking. I should like to pursue a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, about ensuring that the arrangements not only for the skilled worker visa but other migration routes will clearly set out how the Government intend to prevent human trafficking and exploitation and contain appropriate safeguards to avoid those routes being manipulated by traffickers.
I welcome the Government’s inclusion of protecting people from modern slavery in the three guiding principles for the points-based system set out in the further details statement published in July. The fact that the whole approach to immigration is underpinned by three foundational principles, and that one of those principles is concerned with combating trafficking, suggests that combating trafficking is important. But where is the delivery mechanism? That was a point made effectively by the two noble Lords who preceded me. I commend the amendment to the Minister as an example of the sort of mechanism that needs to be put in place in order to fulfil the aspirations of that principle.
Of course, not all migrant workers are vulnerable to modern slavery—a point made by the Minister rightly made from the Dispatch Box. Indeed, those who are the most highly paid are unlikely to be caught in exploitation; but even for skilled and well paid migrants it is important that checks and processes are put in place to ensure that those recruiting people from overseas are reputable, subject to scrutiny and abide by all labour regulations. The noble Baroness rightly reinforced that in our earlier debates.
Most at risk, though, are likely to be those who fall outside the skilled worker points-based programme—those who will participate in other temporary migration routes such as youth mobility schemes or seasonal worker schemes or those who may be recruited to work illegally spring to mind. The Government’s policy statement about the points-based system in February said:
“We will not introduce a general low-skilled or temporary work route. We need to shift the focus of our economy away from a reliance on cheap labour from Europe and instead concentrate on investment in technology and automation. Employers will need to adjust.”
I am very concerned that some of the ways in which unscrupulous employers will adjust will include the exploitation of undocumented workers and it is worrying that that the Government do not seem to have taken account of that risk. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness says on that in her reply.
I support the amendment because it will mean that, as the building blocks of the new immigration system are put in place through regulations under Clause 4, the Government will be required to assess the impact of that system on victims of modern slavery, and I hope, the way in which the system can prevent modern slavery from happening at all.
I was struck by research published in 2019 by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which looked at labour exploitation of adult migrants in eight European Union states and found that
“vulnerability linked to residence status is the most important risk factor causing or contributing to labour exploitation”.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. The noble Lord is to be commended for the work he did in the Northern Ireland Assembly to bring about new legislation on human trafficking and modern slavery. In particular, I greatly admire his determination that his legislation should include measures to protect and support victims, something that is sadly lacking in our Modern Slavery Act for victims in England and Wales.
I support Amendment 81 to ensure that any future changes that are made to the Immigration Rules using the powers in Clause 4 should be assessed for their impact on victims of modern slavery, in large part because it appears to me that, thus far, there has been insufficient consideration of the impact of the changes to the immigration system on victims of modern slavery.
As I said on Day 1 in Committee, any changes as part of the Brexit process that result in victims of modern slavery having fewer protections than they had prior to 1 January 2021
“would damage the integrity of the Brexit project in a way that is unthinkable.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 615.]
In introducing this important amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, spoke very movingly of how changes to free movement could lead to more exploitation for potential victims of trafficking, unless the Government are proactive in addressing this issue. It is indeed ironic that the current proposal means that a significant portion of EEA nationals who are victims of modern slavery would lose access to the very thing that, as recently as July this year, the Centre for Social Justice pointed out is of central importance to victims’ recovery, namely recourse to public funds.
In approaching Amendment 81 and the concern about the erosion of the rights of victims of trafficking on 1 January 2021, it is important to pick up the issue by reflecting on the Minister’s response to my Amendment 7, which addressed concern about the loss of rights on 1 January 2021. That response will help us to see the true significance of Amendment 81, for reasons that I shall explain.
In his response to that amendment, the Minister made it plain that the Government are unable to say precisely which directly effective rights under the anti-trafficking directive will be retained as part of domestic law and which will be lost on 1 January. On reading Hansard, I now recognise—contrary to what I said in response at the time—that this means it is still entirely possible that on 1 January there will be a reduction in the number of directly effective rights available to confirmed victims of human trafficking in the United Kingdom. I find it disturbing that the Government should acknowledge the fact that, in some respects, the rights of victims may be lost in such a way when we could use our sovereignty to ensure that there is no loss of rights.
Amendment 81 would help us to avoid such a situation in future by requiring the Government to make a specific assessment of the impact on victims of modern slavery of any further changes to the Immigration Rules. This will simply provide a check on the development of future regulations that might make the present situation worse. Knowledge that any such regulations will be checked against this standard—namely that they should not undermine the rights of victims of trafficking—creates a positive incentive proactively to develop legislation in favour of the best interests of victims of human trafficking. Indeed, subjecting ourselves to this discipline would give particular legitimacy to efforts to develop regulations that will offset some of the negative consequences of what will otherwise happen to victims of modern slavery on 1 January 2021.
In the absence of Amendment 81, it is as yet unclear what immigration status will be available to victims of modern slavery from the EEA and what access they will have to benefits, housing and other support services once they have exited the NRM. Unless they are among the lucky few to be granted discretionary leave, it seems likely that they will no longer have the access to these services that they have today. In 2015, just 12% of victims were given this special discretionary leave to remain. Unfortunately, despite submitting a Written Question in March, I have been unable to obtain up-to-date statistics from the Home Office.
I have also been advised that in the next few months there is something of an impossible choice for victims of modern slavery as to whether to apply for pre-settled status, which may in the long run provide greater support but in the short term does not give full access to benefits and other services and can prevent them being able to apply for special discretionary leave. It is these sorts of negative consequences that Amendment 81 seeks to avoid, which is why it has my support.
Rather than viewing the present situation as a great problem, we should see it as an opportunity. I encourage us to look beyond merely identifying risks and seek to set a bold new direction for supporting victims of modern slavery. The Government have the opportunity to inaugurate the post-Brexit era by asking Parliament to use its sovereignty to create a legal framework whereby we reject the possibility of victims having lesser legal protections than they do today—and indeed the notion that we should simply ensure that the legal rights of victims under Brexit are identical to the legal rights under the EU—and to enhance the rights of confirmed victims by adopting the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill that I sponsored with the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
This Bill, which amends the Modern Slavery Act, is particularly important in the context of England and Wales, for which there is no statutory obligation in the Act to provide support for victims. Among other things, it is developed to prevent retrafficking and to foster an environment that makes it easier for victims to give evidence in court, in the interests of increasing convictions. The Bill offers all confirmed victims in England and Wales a minimum of 12 months’ support to help them rebuild their lives.
This would demonstrate that Brexit is something with a moral purpose, something of which we can be proud and that enables us to shape the future and lead the world, in line with previous expressions of our sovereignty in abolishing the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833—achievements that have been generative of modern British identity.
Rather than viewing the present situation as a great problem, we should see it as an opportunity. I encourage us to look beyond merely identifying risks and seek to set a bold new direction for supporting victims of modern slavery. The Government have the opportunity to inaugurate the post-Brexit era by asking Parliament to use its sovereignty to create a legal framework whereby we reject the possibility of victims having lesser legal protections than they do today—and indeed the notion that we should simply ensure that the legal rights of victims under Brexit are identical to the legal rights under the EU—and to enhance the rights of confirmed victims by adopting the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill.
My Bill passed very quickly through this House in the last Parliament with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who was a tremendous support. There is no reason why it should not do so again and pass through the Commons, if the Government seize this strategic opportunity that now presents itself. I hope that at the very least, the Government might agree to meet me and Sir Iain to discuss the Bill’s merits in the context of what will otherwise happen to victims of modern slavery on 1 January.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first repeat my interest in the register as a vice-chairman of trustees of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I support Amendment 81 and commend the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, on bringing it forward and on his work on anti-trafficking and modern slavery, as we have heard. I think I read somewhere that it was hearing of the plight of a Romanian woman that set the noble Lord out on this admirable path. Similarly, every time I meet victims or survivors, it just makes me want to do more to help their lot; I believe that is not an uncommon experience. I also commend the noble Lords, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich on their speeches. I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lord McColl and commend his excellent Private Member’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which we have heard about. I hope the Government can find time for his Bill or, even better, absorb it into a government Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, one noble Lord said that the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is one whose time has come; I think it came quite some while ago.
During the debate on the first amendment today we talked about humanity, and this is a matter of humanity as well. It is about practice as well as law. Some victims will be desperate to get back home, which is a problem for prosecutors. Others will want to stay. Others will need quite a while to sort out what they want to do, and they will need to assess their status. That is only one situation of many and only one example of how immigration and slavery issues coincide.
I do not want to take up the Committee’s time by repeating what so many noble Lords, who have all spent a great deal of time considering modern slavery and doing their very best to fight it in all sorts of ways, have said. The Minister will tell us whether it is necessary, technically and otherwise. I take the view that the problems of slavery should be a consideration across the whole of the legislative front. The 2015 Act needs to be kept under constant review, because as the weeks go by, we learn more about the abhorrent situation and the plight of individuals caught up in it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. Like others, I pay tribute to him for his work in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in your Lordships’ House, combating the evil of modern slavery and human trafficking.
The noble Lord made a very compelling case for the Government to agree to his amendment today, and I do hope the Minister will be able to give us some hope that the Government will meet the issue that the noble Lord addressed the House on. I equally agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, and again commend the work he has done on combating modern slavery.
The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that proper consideration is given to the impact of the new regulations on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. It is most important that we consider the effect on victims that these changes will make. That is really very important. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, rules, regulations, processes and overdue immigration procedures must work to prevent modern slavery and human trafficking and, obviously, not weaken the position at present.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, again referred to the anti-trafficking directive, and the risk of what is going to be lost on 1 January. I do hope the Minister will address that. It is a huge concern, for many noble Lords, that at any point next year we will find ourselves with weaker provisions and weaker laws that will benefit only criminals and criminal gangs, and really harm victims.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for all his work. It is high time that the Government stood up and backed the noble Lord. His Private Member’s Bill is absolutely right: all he is asking for is that England and Wales have the same provisions that endure in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Bill sailed through this House, but then what happened to it? It crashed on the rocks in the other place. The Government did nothing to support it last time, and it is wrong. The Government really should stand up now and back the noble Lord on his Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will start by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that I am not going to trot out the line that he suspects I am. Moreover, I will actually thank him for his contribution to this incredibly important debate, and for his continued commitment to the really important objective of ensuring the impacts on victims of modern slavery are considered in changes to the Immigration Rules following this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said an interesting thing just before she closed, which is that we should consider modern-day slavery across legislation. I think it is absolutely crucial that we consider it across government, because it affects and infects almost every aspect of modern-day life. Noble Lords mentioned William Wilberforce, who is actually one of my heroes. It is over 200 years since we abolished slavery, and yet we have the terrible blight of modern-day slavery in our society. We are committed to tackling this terrible crime. We are now identifying more victims of modern-day slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before. I will just say to the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Kennedy, that there is going to be no diminution in directly affected rights.
We will replace freedom of movement with a points-based system. We remain committed to protecting individuals from modern slavery and exploitation by criminal traffickers and unscrupulous employers. I will not answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because I cannot. Has there been an increase in trafficking during Covid? I think we can all safely say is that there has been an increase in a lot of behind the scenes-type activity that is unpalatable to us all, including things such as domestic violence. I am sure that will reveal itself as time goes on.
We are definitely committed to considering the impact of our policies on vulnerable people, including by fulfilling our public sector equality duties under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, said, on 13 July we published an equalities impact assessment on the points-based system, which considers the impact of our policy on protected characteristics. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I can send that to him if he wishes. We will continue to iterate this document. Our work ensures that we keep at the forefront of our minds the potential consequences of our policies on those who may be susceptible to exploitation.
Across the board, it is crucial that we understand the groups and communities affected by our policies. As the Home Secretary highlighted in her Statement to the House on Wendy Williams’s Windrush Lessons Learned Review on 21 July, she has set out clear expectations that she expects officials to engage with community organisations, civil society and the public and to provide evidence in all advice to Ministers. To answer the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who asked if I would meet him: of course I will meet him to discuss his Private Member’s Bill.
Through the Home Office’s advisory groups, we have undertaken engagement with organisations on the design and development of the future immigration system, including those representing potentially vulnerable individuals. These groups, which include experts on modern slavery, including the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, have been fundamental in helping us to shape our policies and to design the future system. I understand that the Home Secretary has asked officials to facilitate a dedicated session with members of the Vulnerability Advisory Group and experts from the modern slavery sector, to better understand the possible impacts of the new immigration system on potential victims of modern slavery.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Alton, asked me about the seasonal workers pilot. A key objective of the pilot is to ensure that migrant workers are adequately protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses. It requires operators to ensure that all workers have a safe working environment—I think he alluded to that—that they are treated fairly, paid properly including time off and breaks; that they are housed in safe, hygienic accommodation; that their passport is never withheld from them; and that robust systems are in place for the reporting of concerns and rapid action. The operators of the scheme are and must remain licensed by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
In addition, the Home Office and Defra also monitor the scheme closely to ensure that operators adhere to the stringent requirements set out for ensuring the safety and well-being of seasonal workers. We work with the sector, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, to achieve these aims. Should either of the selected operators fall short in their duties as a sponsor, action will be taken, up to and including the revocation of their sponsor licence. Other criminal sanctions will be considered as well, as appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked me what the Government were doing to ensure that EU exit does not adversely affect efforts to tackle modern slavery. We already exceed our international obligations to victims under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which will not be affected by EU exit. We will continue our work with European partners to eradicate modern slavery, no matter what shape our relationship with the EU takes. This is an international problem, not just a UK problem, and it is in everyone’s interest that we reach an agreement that equips operational partners on both sides with those capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, questioned pre-settled status in terms of the right to benefits. Pre-settled status maintains the right to benefits, and a person would not need discretionary leave to remain under the modern slavery provisions because they would have five years’ leave to remain.
I hope that those explanations satisfy noble Lords and that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have no requests to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. I am also grateful to the Minister. I have listened very carefully to all that she has said but I am afraid that I remain very concerned on two fronts: first, the absence of a discipline to ensure that, going forward, the Immigration Rules will be forged out of regard for the need both to minimise opportunities for people trafficking and to help those who have been trafficked to enjoy a full recovery; and, secondly, that at the moment there is a real risk that victims of modern slavery will experience an erosion of their effective rights from 1 January. I do not believe that this is a satisfactory state of affairs.
However, as I said, I listened carefully to what the Minister said but will go away and study her comments more carefully before deciding how best to proceed on this issue. For the moment, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 82A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 82A
Baroness Hamwee
“Family life
(1) This section applies when a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts in respect of a relevant person—(a) breaches a person’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8; and(b) as a result would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.(2) In subsection (1) a “relevant person” is—(a) any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—(i) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016;(ii) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other enactments which is repealed by Schedule 1;(iii) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, or immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1 continued, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be recognised and available in the United Kingdom; and(b) any other person within the scope of regulations under sections 4(1) and (4).(3) In a case to which this section applies, section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 shall be read subject to the following modifications.(4) Section 117C(5) shall be read as if the words “and the effect of C’s deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh” were replaced with “and either—(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh; or(b) it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without C.”(5) Section 117C(6) shall be read as if—(a) the word “(“C”)” were inserted after “foreign criminal” and(b) the words “there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2” were replaced with “either—(i) C has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without C; or(ii) there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in exceptions 1 and 2””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause modifies the threshold for deportation of EEA nationals and family members who are parents of “qualifying children” – children who are British or have lived in the UK for 7 years or more.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, EEA nationals and their family members will of course be made subject to the system of immigration control when free movement ends. That will affect those who face removal from the UK on the basis of their character or conduct, including any criminal record. The tests for the deportation of EEA nationals and their family members are currently more stringent than those for the deportation of third-country family members of British nationals and settled persons.
Those who have not raised protection claims and meet the deportation criteria, and who want to remain in the UK on family life or private life grounds, must satisfy one of two exceptions. Either they must prove that they have
“a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child”
who would experience the deportation as “unduly harsh”. Those sentenced to four years or more must show very compelling circumstances—a higher threshold than that.
The Home Office interprets “unduly harsh” as excessively cruel. In the case of KO, the Supreme Court found that, to meet the test, mothers and fathers facing deportation must demonstrate that separation from their children would involve
“a degree of harshness going beyond what would necessarily be involved for any child faced with the deportation of a parent.”
In the subsequent cases of PG and KF, the courts held that most children who have a parent facing deportation would be likely to suffer significant psychological trauma, so that to succeed in their appeal the parent would have to show a risk of harm beyond what would normally be expected. The court in the case of PG expressed great sympathy for the children but said that distress to innocent children is insufficient to prevent deportation.
That means, in effect, that the courts are obliged to accept that harshness or cruelty caused to a child is acceptable—or, at any rate, has to be accepted—even where the long-term harm and trauma caused to the child, their family and the community may be detrimental to society at large and therefore not in the public interest.
Unlike a criminal sentence when a parent is sentenced to imprisonment, deportation can effectively end a child’s family life with a parent for the whole of their childhood. The permanent ending of family life can have a long-term negative impact. I do not need to describe that in detail to noble Lords. The partner left in the UK effectively becomes a single parent with all the struggles that involves. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question, but how can this be reconciled with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to have
“regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”?
Despite the Home Office’s statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and have children’s best interests as a primary consideration, the Home Office does not record the number of families it separates through deportation. We have had plenty of debates in this House about the importance of data. In 2018, Stephen Shaw, whose reviews have been so powerful, said:
“I find the policy of removing individuals brought up here from infancy to be deeply troubling. For low risk offenders it seems entirely disproportionate to tear them away from their lives, families and friends in the UK and send them to countries where they may not speak the language or have any ties.”
For those who have committed serious crimes, there is a further question of whether it is right to send high-risk offenders to another country when their offending follows an upbringing in the UK. As I have said, judges have expressed sympathy with appellants in deportation appeals and have expressed surprise at the effect of the legislation. As Lord Justice Baker remarked in the case of KF:
“For those lawyers, like my Lord and myself, who have spent many years practising in the family jurisdiction, this is not a comfortable interpretation to apply. But that is what Parliament has decided.”
I am putting this to Parliament again by proposing the modifications to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 set out in Amendment 82A. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I intervene to support Amendment 82A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She has set out a very clear case, so I will be brief.
I have lost count of how many times we have heard Ministers say, “We want to treat everyone the same way; we want a global system.” As the noble Baroness set out, this amendment seeks to correct a discrimination in how the law was being applied. Many times, when I have risen to speak in this Committee, it has been because of concern about family life, the impacts of decisions on children and the separation of families. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, just set out, that is what we are looking at here, as well as a situation in which people who are clearly a product of British society—and should be our responsibility—being dumped on other nations, which may have far fewer resources than we have to deal with them. To expect other nations to pick up the results of our choices and decisions is utterly unreasonable.
It is chiefly those innocent children, spouses and partners I am concerned about—lives being torn apart. I refer the Minister to the Children’s Commissioner’s quotes I referred to in the Skype family amendment. This has massive impacts on well-being, health, mental health and educational attainment.
The last time I spoke, I talked about the judgment of Solomon. It is a question of applying the judgment of Solomon or applying his wisdom to make a choice that is best for individuals or society. I therefore commend Amendment 82A to the House.
This is my last contribution on the Bill in Committee, so I pay tribute to the relatively small number of Members of your Lordships’ House who have done an enormous amount of work and clearly have a massive amount of expertise in all these areas. I have learned a great deal from listening to that. I appreciate that, and I hope the Government will listen to nearly all the amendments presented here, which have been trying to make the Bill more humane, fair and respectful of human rights.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The mover of the resolution, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has explained the background to this amendment and what has prompted it. As has been said, Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides an exemption against deportation where it would be “unduly harsh” on that person’s partner or child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, the amendment seeks to give what I would interpret as more specific and relevant weight to the impact on a child of the deportation of somebody who may be a foreign criminal with a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with that British child, or other qualifying child, when considering an exemption.
I await with interest the Government’s response, during which I hope it may be possible for the Government to provide information on the number of such exemptions against deportation given under Section 117C of the 2002 Act in each of the last three years for which figures are available. Also, what estimate, if any, have the Government made of the increase, if any, in the number of such exemptions per year that would result from the change provided for in this amendment becoming applicable—a change which, frankly, in the light of some of the legal cases to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, would seem quite reasonable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, next time I stand here, I will bring a series of numbers because the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have foxed me on numbers this afternoon. However, but I will get for him, if I can, the number of exemptions under Article 8. I thank the noble Baronesses for bringing forward Amendment 82A on family life.
The Article 8 ECHR
“right to respect for family and private life”
is a qualified right, which can be circumscribed where lawful, necessary and proportionate in the interest of a number of factors, including national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that when assessing whether deportation breaches Article 8 of the ECHR, the deportation of a foreign national offender is in the public interest, unless certain exceptions apply. These amendments seek to alter these exceptions and diminish the importance placed on the public interest in deporting the most serious offenders.
The proposed new clause amends the exception at Section 117C(5) for foreign national offenders—or FNOs—who have been sentenced to less than four years of imprisonment and have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or child so that their deportation would not be in the public interest if it would be unreasonable for the child to leave the UK or to remain in the UK without the foreign national offender. That would be in addition to the existing exception which applies where the effect of the deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who has certainly done her fair share of work on the Bill, is quite right in saying that this is about correcting discrimination, and I do not think the Minister addressed that point. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is also quite right that this is about the impact on children. This is not a hearts and flowers amendment about all criminals.
The Minister said that she would bring the numbers with her for the next debate on these issues. I understand that the Home Office has no numbers on this; I shall be glad if she writes to correct me if I am wrong, but I was told that it had no data.
The amendment comes from the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. It sees how Section 117C operates. Frankly, I would not like to have to apply it—and that has been the view of certain courts, which I have quoted. I am not arguing that it is unlawful, but I am saying that Parliament should take this opportunity to reflect on how thinking about our society develops and changes. The courts may say that it is lawful, but some judges have also said that, in their view, it is not necessarily right as judged by other criteria. The Minister said that this would diminish the weight placed on the public interest, but I think that there is a public interest in the impact of laws on children.
This amendment was about—or is about; I have not withdrawn it yet—treating EEA and non-EEA citizens equally. We have heard about the importance of this throughout the four days of this Committee. I am sorry that the Government have now prayed in aid the fact that the clause can be only about EEA and Swiss citizens, rather than accepting that this would level things up and end a discrimination. However, I think I have no alternative at this moment other than to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 84. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 84
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations to the powers listed in Clause 5(3).
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 84, I shall speak to other amendments in this group which attempt to rein in Clause 5 or delete it. Clearly, this group is also linked to the next group of amendments. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, here; it is nice to have a change of landscape and scenery.
The Delegated Powers Committee in two reports has highlighted the problems of Clause 5, so this debate echoes the one that we had on Clause 4. Clause 5, in the words of the DPRRC, gives Ministers
“almost absolute power to rewrite the Co-ordination Regulations at any time of their choosing”—
that is, the social security co-ordination regulations. Parliament has no power to modify such SIs, only to approve or reject them. Not only did Clause 5(1) and 5(2) confer those very broad powers, but subsequent paragraphs on the purposes of modification place little restraint on Ministers; they give Henry VIII powers, among others.
The Delegated Powers Committee said that the Government’s delegated powers memorandum gave
“inadequate justification for a wholesale transfer from Parliament to the Government of power to legislate in a field that could … impact on large numbers of UK citizens resident in EEA members states, and EEA nationals resident in the UK”.
The committee said that the memorandum did not explain the need for Ministers to have the Clause 5 power now,
“how the Government might seek to use it … why it includes a power to amend … legislation … not listed in clause 5(2) … why it is not time limited”,
and why there is no duty to consult. It recalled its repeated view that for a skeleton Bill, a full explanation of delegated powers is necessary—and in fact, it says this clause is not even a skeleton; I do not know what is less than a skeleton, but it is a nice phrase. In any case, Clause 5 is unnecessary.
Since the UK left the EU on 31 January, the relevant EU regulations pertaining to social security, pensions and healthcare have been retained in UK law by Section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That Act already contains a power in Section 8 to modify retained direct EU law. The Government have in fact already exercised that power and amended the co-ordinating regulations in 2019—I think there are four sets of regulations altogether, which are referred to as fixing regulations. The Government now want powers in this Bill, but if they do not fit within the 2018 Act then they must necessarily not relate to any ability for the law to operate effectively or to any deficiency in EU law. They are not tidying-up powers, and if they were then the Government could use the 2018 Act. It seems inappropriate to have Clause 5 in the Bill and for the Government to be able to legislate under its powers. It is much better for any changes to be brought to Parliament by primary legislation.
Of course the Bill and these powers are not about rights under the withdrawal Act or those protected by the withdrawal Act, who are often referred to as the cohort. Powers regarding the social security, healthcare and pension rights of those people covered by the withdrawal agreement are covered under Section 7A, which was inserted into the 2018 Act by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. That is also accompanied by Section 13 of the 2020 Act, which confers the power to make regulations in respect of social security co-ordination rights protected by the withdrawal agreement. We therefore have two sets of powers to regulate: one under the 2018 Act and another under the 2020 Act. Why does the Secretary of State now need a third set of powers to make regulations?
There is bound to be some duplication across these sets of powers, and it looks as if they are designed to bypass the need for primary legislation. In fact, I also recall that a memo attached to the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on 4 September, about the illustrative SIs, said that the Government are also planning to implement a future relationship using the powers in Section 179 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the primary legislation governing reciprocal agreements for social security benefits between the UK and the rest of the world. That is a third set of delegated powers, so Clause 5 in this Bill would be a fourth set of powers. The Government are getting awfully greedy about powers for Ministers.
I put it to the Minister that if the Government think they need further legislation on social security it needs to go into primary legislation. Indeed, our Delegated Powers Committee suspected that Clause 5 was in the Bill to avoid having to prepare a detailed Bill subject to full parliamentary scrutiny once future arrangements with the EU were concluded. It said that Clause 5 is
“an inappropriate delegation of power.”
Hence, we have given notice that we would seek to delete Clause 5 altogether, whereas Amendment 84 would restrict the powers to those described in Section 5(3), while Amendment 85 would delete the power to distinguish between recipients on the basis of their nationality or where they reside.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that I can be mercifully brief. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that Clause 5 is not something we should be happy about. It brings to mind the debates in recent weeks on matters such as the medicines Bill, where the same concerns have been raised about the use of things such as skeleton Bills. I do not want this to become a skeleton Parliament. Under the cover of Covid and Brexit, we are seeing the emasculation of many of Parliament’s powers, which we should cherish. The noble Baroness is, therefore, right that the overuse of statutory instruments—Ministers taking powers, reputable and decent as individual Ministers may be—is not a safeguard for this House. Ministers change; Parliament changes, but the legislation we pass is almost cast in stone. It is right to raise these concerns about accountability and scrutiny, the need for checks and balances, and why we should cherish the rights and privileges that parliamentarians enjoy. The noble Baroness is right to remind the Minister of what the committees of our own House have said about the overuse of these powers.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 84 and 85 and of Clause 5 being deleted from the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, the amendments in this group seek to restrain the Government in their objective of transferring wide-scale powers to Ministers to take action that could have a major impact on the lives of UK citizens living in EEA countries and on EEA citizens living in the UK.
Amendment 84 would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations to the powers listed in Clause 5(3). These powers enable the social security co-ordination regulations to be amended and policy to be changed. The social security regulations co-ordinate access to social security for people moving between EEA countries and they are widely accepted and understood across those countries. They ensure clarity about where payments and contributions are made. These payments are essential income to UK citizens living in the EEA and EEA citizens living in the UK. As other noble Lords have said, it is important for all citizens to have confidence in the continuation of these complex regulations and in the withdrawal agreement itself. The Government’s explanation is that the clause allows them to make regulations to implement any new policies regarding co-ordination of social security. The clause is intended to be used to implement new policies, subject to the outcome of future negotiations with the EU. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has warned, there has been no adequate justification for the transfer of these powers to Ministers. The Constitution Committee also recommends that Clause 5 be deleted from the Bill and says:
“Any further modification of the Social Security Co-ordination Regulations that might be required could be achieved using the power in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”
Amendment 85 seeks to preclude the power of the Secretary of State to distinguish between recipients of pensions and other benefits on the basis of their nationality or residence in a particular state. This takes no account of other circumstances and would lead to arbitrary and unjust decisions that would have a huge impact on the lives of the people they relate to.
Further, I wish to oppose that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. If successful, this would see Clause 5 as an inappropriate delegation of power, as recommended by the DPRR Committee in its 46th report. How can it be right or proper that the regulations governing the crucial payment of social security, such as disability benefit and unemployment benefit, to large numbers of people can be radically changed, even to their extreme disadvantage, without consultation, without proper scrutiny and with little accountability? This is a licence to penalise large numbers of citizens arbitrarily without proper justification or democratic safeguards. If this clause goes through, public consideration of changes to the regulations will be so limited that the people affected will have no opportunity to question or make representations as to their impact.
I support these amendments and strongly oppose Clause 5 standing part of the Bill. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said:
“We remain of the view, expressed in our earlier Report, that the Government have provided an inadequate justification for a wholesale transfer to Ministers of power to legislate in a field that could have a major impact on large numbers of UK citizens resident in EEA countries, and EEA citizens resident in the UK, who currently rely upon reciprocal arrangements.”
I support my noble friend Lady Ludford in saying that such changes should be the subject of primary legislation and not as is suggested in Clause 5.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is good to have a chance to explore the social security part of this Bill at last. I will speak to the Clause 5 stand part amendment, to which I have attached my name, and to my Amendment 91, to which my noble friend Lord Rosser has added his name and which would sunset the powers in Clause 5(1).
There are two minimum steps that Ministers need to take if they want to keep Clause 5 as it stands. First, they must address all the issues raised by the Delegated Powers Committee. Secondly, they must be clear with Parliament about the state of social security co-ordination after transition. The DPRRC’s 22nd report highlights matters that Ministers have failed to explain, such as how the Clause 5 powers fits with provisions in the 2018 and 2020 Acts;
“how the Government might seek to use the power; why it includes a power to amend primary legislation and retained direct EU legislation other than the SSC Regulations; why the power is not time limited; why Ministers will have no duty to consult before making regulations.”
We have received some very helpful briefings so that we can explore these issues, but we need to get some answers on the record. My understanding of what we have heard is that the Clause 5 power enables government to make policy changes, whereas the power under the withdrawal Act is used to fix deficiencies, and the delegated power in the 2020 Act relates only to ensuring that the provisions of the withdrawal agreement can work. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether that understanding is right? Can she confirm that the Clause 5 power cannot be used to make changes for those people who fall within the scope of the withdrawal agreement?
On the breadth of the powers, I think that the Government’s defence is that the powers in Clause 5(1) can be used only to modify retained direct EU legislation as specified in Clause 5(2), and that Clause 5(3) says that the powers in Clause 5(1) can be used for various purposes—but, again, only in relation to the retained EU law specified in Clause 5(2). In any case, they say that the illustrative draft regulations under Clause 5 repeal all the instruments specified in Clause 5(2), so there is nothing for this power to apply to. Is the Minister telling the Committee that it is the Government’s intention to repeal all the instruments specified in Clause 5(2)? Are there any circumstances in which those regulations would not be repealed?
In terms of how the Government will use it, my understanding is that the Clause 5 power will be used to repeal provisions not covered by any deal; that is what is suggested by the illustrative draft regulations. We have been told that the power may therefore be used only once. In that case, what is the problem with time-limiting the power, as Amendment 91 proposes? Again, it has been suggested that you need to hold on to it—for example, in case a new state joins the EU, but this seems highly disproportionate. If that were the only issue, I am sure that Ministers could find a much more targeted way to deal with it—and they will have plenty of time to work it out because new states do not just join the EU overnight. So, is there any other reason why the Government need to retain the Clause 5 powers beyond 12 months other than to deal with a new state joining the EU? If it is just that, what other mechanisms did they look at for dealing with that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken to this group of amendments. I also thank Ministers from the Home Office for their stewardship of this clause to date.
The EU social security co-ordination regulations operate in the context of the EU’s free movement rules. I will refer to these as the SSC regulations. They set out which member state is responsible for the payment of social security benefits, and require the export of some benefits and the aggregation of social security contributions when claiming benefits and pensions. The rules require equal treatment for citizens across the EU, and they also ensure that individuals pay social security contributions in only one member state at a time.
The Government have repeatedly and transparently set out that as we end free movement, the EU social security co-ordination rules will change to reflect the arrangements we have with countries outside the EU—for example, in relation to the export of UK benefits. It is right that the UK be able to set and negotiate its own rules, in line with well-established UK policy in this area, now we have left the EU and as we prepare for the end of the transition period.
Clause 5(1) of the Bill duly provides the power for an appropriate authority to modify the retained SSC regulations specified in subsection (2). Clause 6 specifies that the power to modify includes the power to amend, revoke or repeal. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 ensure that supporting incidental or consequential changes made under the power can be appropriately reflected in domestic and retained legislation—for example, to address inoperabilities or inconsistencies which may arise from the modification of the retained SSC regulations. This provides Ministers with the power to ensure the continued operation of domestic social security legislation which refers to, or is related to, the retained SSC regulations.
Subsections (5) and (6) disapply EU-derived rights to ensure that there are no unintended interactions between areas of EU law and new policies, for those not covered by the withdrawal agreement. Subsection (7) defines “appropriate authority” as
“(a) the Secretary of State or the Treasury, (b) a Northern Ireland department, or (c) a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a Northern Ireland department.”
This provision currently confers on a Northern Ireland department the power to make changes in this area so far as they relate to matters within its devolved competence.
Schedule 2 sets out the scope of the power as it relates to a Northern Irish department, providing details on the powers used in relation to devolved competence, joint use with Ministers of the Crown and consultation with the Secretary of State where that is normally required. The Northern Irish Minister for Communities confirmed that a legislative consent Motion will be requested from the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of Clause 5. My officials are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive, given the need to bring the LCM discussions to a conclusion—one way or another—by Report.
Schedule 3 provides further detail on the form that regulations will take under the clause. The schedule also provides that any regulations made through the use of the power are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Ludford, raised issues around the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s criticism of the breadth of and justification for the powers. I have noted the recommendations in the DPRRC’s report of 25 August and have heard the House’s views.
The power enables the Government to implement policy changes in this specific area, for example, to stop the export to the EU of a UK benefit where that benefit is currently required to be exported under these EU rules. The Government’s position is that the powers in other legislation do not provide for this. That is the purpose of this power; it cannot be used to initiate policy changes where these do not arise from the modification of the specified retained SSC regulations. The understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is correct in that regard.
I note that the DPRRC’s recommendation that this clause be removed is unchanged since its report on the previous iteration of the Bill. While the clause is broadly unchanged, the context is very different. First—as acknowledged in that report—we now have a withdrawal agreement with the EU, and nothing in Clause 5 enables the Government to alter the rights guaranteed under that withdrawal agreement. When discussing Clause 5, we are therefore talking about those who move between the UK and the EU once the transition period has ended and not about any current recipients of UK benefits living in the EU while they continue to live there. There is no time now for a more detailed explanation of what it means to be covered by the withdrawal agreement, but the Government will publish detailed guidance on this question.
Secondly, on 27 February—before the introduction of this Bill—the Government published their future social security co-ordination policy, confirming that they would seek an agreement with the EU in this area, covering co-ordination on the state pension and social security contributions.
Thirdly, on 19 May, before Committee in the other House, the Government published, in full, their proposed legal text for negotiations with the EU in this area. To support the scrutiny of the clause in Committee in this House, we shared—on 4 September—a draft of the regulations illustrating the approach the Government intend to take under Clause 5 in a negotiated outcome with the EU, which remains our objective.
We have set out that the retained SSC regulations would be repealed were they no longer required. The intended policy consequence of this approach is that where provision is not made under a future UK-EU agreement on social security co-ordination—for example, in relation to the export of a particular benefit—that provision would cease. This point is critical: the retained SSC regulations are designed to operate on the basis of reciprocity with the EU and its member states. The Government are seeking a new reciprocal social security agreement with the EU—an agreement similar to those we have with key trading partners outside the EU, where the UK can agree the limits of what we co-ordinate, in line with our national interest. Those negotiations are ongoing.
We need this power to provide the essential legislative framework for the Government to deliver future policy changes from the end of the transition period in this specific area. This needs to be done in the window between the conclusion of negotiations and the end of the transition period and in response to the outcome of those negotiations. The Government’s approach has to be viewed in that context.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about avoiding scrutiny. Far from seeking to avoid scrutiny, this approach gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s position during the Clause 5 discussions. As Clause 5 provides the power to make draft affirmative regulations, Parliament will have the opportunity for further debates on the affirmative regulations, based on the outcome of the negotiations. We have consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee on our draft regulations and will continue to engage with it as the regulations are finalised.
I will come back to more detailed points on the scope of this power on the next group of amendments, but my arguments also apply in respect of Amendment 84 in this grouping. In isolation, Amendment 84 unnecessarily inserts the word “only”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, spoke about Amendment 91, which seeks to time-limit the regulation-making powers under Clause 5 to within one year of the end of the transition period. The amendment would prevent the Government making further changes to the retained SSC regulations beyond 31 December 2021 without new primary legislation. The Government can already make and revise co-ordination arrangements with non-EU countries without a time limit, using secondary delegated legislation under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
To time-limit the Clause 5 power would require the Government to use primary legislation to make even minor changes to the retained SSC regulations, to the extent that those remained on the statute book once the power had expired, which would not be a good use of parliamentary time. Unlike the position with non-EU countries, all regulations made under Clause 5 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure and require a debate in each House before they can become law. By committing to that, the Government are providing reassurance to Parliament that future use of this power will be open to scrutiny.
On Amendment 85, the noble Baroness said that she sought to remove the power to distinguish between recipients of state pensions and benefits on the basis of nationality or residence in a particular member state. The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the Government’s ability to make
“different provision for different categories of person to whom they apply”,
for example, on the basis of nationality, immigration status or date of arrival. The social security co-ordination agreement that the UK seeks with the EU is a nationality-blind agreement.
However, there is a possibility of a non-negotiated outcome. The wording in this clause is largely standard wording in social security legislation. The wording makes it clear that there might be different provision for different categories of person, and this includes immigration status or nationality. Making different provision for different categories of person is not new; examples can be found in bilateral agreements the UK has with other countries. For example, the UK has already signed a social security agreement with Ireland, which applies to UK and Irish nationals and their family members in the UK and Ireland.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has shared with us a great deal of dense information. I will make the usual disclaimer that I will need to read Hansard to be absolutely sure that I have understood what she said.
One thing about which I was a bit confused was when she said that Clause 5 would not be used to disbar the export of pension for certain nationalities. Then why have that ability in the Bill? She said it was a standard clause in social security co-ordination legislation, but I admit that I was a bit confused about that. It might be my problem: as we are nearing the end of Committee, my brain might be getting a little befuddled.
One cannot but be concerned about those covered by the withdrawal agreement. Until recent days, I would never have imagined that there could be any threat to the rights of people covered by the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement. That confidence has been shaken, I am afraid, and I am sure that the Minister will understand that point. She might protest that there is no intention from her department to do that, but the experience of the last week has been undermining of confidence. So we will need to look at all that very carefully.
The other thing—and I must admit that I saw a reference to it somewhere but have forgotten where—is that healthcare, because it is not covered by the DWP, is subject to separate regulations which I will need to try to track down somewhere. If the Minister can get her officials to draw those to my attention—to add another SI to the ones we are looking at—that would be very kind. The Minister is always very helpful, in various ways. It is a very complicated subject and I will look fully at her remarks.
I remain generally concerned about the scope of the delegation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, it affects an awful lot of people. Will they be able to aggregate the periods of social security in different states? Can they be assured that their pensions will be not only received but uprated? Will they be able to get healthcare coverage? This is absolutely bread-and-butter basic security for people. It is why it is called “social security”. These matters remain of deep concern, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 86. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 86
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the different purposes that may be required.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 87, 88, 89, 90 and 92. These amendments are parallel to amendments debated on day one in Committee, on Clause 4, and some, of course, are exactly the same. As we heard in the last debate, both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House have reported. The chair of the DPRRC, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that he was “not emollient” whenever it was that we debated Clause 4, and he was right not to be so when dealing with what he called “fundamentally excessive delegated powers”. What I regarded, and regard, as too- wide powers, the Minister then called “clear constraints”. She relied particularly on what the Government have published already: whether it is in its draft, illustrative or final form is irrelevant.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, also relied on the fact that “we”—the Government—would do and not do certain things, but “we” will not always be the “we” that the noble Baroness is referring to, and others whom we actually know. I am sure that, were she on the other side of the House, she would be pointing out that Governments change and individuals change, and it is in no way impugning her integrity to say that there should be protection against future changes without the proper involvement of Parliament.
Yet again it has just been suggested that a debate, without Parliament having a power to amend something, is adequate: “adequate parliamentary power”. It is not. I must say that I for one got a bit lost on some of the arguments in the last debate. In particular, I did not follow why Amendment 85 was unnecessary. I wonder whether we might have a written explanation of the opposition to it. I could not quite follow whether it was because of what is meant by the term “modify”.
The powers will remain and the Government will have them until the Act is amended or repealed. The latter would cause a lot of confusion. It is not only about the here and now; it is about the short, medium and long-term future.
I refer particularly to Clause 5(3)(d), which is the subject of Amendment 89. That says that the regulation-making power includes power
“to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter.”
I do not think that is in Clause 4, so I wonder about the significance of the addition and what the discretion could be about. Would it be a discretion to apply a restriction or criteria less robustly? I do not think it could mean to apply it more robustly, but I might be wrong in that. I do not think the latter would be lawful. If the Minister is able to clarify that, it would help.
I had intended to quote from the DPRRC report and to comment on the Constitution Committee report a little. It strongly agreed with the DPRRC’s conclusions, but we have heard a lot from the report, so I do not think I need to do so. However, I follow my noble friend Lady Ludford, who talked about the uncertainty that recent events have caused people who will be affected by the changes being made and the big changes to their lives. I think she said that these things could happen quickly, and they certainly can, which reinforces my point about the importance of not just relying on what certain Ministers say today because it might not be the case tomorrow.
This morning, I had an email from a British citizen living in Spain. She said:
“With the withdrawal agreement, both EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens residing in the EU at last felt we had secured a relatively good, guaranteed level of protection, even if not completely perfect (and certainly not as good as we had with the UK a member of the EU!). However, if the government can tear up the rule book in this way clearly anything can be changed on a whim and nothing is guaranteed, and I fear that our hard-fought rights could be just as easily removed.”
I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising these issues. I specified my concerns on delegated powers in relation to social security in my speech on the previous group, so I will not repeat them. However, I asked a number of specific questions in that speech, not all of which the Minister managed to answer. Will she commit to respond to each of them in writing before we get to Report?
The Minister has been generous in allowing us access to her officials, who have provided some excellent briefing, but it has taken me two weeks of work to get my head around the interaction of all these sets of powers and the Government’s arguments on the use of delegated powers in relation to the Bill. The Minister will realise that the Committee remains pretty unhappy about this matter, so I encourage her to respond as fully as she can, in writing, both to my points and to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others before we reach Report, so that we can have the best possible debate at that point. I look forward to hearing her reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, for tabling Amendments 86 to 90 and 92. I sincerely apologise for any effort on my part that allowed the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to get lost in my explanation. That was never the intention. I can confirm to all noble Lords that we will write, as requested. I hope it is clear that, as in the run-up to Committee stage, our door is open for further meetings for clarification.
These amendments seek to probe and limit the consequential powers at subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 5, which are intended to provide the flexibility needed to fully implement, across the statute book, policy changes arising from the outcome of negotiations with the EU. In general, the provisions at subsections (3) and (4) provide the Government with the ability to give full effect across the statute book to policy changes arising from the modification of the retained SSC regulations listed at subsection (2), based on the outcome of negotiations with the EU in this area.
The purpose of these powers will be to ensure that there are no inconsistencies or gaps in provision between domestic social security legislation and retained SSC regulations following modification of the regulations at subsection (2). Such inconsistencies could potentially hamper the operation of domestic social security law where there are references to the regulations at subsection (2). Subsection (4) is not a “new power”, as the noble Baroness suggests. Nothing in subsections (3) or (4) enables the Government to do anything that does not arise as a result of changes to the SSC regulations. In particular, changes made under subsection (4) are limited by Clause 5(3)(c).
Wording used in Clause 5(3)(a), (b) and (d), for example, in relation to the use of discretion, as well as making different provision for different categories and purposes, reflects largely common wording in social security and other legislation which ensures that the regulations made under Clause 5(1) can appropriately reflect the different categories and statuses of those affected. I have previously mentioned the withdrawal agreement and the agreement that we have with Ireland on social security. Both are examples of where, for persons in scope of those agreements, we have already made provision for different categories of persons and for different purposes, and may need to do so again under regulations made under Clause 5 through subsection (3).
Subsection (4) simply ensures that any changes directly related to the retained SSC regulations can be fully implemented—for example, where supplementary or transitory provision is required in other legislation arising from the changes to the SSC regulations. The terms used at subsection (3)(c) allow for the making of provisions that arise from the changes to retained SSC regulations and for temporary or time-limited provisions that assist in the implementation of any changes brought about by the outcome of negotiations with the EU, if appropriate. The removal of subsection (4) could result in incomplete or incoherent amendments to domestic legislation or retained EU law not mentioned in subsection (2), potentially affecting the functioning of domestic social security law and a future agreement in this area.
We have shared with the Committee an illustrative draft statutory instrument that would be made under Clause 5. The draft SI includes a section which makes consequential and supplementary amendments of different types and purposes that arise elsewhere in the statute book as a result of the modification of retained SSC regulations. It is important that the Government have the power to make such consequential changes to avoid inconsistencies, gaps and inoperabilities across the statute book.
In my previous comments I gave an example of where the Government could not use this power to stop the export of the state pension. The state pension is payable worldwide under domestic legislation. Therefore, this power could not be used to such effect. With regard to Amendment 90, subsections (5) and (6) simply ensure that there are no unintended interactions between areas of EU law and new policies for those not covered by the withdrawal agreement. We have been very clear that there will be new policies in this area, which will mean that there will be a change in social security co-ordination entitlements for future cohorts of claimants.
These amendments would restrict the Government’s ability to reflect changes and to make appropriate changes across the statute book to ensure the full implementation of any outcome of negotiations with the EU. I think I have confirmed to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that I will respond to her in writing. To the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on lack of scrutiny, I have set out under the previous group the specific consequences that justify this approach. I say to her also that, on Amendment 89 on the use of discretion, reference to discretion is standard wording in social security legislation and can be found in many Acts of Parliament. On the issue of why Amendment 85 is unnecessary, I will happily write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment for the reasons outlined.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is not the Minister’s fault that I was confused in the previous group. I certainly was not accusing her of anything—it is entirely my own fault.
I am interested to hear that Clause 5(3)(d) is standard in social security legislation. It is not something that I am accustomed to in Home Office legislation—this Bill brings the two together—but I may be wrong in that and might not have noticed it before.
The Government have got themselves into a pretty tight timetable on this. That is why they want scope to make changes. I do not doubt the noble Baroness’s intentions; she sounded very reassuring. But it is not about being reassuring now, it is about what is possible under the very wide powers, as I and other noble Lords have been pointing out. Clearly, at this moment it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment, so that is what I will do. However, I say to the noble Baroness—and it is no accusation—that I have not been assured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 95. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 95
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) The Secretary of State may not appoint a day pursuant to subsection (1) until—(a) the recommendations of the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” (HC93 published in March 2020) which may affect EEA and Swiss nationals have been implemented in full in respect of such persons;(b) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on their implementation in respect of such persons; and(c) the report has been debated by both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Government from ending free movement until it has implemented in full the recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review so far as they may affect EEA and Swiss nationals.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 95 was tabled some time ago. I will not speak for long on this, but I will refer again to the level of anxiety among people affected by the Bill and by other arrangements related to the ending of free movement, exacerbated by the events of the last few days. I have just read out an email I received this morning explaining precisely that.
Windrush has been referred to very often in discussions on the ending of free movement and associated rights, the extent or otherwise of rights following that ending and the risk of things going wrong. I hesitated when I said “Windrush”, because that seems disrespectful. It has become a term for a whole number of people who have been so shockingly affected. That is a pretty neutral term, but I know noble Lords will understand who I am referring to, and they are all individuals. I hope anybody listening to or reading this debate will understand that that is not intended to be disrespectful at all.
The Windrush Lessons Learned Review has particularly relevant recommendations. A lot are about ways of doing things and attitudes. I made a note about a couple of recommendations, 22 and 23, but at this late hour I will not read them out; I suspect other noble Lords are very familiar with the review’s recommendations. To give other noble Lords an opportunity to speak to this amendment, I simply beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 95, to which I was pleased to add my name. Over the course of our four days in Committee, we have heard many warnings of how EEA and Swiss nationals could now become caught in the snare of the hostile/compliant environment. At Second Reading I lamented this fact and that the Bill does nothing to dismantle its institutional architecture, such as the right-to-rent regime.
In light of the Home Secretary’s very welcome announcement that she accepted Wendy Williams’s recommendation of a full review and evaluation of the hostile/compliant environment, I asked the Minister whether she could assure us that that review has the power to question its basic tenets and institutions.
In her subsequent letter to Peers, she responded to the question but without really answering it, saying that the Government are now addressing and implementing the Windrush review findings. Other than acknowledging the significant failings revealed as members of the Windrush generation were unintentionally caught up in measures intended for so-called illegal migrants—I do not believe anyone is illegal—she left us none the wiser as to how deep the evaluation of the hostile/compliant environment would be able to delve.
Likewise, I did not glean much from a Written Question I tabled after Second Reading. This asked about terms of reference, whether the evaluation would be designed in partnership with external experts—as recommended by Wendy Williams—when it was due to be completed and whether the findings would be made public. The Minister’s reply did not answer the questions directly but explained that the evaluation needed to get the balance right between not allowing those without a legal right to be in the country “to exploit the system” and ensuring that the right protections are in place for those whose status should have been assured. Scoping of the work had begun and more information would be available in due course.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I join in the appeal from the noble Baroness for the Government to look again, as I have many times—and she has as well—at the whole immigration process that we have in this country. To mention recent developments, I would like to know exactly how many of the 13,000 immigrants on the island of Lesbos have been offered a place here in the United Kingdom.
Windrush of course created so much harm and unnecessary suffering, but we still see that the sort of attitude that is there is able to create harm to many people. As I mentioned before in this Chamber, in 2005, 17% of those who were given a hostile decision by the Home Office had the decision overturned on appeal. It is better now, they say—but it is not. Last year, 52% were successful on appeal; that means that 52% of the decisions taken by the Home Office were incorrect. They created hurt and worry and also created for the United Kingdom Government the need to go to appeal, at extensive cost.
So will the Minister and the Government look again so that, as we say in this amendment, the lessons of Windrush will be learned? We should have a thorough-going overhaul, because we are going to see very many new crises in the coming years regarding immigration. Are we going to take the lead in a hospitable way? We are not the best nation in the world for accepting migrants. We are going to see climate change, and so on, create deserts where previously there were productive lands; we have to face that. Now is the time to look at the past and say, “We were wrong,” and look at the future and say, “We can do better.”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
In her Windrush Lessons Learned Review, Wendy Williams described the Windrush scandal as both “foreseeable and avoidable”. The Home Office cannot afford another scandal, this time in relation to EEA and Swiss Nationals. Wendy Williams said:
“It is the responsibility of the department to keep track of the impact of the policies and legislation … and to make sure that, where members of the public are affected, particularly where they are at risk, it supports them appropriately.”
We heard from noble Lords on Monday about who might be at risk: those in abusive relationships; those who do not have access to IT, such as many Roma people; and those who rely for IT support on organisations that may not be there in years to come. Wendy Williams went on to say that
“it is perhaps unsurprising that the department did not then consider how difficult it might be for people to prove their status, prove when they arrived, or that they had been in the UK continuously some 30, 40 or even 50 years later.”
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, amendment after amendment in this Committee has criticised the hostile/compliant environment. As the noble Baroness said, Wendy Williams recommended a full review and evaluation of it, assessing whether the measures contained within it were effective and proportionate. She said:
“This review must be carried out scrupulously, designed in partnership with external experts and published in a timely way.”
To echo the noble Baroness, where are we with that review now?
We have heard compelling evidence that the EEA and Swiss nationals affected by the ending of free movement have real concerns—reinforced by recent developments over the past week—particularly over having physical proof of immigration status, although the Government say that is not necessary. The Windrush review said:
“The Home Office should take steps to understand the groups and communities that its policies affect through improved engagement, social research, and by involving service users in designing its services”,
yet the Government not only seem not to be listening to EEA and Swiss nationals whom this Bill affects but, as a result, appear to have learned nothing from the Windrush review.
When it comes to impact assessments, the report recommends:
“Officials should avoid putting forward options on the binary ‘do this or do nothing’ basis, but instead should consider a range of options.”
Yet the department’s approach to matters such as physical proof of immigration status seems to be exactly that—failing to properly consider a “physical proof on request” option, for example.
As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno has just said, the number of successful appeals against a refusal to grant settled status questions whether the values and culture of the Home Office have changed in the way that Wendy Williams recommended, and whether there is an effective central repository from which lessons and improvements from adverse case decisions can be disseminated.
Windrush really was a scandal. Ensuring that there is no repeat in relation to EEA and Swiss nationals depends on the implementation of the Wendy Williams review recommendations. I support this amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising this important issue. The review highlighted how many of the Windrush generation suffered so much, starting with stress and anxiety and leading too often to loss of livelihood and even separation from home and family. It therefore seems a fitting way to end the Committee stage, because it is a reminder to all of us of the consequences of getting immigration policy wrong.
When the review was first published, the current Home Secretary said she was “shocked” to discover the extent of the insensitive treatment that the Windrush generation and their families suffered. However, it is not good enough to be shocked after the event. We should all have known what was going on, taken responsibility for policy-making and been responsive to the people who were telling us that something was wrong. I think, along with my noble friend Lady Lister, that the decision to spend 10 years prioritising hostility in immigration policy should weigh heavily indeed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, Wendy Williams called the desperate results of the scandal “foreseeable and avoidable”. That is a reminder, as the Government push this Bill through, that people will have to live in the world this legislation will help to frame. We should keep that in mind.
I add my voice to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Lister and others. The Home Secretary accepted all the recommendations of the review, including changing the culture of the Home Office, and gave an early update before the summer. Has the comprehensive improvement plan promised for September been published? Can the Minister give us an update on how many people have now applied to the compensation scheme, and how many have received and accepted a compensation offer? When will we get another update on progress made so far? We all need to learn the lessons of the Windrush review.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that this is a fitting end to Committee, although some of our views on how to prevent another Windrush scandal differ—for example, on the declaratory scheme versus the constitutive scheme for settled status.
Noble Lords have acknowledged that the Home Secretary has made it clear that we accept the review’s findings. She updated the other House last month on progress towards implementing its recommendations. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, we will publish a comprehensive improvement plan in September—so, this month. I look forward to updating the House.
As part of our response, we are reviewing every aspect of how the Home Office operates: its leadership, culture, policies and practices, and the way it views and treats all parts of the community it serves. It must be said that while urgent and extensive work is taking place across the Home Office on all the recommendations, fundamental change takes time to deliver. Culture shift is like turning an oil tanker round; I think noble Lords accept that point. To rush for the sake of making a headline would be the wrong approach. If noble Lords could stand in my shoes, they would see how much the Home Office and the Home Secretary talk about Wendy Williams and the lessons learned. The culture is already starting to change but it is not a quick change. Wendy Williams made that very point: we should not rush, first, to respond to the review or, secondly, implement some of the changes suggested in it.
Delaying the end of free movement until the changes are implemented would prevent us moving to a new skills-based immigration system. That new system means people will be treated equally and fairly, and delaying it would undermine the Government’s clear position on ending free movement. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know I cannot accept the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the evaluation, the terms of reference and whether we had engaged any external experts. The team is actively engaging with internal and external organisations, as well as with staff at all levels. We are engaging with the unions, with support networks and with the department’s race board to determine the best way to implement the findings of the review.
Of course, it is fair to say in conclusion that the findings of Wendy Williams’ Windrush Lessons Learned Review affect all migrants in the UK, not just EEA citizens. The tenet—to use the word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—of her review was a fairness and a humanity within the way that the Home Office operates, and I can totally concur with that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me for an update on the compensation scheme. I do not have the facts and figures—another deficiency in facts and figures this afternoon—but I will certainly write to noble Lords on where we are up to. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, questioned the high number of appeals that are upheld. This is all down to when appeals are lodged, and that can have an impact on appeals granted. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the comprehensive improvement plan is due this month, and the first day of Report on this Bill is the last day of this month. I had made a note, before the Minister said it, that Wendy Williams herself talked about the importance of not rushing the change, but I think we can look forward to the review before—albeit immediately before—we start on Report. I accept of course that changing a culture, like redirecting an oil tanker, is a long process. Indeed, changing culture is something that should go on and on; it is necessary that it should always be a current issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, talked about the importance of not getting the policy wrong; it is about both policy and practice. The obvious read-across from the experience of the Windrush generation is indeed the documentation, as my noble friend mentioned. Recommendations are good, but they will only be evidenced by actions. As the Minister has just acknowledged, the lessons learned from the unhappy experience of Windrush are transferrable. “Fairness” and “humanity”, she said; those are very good last words for today—they are very good words for always. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, before we proceed to that point, I have a request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to deter the noble Baroness; I think there was a delay in my request getting from here to there. I thank the Minister for answering most of my questions, but could I just push her a bit further? If the review decided that the only way to address the problems created by the hostile/compliant environment would be to reform the legislation, such as right to rent, is it within its power or terms of reference to be able to recommend that kind of legislative reform?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am not being obtuse, but the noble Baroness is talking about hypotheticals. I do not think that that is the case, but perhaps we could speak further about it after Committee.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 30th September 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
14:33 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 262 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Within six months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 are to be enforced.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and I express my warm appreciation for their support. I leave it to others to speak to other amendments in this group.
It is a great pleasure to open the Report stage of this important Bill. I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for her recurrent courtesy and helpfulness and for the full answers that she gave in Committee to most of the technical questions that I posed.
I always believe that enforcement of the law is as important as the laws themselves, so the key question is why the enforcement of UK national Immigration Rules has been so spectacularly unsuccessful for many decades under Governments of all parties. Perhaps surprisingly, it is if anything becoming even less successful. Part of the story is well set out in the Public Accounts Committee report published since the noble Lord, Lord Green, referred to its work in Committee. The PAC is a respected cross-party collection of the brightest and most experienced MPs. It is a devastating report, published as recently as 14 September. I quote from paragraph 4:
“We heard that the Department does not know how many people are living or working in the UK without permission, and the Department admitted its frustration at not knowing this figure.”
Put simply, many people come here for reasons that do not entitle them to enter the country and if they are formally found not to be entitled to be here, the authorities are unsuccessful in removing them in a large proportion of cases. I am referring to tens of thousands of people. Also very disturbing is the gradual increase in numbers coming across the channel in rickety boats and tiny inflatables, dodging the big ships, whenever the weather allows. In 2020 the recorded number is well over 5,000, which is more than double the 2019 figure. As I said in Committee at the beginning of this month, 416 migrants exploited fine weather to make the crossing in one day, arriving all along the south coast. Migrants are risking, and in some cases losing, their lives because the authorities are known to be useless at enforcing the law, and the biggest beneficiaries are the traffickers.
Late legal challenges are also undermining efforts to remove migrants who have no right to remain, with flights that are cancelled and then bad headlines that encourage yet more attempts to enter the UK illegally. The public are bemused. Why cannot we, like the vast majority of countries in the world, implement our own rules effectively? It is a major scandal, though a reader of the parliamentary reports of discussions in this House would need to be very alert to detect it.
My proposal is quite simple. Since the Government—indeed, as I explained, many Governments of different persuasions for a very long time—have not managed to fulfil their obligations satisfactorily in this respect, I suggest that they be put on report, literally. Given the unsatisfactory record, we should not allow matters to dip below the radar. We need to have the facts before us and have a light shone upon them, giving the Government every opportunity to explain regularly how they are making the progress that most of the country wants.
Of course, we all have individual cases where we want to see generous Immigration Rules and enforcement—staff for our businesses or domestic workers, attracting lower wages than we might pay to British equivalents; reliable-looking tenants; or daughters-in-law awaiting visas—but the aggregate is very damaging to the public trust, as we have seen in the north of England. The fact that it is easy to travel across the world very cheaply nowadays attracts many people who want to live and work in the UK. They come because we make people from everywhere welcome in our society; have strong, well-enforced laws on equality and modern slavery; and provide generous education, healthcare and housing for migrants as well as to natives. The pull factor is huge, putting pressure on enforcement and compliance with the law.
We heard in Committee about the work of the Migration Advisory Committee. It produces reports but its prime focus is on the appropriate level of migration from an employer point of view and to improve our labour market. It does not have, and does not see itself as having, a brief to advise on the scale of illegal immigration; nor are its members experts on the level of compliance with Immigration Rules, the effectiveness across the agencies involved, value for money or overall expenditure and resourcing in this important area. I believe that a report could fill that gap. Indeed, the Minister might want to consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in Committee and ask the MAC, from its expert perspective, to recommend improvements to the policing of the immigration system.
Given the awkward history of enforcement, which I have to say goes back to my own time in home affairs at Downing Street in the 1990s, I can well believe that our proposal for a report six months after the passage of the Bill might seem unpalatable to Ministers and their civil servants, who are all trying to do their best. However, I urge them to consider our proposal afresh. The Government publish many reports every year; I agreed to a number of reports in Bills over the years as a Minister, and they are currently being suggested in this House in respect of both trade and agriculture. The requirement need not necessarily be provided in this Bill but a legislative requirement would provide a useful element of parliamentary scrutiny. It would make effective action more likely and help the Secretary of State to do a better job. The report could be repeated subsequently to see how successful measures had been. We would certainly revisit a report of that kind in the private sector, where I have spent many years. I very much look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support this useful and well-timed amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she has so clearly described, enforcement has long been one of the weakest points in our immigration system. Despite that, it has faced an 11% real-terms reduction in its budget since 2015-16. The Home Office says that it
“continually looks for ways to reduce costs, so as to improve efficiency and deliver better value … for taxpayers.”
However, as the noble Baroness mentioned, since our Committee stage the Public Accounts Committee has published its report on immigration enforcement. It pointed out that the returns of those who have no right to be in the UK are “plummeting”. The report also criticises the Home Office for having provided the public with no information at all about the scale of illegal immigration for 15 years and points out that the Home Office
“failed to complete 62% of the returns it planned from immigration detention in 2019, compared to 56% in 2018.”
This may of course reflect the ever more strident behaviour of the legal arm of the immigration lobby, some of whom use late and sometimes spurious asylum claims to frustrate removals. Nevertheless, the performance of the Home Office can hardly be described as “better value for money”. Recent official statistics reveal that the number of failed asylum seekers who are subject to removal has doubled from 20,000 in 2014 to over 40,000 now. Clearly, more resources must be diverted to the task of removal, and those resources must be more efficiently targeted and implemented with determination.
Let me also make this point: it is important that the officials themselves should feel supported by the public, as indeed they are. We should avoid constant negative criticism—I hope that I have not done too much of it—as these officials are carrying out an important and difficult task. They need and deserve to be affirmed. After all, they are following due process and enforcing the rule of law, thus making an important contribution to the order that we cherish as part of our civil society. A report to Parliament on enforcement following up on the PAC report, as proposed in this amendment, would be a valuable next step.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 1, which represents an important piece in the jigsaw of our new immigration system. We have just heard two very hard-hitting and detailed speeches from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Green, about the vital role that enforcement plays and why it is so important that we check it is working effectively. In my few minutes, I want to focus on two aspects: transparency, to which the noble Lord has referred, and in particular fairness. The British public have a great interest in situations being fair, but both aspects will be needed in any enforcement regime that is to command public confidence over the longer term.
First, the present system is not fair to those people who try to come to the country legally. It cannot be right for other people to try to jump the queue with virtual impunity and at their expense. Good behaviour should have a proper reward. Secondly, it is not fair to the people who come here—these new arrivals—who will likely find themselves forced to work for below-standard wages in substandard accommodation, without any of the protections of the British state. It is modern slavery indeed. Thirdly, it is not fair to the British taxpayer who inevitably, in one way or another, usually hidden, has to foot the bill. Finally and most importantly, it is not fair to the members of our settled minority communities. Most but not all of the overstayers will be drawn from the races who make up our minority communities. Those members of our settled population, legally resident here and drawn from minority communities, are working hard to make a new life for themselves—and good luck to them. But they find their collective reputation damaged and undermined by a regime where many people are able to say that the system is not working and that they are somehow to blame.
How large is the problem? As is so often the case in this area, the data is imperfect. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to that fact. I have not been able to find any Home Office assessment of the overall problem since 2005, which would now be very much out of date. However, the Pew Research Center, a well-regarded authority, suggested last year that there may be 1.2 million unauthorised migrants in the country, or about 2% of our population. Noble Lords may point out that those are figures from the world at large, but there are some statistics from the EU. As of 31 March 2020—six months ago—the Home Office reported that 171,000 Bulgarian citizens and 564,000 Romanian citizens had sought settled or pre-settled status in this country. However, other Home Office figures showed that, as of 30 June 2019, nine months earlier, there were supposed to be only 109,000 Bulgarians and 457,000 Romanians officially resident in the country. That is an underreporting of 168,000 from those two countries alone, which of course form part of the EU.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 2 in my name, which takes us in a very different direction to the debate thus far. Amendment 2 has a modest snippet of text: “Leave out Clause 1”. If noble Lords go back to the Bill, they will find that it covers “Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.” This is the point, from the view of your Lordships’ House, at which the freedom of movement that was the birthright for everyone born since 1992, and which their elders have enjoyed since then, is irrevocably wiped out. We have an expectation, as problematic as it sometimes is, that society is advancing and improving. Yet here we are, after 28 years, taking a massive step backwards. I credit the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for noting in Committee how much she personally had benefited from freedom of movement. Many other noble Lords will have similarly benefited, and others have noted it in the House during debate.
As I speak now, I think particularly of the 18 year-olds who are having such a torrid time at university or college or in seeking a job. They have endured all the chaos of A-level and GCSE results and now face losing an escape route—a safety valve—but, above all, an opportunity to roam a continent without restraint, free to study, to work, to live and to love without thought of visa or restriction. That loss should not be allowed to slip quietly into the political darkness.
Much of the focus of the debate around freedom of movement and on the Bill has been on the fate of some 4 million EU citizens in the UK. We will be debating and, I hope, adding some positive changes to the Bill for them later. There is also a rightful focus on the Britons who now face being unable to live in their own country with their European spousal partner and children. I hope your Lordships’ House will also do something about that, but for now I will focus on the Britons affected. We cannot, of course, control what other countries do—by leaving the European Union, we have lost control of that—but we know that in Europe there is a strong tradition of reciprocity. Britons will largely be treated in European states as we treat their citizens here, which is something to think about right through this Bill’s discussions.
Of course, rich people and those with connections will not be anything more than perhaps a little discommoded: if you have enough cash, you can buy a passport from several European countries, and if you have a higher level of earnings or savings, a visa will not be a barrier. Losing freedom of movement is a massive set-back for equality. Over the recent long, weary years of campaigning, I have met many Britons who were not rich and who had not started out with the advantages that many in your Lordships’ House have enjoyed. However, they were able to establish a new life on the continent, with the choice of more than a score of countries before them; all they needed was a sense of adventure—or sometimes desperation—and a few pounds for a cheap coach fare, and they set out. They are some of the 1.2 million Britons who live in the rest of Europe, who will be profoundly affected by the decisions we are making today.
This is all one enormous, careless rush, with fewer than 100 days before the end of the Brexit transition period. In the Committee debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted that the Bill removes
“all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which derive from EU law”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 644.]
I cannot tackle everything, but I want to do everything I can to highlight this great loss. Therefore, I give notice that it is my intention to divide the House, as I indicated in Committee that I would do at this stage. I will ask every Member of your Lordships’ House to be on the record: will you vote to greatly reduce the freedom we all enjoy from January, and probably for decades to come? Will you show your opposition, or will you remain off the record in the face of this massive loss?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 26 in this group, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee will speak to the other amendments in the group. I too am sceptical about the Government’s ability to enforce immigration law in general and the end of free movement in particular. Indeed, as I have previously argued, there is evidence that, rather than “taking back control”, the Government have made the UK border more porous.
At previous stages of this Bill, I have raised the issue of EEA and Swiss nationals, who will continue to be able to enter the UK using airport e-passport gates and who will benefit from visa-free entry to the UK, officially for six months at the end of the transition period, along with the nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA—the so-called B5JSSK countries.
I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting me face to face—a rare treat—along with several officials, who joined us virtually. The point of raising this issue now is to have on the record the fact that the Government’s approach to immigration contains significant loopholes, which are as follows.
First, there will be no digital record of the immigration status of EEA and Swiss nationals, or those of the other B5JSSK countries that I have listed, visiting the UK under the six-month visa-free arrangements. This can be checked—for example, by landlords, in order to fulfil their right-to-rent obligations to ensure that they do not rent property to those who are in the UK illegally. The Government have no plans to change this situation other than an ambition that this will happen at some time in the future.
Secondly, there will be no way of tracking EEA, Swiss or other B5JSSK nationals once they have arrived in the UK, as no information will be recorded as to where they are going to be staying, there will be no stamp in their passport and there will be no way of establishing whether they have left the UK when or before the six-month limit has been reached.
Thirdly, in order to comply with the law—even though there is no way of enforcing it—all an EEA or Swiss national, or a national of one of the other B5JSSK countries, needs to do is take a day trip on the Eurostar to Lille, for example, in order to be legally eligible to stay for another six months. In their UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement, the Government claim that EEA and Swiss nationals should not
“in effect live in the UK by means of repeat or continuous visits.”
However, in reality, there is no way of checking or enforcing this.
Fourthly, with the leeway provided to landlords under the right to rent scheme, landlords can rent a property for up to 12 months to an EEA or Swiss national, or to other B5JSSK nationals—even though they are legally allowed to stay in the country for only six months—without any sanction, civil or criminal. At the end of that period, the landlord can continue to rent the property to the EEA or Swiss national, or to one of these other nationals, provided they produce another ticket, boarding pass, travel booking or
“Any other documentary evidence which establishes the date of arrival in the UK in the last six months.”
Fifthly, the Government cannot provide any details of the electronic travel authorisations, or ETAs, mentioned in the Government’s immigration plans under the heading “The border of the future”, or of how that system will operate. The Government claim that it will
“allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions taken on information obtained at an earlier stage, as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK.”
In the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, the UK could be vulnerable to such individuals entering the UK—without checks or a visa—through the e-passport gates.
Every national of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea or the USA used to hand in a landing card and be questioned by a Border Force officer at the UK border to establish where they were going to stay, how long they were staying and whether they had the means to sustain themselves without working illegally. I am told that about 3,000 US nationals a year used to be turned away at the border, but these individuals can now use the e-passport gates, almost always unchallenged. I understand that the reason the B5JSSK nationals were added to those who could use the e-passport gates was to better manage the queues at the UK border. Allowing people through the UK border more quickly by not checking whether they are entering the UK legitimately does not seem to be “taking back control” of our borders.
From 1 January, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to enter the UK in the same way, even though free movement is supposed to be at an end. Can the Minister please confirm on the record that these loopholes do indeed exist and that there are no immediate plans to close them? Can she also repudiate the explanation offered by a lawyer friend of mine—who, when I discussed this issue with him, described the B5JSSK countries as “white” countries—by explaining how the B5JSSK countries were chosen?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. I first congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the other co-signees of Amendment 1 on identifying what is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. One need only look at the pleas from the county council and local authorities in Kent to see how they have been overrun in recent weeks by the large number of migrants coming in.
I will put a question for my noble friend the Minister to answer in responding to this group of amendments. Presumably, these migrants are counted when they enter reception centres, and so these numbers are available; is it the case that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has actually identified that, and what would be the best way of publicising these figures? One thing that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and others omitted to say was that they are of course bypassing the Covid security measures on self-isolation—although I suppose they are self-isolating in one respect. However, this issue is increasingly of great concern to the wider British public, and it needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for reminding me and the House of my comments, which I stand by. I have travelled widely and have family in Demark who I hope to continue to be able to visit, as I have friends in Belgium and France. On balance, between Amendment 2 and Amendment 26, I prefer Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm that this is indeed the basis on which we will operate after 1 January. Can she go further and confirm that, if I or any individual crosses to another EEA country or Switzerland, we can also go through their EU gates and that this will continue on a reciprocal basis?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I speak as someone who served on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years in another place. The first thing that comes to mind is that the National Audit Office is principally in charge of the investigations there, sometimes prompted by the committee and sometimes by issues that are at the forefront of politicians’ and other parties’ interests. Those reports are always produced when there is a case to be looked at. The reports are taken very seriously and are of great substance. I was particularly pleased—this is the reason I am taking part in the debate on this amendment— to see that there was this PAC report on a subject that is likely to come before your Lordships’ House. That report gives cause for considerable concern—that is probably a huge understatement. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench, for whom I have a great deal of time, and those who are advising her will look at this very seriously. I think they need to go back also to the National Audit Office and look at some of the data, because it cannot all be reproduced in a report.
A couple of other issues come to my mind. My noble friend mentioned the 5,000 boat people. I sat on the Council of Europe for eight years—it is not just a talking shop; it does some valuable work. This is the sort of issue where two countries are involved in something that is not acceptable to either country but nobody has managed to bang the heads of the head of states together to ensure that a solution is found.
I am a great lover of France; for years, I had a mobile home in the south of France and I love going there. But this is not in the interests of France; I know our Prime Minister is pretty busy, but it is time for someone in a very senior position to talk to the Prime Minister of France, so that we can stop these huge numbers. Maybe we will have to take a share of the very small proportion who are genuine asylum seekers but, for the rest, an answer has to be found.
As the House knows, I also specialise in south Asia. I lived and worked there for a number of years and—dare I mention?—I have written a book about Sri Lanka. There is a problem about asylum seeking from not only Sri Lanka but other parts of south Asia. Self-harming is not something that many people in the Chamber or elsewhere know too much about, but it is not as unusual in south Asia and south-east Asia as it would be in the western world. Self-harming is then transcribed into “torture”, so when the individual presents themselves as an asylum seeker here, with an analysis from a UK doctor who of course has no idea about self-harming, it is pretty strong evidence that there has been torture—but there has not; there has been self-harming. That is something people should be particularly alert about.
We are being prompted daily to have an app on this and an app on that—track and trace is now the issue of the day. I do not know whether this happens, but it occurs to me that, given that the one piece of luggage that most migrants have with them is a mobile phone—or someone within their group has a mobile phone—those going into the reception area should have a track and trace system of their whereabouts, for a limited period, on some sort of app.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with particular interest. He has put some genuine questions that I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will take away, if she is not able to answer them today. There is clearly something not right in the areas that he has picked up.
I spent a great many hours recently on the Agriculture Bill, which has a section dealing with temporary agricultural workers. It is a fact that, in the UK at this point in time, there is not enough part-time or spare labour and ability in agricultural matters to bring in the harvest, particularly in Lincolnshire and the surrounding counties. I come from Bedfordshire; we are on the fringe, but there is a great deal of horticulture. We must not have another harvest next spring where we in the UK are short of people to harvest the crops. I just want to put that on the record.
Finally, as some will know, I am a former RAF pilot and still take a great interest in aviation. I unearthed, some years ago now, a manoeuvre that was being done with light aircraft out of small airports; they were basically flying out of the UK and, on the flight plan, there was no requirement to record who the people on the aircraft really were. Even where the people were recorded, there was no checking done on the way back as to whether the number who went out came back, whether they were the same people, or even whether they went back to the original airport they had started from. I still believe that that is a problem and should be looked at.
This is an important amendment. I am sorry to get a little technical, but the amendment says, “within six months”. Having sat in the Chair down the other end, I would have to say that “within six months” suggests less than six months, and what I think my noble friend will be pushing for is that it should be done at six months or immediately after six months. If I am right, I hope that the Minister can ensure that that minor change can be implemented. I wish my noble friend all success with this very important amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I confess to being slightly surprised by some of the comments in favour of Amendment 1; I am speaking against Amendment 1 and very strongly in support of Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett.
This is no time to be xenophobic and exclusionary. To suggest that the majority of migrants come over here on the basis of greed is to ignore the fact that the vast majority come over here to find a place of safety, not just for themselves but for their children. They come over here because they are absolutely desperate. Who would face that sort of crossing in a rickety boat if they did not have to? It is worth reminding your Lordships’ House that some of the forebears of your Lordships benefited, as refugees, from the welcome that Britain extended to them.
When we look at these migrants, we have to accept that we bear some of the blame for their situation. It is not as simple as saying that it all happens abroad and we bear no responsibility. We sell arms to repressive regimes and we have to understand that that has consequences. We also use far more of our share of the earth’s resources, which means that other places have less than their share, which creates environmental refugees. We also meddle in other people’s wars. We do not have to go to war in far-flung places—we should be making sure that the world is a more secure place.
I benefited hugely from freedom of movement when I was young, and I would like my children to do the same, as well as the thousands of other young people who are reaching the age when they want to travel, visit other places and learn about other cultures. It is unfair that we ban this opportunity for young people, when we had it ourselves.
Finally on Amendment 1, as I have said and will never tire of repeating in your Lordships’ House, ending freedom of movement is not the will of the people. You cannot assume that, because people voted for Brexit, they voted to end the freedom of movement. I and many others from the left voted for Brexit, but we did not vote to finish off freedom of movement. So, please, no more stuff about it being the will of the people; it absolutely is not.
On Amendment 2, we should see this as an opportunity to show the Government and the people of Britain that ending freedom of movement is not desirable but something extremely undesirable. I, for one, will be voting for the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, says that enforcement of immigration laws and regulations has been very weak. I say yes and no to that. Much could be said about evidence of torture and the age of young asylum seekers and so on; I do not want to get into that, nor the issue of which communities produce, as it were, the largest number of people here without authorisation.
From these Benches, we have long made the point that information is lacking. Information is basic to enforcement and we need that first and foremost. We need to know who arrives and who leaves. As I have understood it for a long time, including from speeches made by former Home Secretaries, the largest number of people who are here without leave are overstayers.
I said “yes and no” to the proposition about the weakness of enforcement. We believe it is important to have clear rules that are enforced; both are important for public confidence, as has been said. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s explanation of a loophole he has identified and pursued with enormous determination is a clear example of why both rules and enforcement are important. But it is the rules themselves that need to command confidence first, and we say they need to be sensible, clear and compassionate.
What has been enforced with enthusiasm are activities like “go home” vans and getting people such as landlords and employers to do the enforcing. What is published with enthusiasm are rules that are pretty much impenetrable—sometimes to those faced with interpreting them and almost always to those directly affected. The Minister said in Committee that the Government were
“actively exploring legislative options to ensure … enforcement … can be tightened up.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 573.]
I thought it sounded ominous, but I am sure she will take the opportunity today to explain what the Government are proposing. I hope she can be clear now, and whenever those options may come before us, about the facts, without going straight to assumptions about who is here without authorisation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 1 calls for a report to be laid before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 to the Bill are to be enforced. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords have expressed concerns about the level and extent of immigration enforcement. I agree that proper, responsible enforcement is essential and that people need to have confidence in the immigration system.
Coming at it from a slightly different angle, we have seen the consequences of poor enforcement—from a broken detention system which can hold indefinitely people who have suffered abuse, while failing to deport criminals, to the Windrush scandal, in which law-abiding citizens had their lives shattered by an unacceptable Home Office culture. I, too, await with interest the Government’s response to this amendment.
On Amendment 26, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his explanation of the purpose and reasoning behind it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in the light of the noble Lord’s meeting with the Minister.
Amendment 2, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would remove from the Bill Clause 1, which repeals the main retained EU law relating to free movement. I will say it: the amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment, since the overriding purpose of this Bill is to end rights to free movement. It would rerun the argument over the basic premise of the Bill.
The primary role of your Lordships’ House is as a revising Chamber. It is not for us to vote down the clause that is central to the purpose of this Bill, whatever our individual views. Our focus today is on a number of vital issues on which we can apply pressure, and on attempting to make concrete changes to the Bill which, if this House agrees to them, the Commons would give serious consideration to and might even support. We have to be realistic about the changes we can make to this legislation. I note the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said she would be voting for Amendment 2. If it is put to a vote, we will not support it but abstain.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing back her amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, about how the repeal of EU law relating to free movement set out in Schedule 1 will be enforced. I strongly support the premise of the amendment, but I hope I will be able to explain why it is not necessary to divide the House.
The premise of the amendment is particularly important in a post-Brexit era. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I assure noble Lords that the Home Office will be updating its published enforcement policy with particular regard to EEA citizens and their family members who, having arrived here after the end of the transition period, from January 2021, must have leave to enter or remain. She pressed me on the legislative options. She will understand that I cannot pre-empt these, but I am sure they will become clear in due course
The guidance will make it clear to immigration enforcement officers that no enforcement action should be taken in respect of those EEA citizens who can apply for the EU settlement scheme until the deadline of 30 June 2021. This includes while an application is outstanding after that deadline and pending the outcome of any appeal if the decision is to refuse status under the EU settlement scheme. Instead, officers should encourage EEA citizens to apply during the grace period. We have given a clear commitment that, where EEA citizens and their family members have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. The Government will publish guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline in early 2021, as I articulated previously.
As I set out during our earlier debate on this amendment, we are now moving towards having a level playing field for EEA and non-EEA citizens, where they will be treated equally and will be covered by the same published guidance regarding the application of sanctions and enforcement measures if these are relevant. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has previously said that she wants to see robust enforcement and highlighted a number of practical suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I hope I can provide at least some assurances in these areas.
Enforcing the UK’s immigration laws is critical to a functioning immigration system and effectively implementing the Government’s policies. Tackling illegal working, targeting those in the country illegally and removing dangerous foreign criminals is an absolute priority. The fall in returns in the latest year was largely due to very few returns in the last quarter because of Covid. In addition, the Home Office has been operating against an increasingly challenging legal landscape in recent years, which the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, referred to. In some cases, this has constrained its ability to return individuals, and this has been coupled with a noticeable increase in levels of abuse designed to delay and frustrate our processes, reducing the removals achieved.
In term of performance on deporting foreign criminals, more than 55,000 have been returned since 2010. To pick up on my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point about returns from the EU, of the 3,791 foreign national offenders—FNOs—returned from the UK in the year ending June 2020, two-thirds were EU nationals. We will also pursue action rigorously against individuals living in the community, actively monitoring and managing cases through the legal processes and negotiating barriers to removal. Despite logistical issues with flights in the current pandemic, the Home Office will continue to take these forward with routes currently available, and as further routes return.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, made suggestions in Committee about illegal migrants destroying their documents and linking the issuing of visas to countries readmitting their own citizens. Visas are a border and national security tool. The UK keeps its visa system under regular review. Decisions on changes are always taken in the round and reflect key facets of the bilateral relationship with the country concerned. These will vary globally, but often include security, compliance, returns and prosperity. On his point about restoring the detained fast-track system for some asylum claims, unfortunately this process had to be suspended following a finding by the courts that the fast-track procedure rules were unlawful. However, we continue to explore options on tightening up key elements of our immigration system, including around asylum, appeals and enforcement.
Finally, the noble Lord mentioned the difficulty of preventing EU visitors and non-visa nationals working while in this country. Illegal working, as noble Lords will know, is a key driver of illegal migration; it encourages people to break our immigration laws and provides the practical means for migrants to remain in the UK unlawfully. This encourages people to take risks by putting their lives in the hands of unscrupulous people smugglers; it leaves them vulnerable to exploitative employers and results in businesses that are not playing by the rules undercutting legitimate businesses that are. It also negatively impacts on the wages of lawful workers and is linked to other labour market abuses such as tax evasion, breach of the national minimum wage and exploitative working conditions—including, of course, modern slavery in the most serious cases.
Immigration enforcement teams take the threat of illegal working extremely seriously and work with employers to deny illegal workers access to jobs by making it straightforward to check a worker’s status and entitlement as well as providing a range of charged-for training and advisory services. Where employers do not follow the rules, we will apply a range of sanctions, from civil penalties to closure notices and, ultimately, the prosecution of criminal offences.
Turning to specific questions, a number of noble Lords mentioned the PAC report. We will, of course, respond to that in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, unsurprisingly referred to our meeting and the issue of e-gates. People cannot use repeat visits to live here legally and obtain the same rights as residents to work and obtain benefits. He talked about visitors repeatedly passing through e-gates after 31 December 2020. Those who do not have another form of UK status may be granted six months leave to enter but will not be able, as I say, to work or access benefits and services. They will, of course, be expected to leave the UK or extend their stay before their leave to enter expires, and they may, as I said, face enforcement or removal if they do not. Any EEA national arriving to work or study will need to apply under our new system and obtain prior permission, just like any other non-visa nationals. Without such permission, they will not be able to demonstrate their entitlement to remain in the UK for anything other than a visit.
We had what I thought was a very constructive conversation about how people might be currently trying to game the system, and about what the situation might be beyond January 2021. He asked me how the B5JSSK countries were chosen. There was an assessment of factors, including volumes and security and the issue was debated in both Houses. He also made the point that the countries were all white countries. Japan, Singapore and South Korea may not be, but I do not know how he defines “white”. I will leave it at that, since it is a subjective matter.
I will repeat that a parliamentary report on enforcement, as required by this amendment, is unnecessary because policy guidance on enforcement is already published. I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it has been a full and fair debate, with compelling contributions from my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. My noble friend Lady McIntosh added to the richness of the discussion with her experience in Kent and her concern about Covid from those coming to this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly argued that information is often lacking and sought clear, well-communicated rules, which is all part of enforcement—we are on common ground there. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gave us further reasons why looking at what has happened and reporting on enforcement can be extremely useful in many different areas.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, because of his expertise and experience; I noted that he was also sceptical about the Government’s ability to enforce the law. He has a good point about automated gates and the need for ID for landlords—I have a minor interest there that I should probably declare. The world is changing, with digital rightly replacing paper-based solutions more and more, so work in this area must be progressed. I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees that work on digital ID and biometrics, which is being done by the Home Office and DCMS, can help in making a simple, clear, well-observed immigration system—as well as in liquor licensing, which is where we last discussed it.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her careful replies on the specific issues we have all raised. I am sure we will all look at them very carefully. I agree with my noble friend Lord Naseby that the PAC’s disturbing report should be listened to and acted on. So I hope that a report on immigration enforcement of the kind we have proposed can be initiated. Putting those who need to improve on report can be very effective.
However, I feel that the issues have been well aired today and I do not propose to press my amendment. I support this Bill and feel that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would drive a coach and horses through it. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, it could be regarded as a wrecking amendment. I will therefore vote against Amendment 2 if the House divides. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I wish to move this amendment formally. We are in unprecedented political times. We are racing towards a disastrous year of chaos, confusion and disruption as a result of the ending of the Brexit transition and the continuing pandemic. I have listened very carefully to the debate—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness just has to move her amendment formally, which I believe she has done.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I shall now put the Question. We have heard Members taking part remotely saying that they wish to divide the House on this amendment, and I will take that into account.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or the other amendment in this group, to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Rosser
“Impact of section 1 on the social care sector
(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of section 1, and Schedule 1, on the social care sector within six months of this Act being passed.(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent Chair to conduct the assessment.(3) The assessment must consider the impact of provisions in section 1, and Schedule 1, on—(a) the social care workforce;(b) available visa routes for social care workers;(c) long-term consequences for workforce recruitment, training and employee terms and conditions; and(d) such other relevant matters as the independent Chair deems appropriate.(4) A copy of the independent assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days of its publishing date.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent report on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector, including the impact on the workforce (such as skills shortages), visa options for social care workers, and long-term consequences for recruitment, training and terms and conditions for staff.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 3 is similar to that moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent assessment on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector, including the impact on the workforce—such as skills shortages—visa options for social care workers, and long-term consequences for recruitment, training and staff terms and conditions. The independent assessment must be published within six months of the Bill being passed and laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of its publishing date.
In Committee, there was little disagreement over the current state of the social care sector: low-paid, undervalued and skilled work; a very high staff turnover rate of over 30%; well over 100,000 vacancies; and some 20% of the workforce being from other countries, including the EU, with that source of staff about to be closed down in three months’ time as a result of the advent of the points-based immigration system and the overwhelming majority of care staff not being eligible for the health and social care visa. There was, I think, a large measure of agreement too that the sector needed to place greater emphasis on training and increased professionalism, and that not everyone in the labour market would have the necessary aptitude and attitude to meet successfully the demands and requirements of care work.
The Government rejected the very similar amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, not on the basis that an inquiry into the social care sector was not needed but on the basis that a mechanism already existed that kept the social care sector under review. The Government, through the Minister, said:
“I very much agree that it is essential that policies are kept under review, particularly when the Government are introducing a new, points-based immigration system from January. Independent scrutiny and review are a good thing, but I am not sure that we need to legislate to provide a whole new mechanism.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 608.]
The Minister then went on to say that the Migration Advisory Committee had been in existence for some years, and that noble Lords should be in no doubt about the close interest that it took in the health and social care sector. It is true that the MAC reports on the social care sector. Indeed, in a wide-ranging—I think 650-page—report yesterday on the shortage occupation list, covering numerous sectors, it again expressed concern about the social care sector and argued that if the necessary domestic funding increase and pay increases it has been calling for, in its own words, “for some years” did not now materialise in a timely manner, it
“would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector, something that would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the Covid-19 pandemic frontline response.”
The MAC also said that a potential rise in labour supply to the care sector as a result of UK job losses elsewhere cannot be “predicted with any certainty”. This Bill makes an immense change to our immigration system, which will have a significant effect on our already understaffed and underresourced social care sector at the same time as we are going through a global pandemic. Our care sector has always been vital; now it is part of our front line. We need more than the regular reporting mechanisms. This amendment would provide for that much-needed specialist, timely and targeted review of social care—of workforce numbers, the impact of the Government’s decision not to include many care workers in the health and care visa, and what this all means for future planning for the sector at this crucial time, including terms and conditions and training for a talented, caring workforce.
The Government have already made the decision to change the immigration system and have said that they want to see competitive terms and conditions in the sector and not have people on the minimum wage. The Government have also said they want the right number of people to meet increasing demands with the right skills, knowledge and behaviours to deliver quality compassionate care. Those are very commendable objectives, and a recognition from the Government that they are, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said in Committee, the main funder and regulator and set the whole context in which the sector operates.
With the Government having decided that this low-paid, undervalued but skilled sector, with its enormous turnover of staff and vacancies running well into six figures, is now to face, on top of that, a significant source of labour being closed down in just three months’ time, social care faces a potential perfect storm. With social care facing such an unprecedented situation, now is the time for a fresh set of eyes to make an expert assessment of the impact of the end of free movement on a sector that already has existing significant problems of pay, conditions, turnover and training that need to be addressed if ever-increasing demands for social care are to be met. We need an assessment that has a major input from people who have expertise in, and specialist knowledge of, the field of social care, and can bring a fresh perspective to bear on a sector whose existing, as well as pending, problems will have to be addressed if the Government’s goals of a better paid, more highly trained and professional workforce with much lower turnover rates than at present is to be achieved.
The amendment does not ask for too much; it does not pre-emptively write the Government’s policy for them but merely asks for a timely, thorough and independent analysis of how to support our care sector and its staff and enable it to achieve the goals set in the light of the impact of the provisions of this Bill. It will help to prevent the issue of the state of our care sector being yet again kicked into the long grass. How many times in the past decade have we been promised a plan for the social care sector that has failed to materialise? This Bill is a crucial moment, and we should use it wisely. The amendment also has support from the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing. We do not want to find ourselves in a few years’ time with a social care sector that has not progressed from its present state following the imminent change in the immigration system. We need to act now, which is why the fresh independent assessment called for in Amendment 3 is needed.
In moving this amendment, I have to say that, if the Government’s response is similar to their response in Committee to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I shall seek a Division. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 30 is along the lines of Amendment 3, but tougher and more radical. I would love to know that there is some support for it, but I think Amendment 3 will edge it. However, this amendment has huge support, and I thank the people from the Scottish National Party, who on a point of principle do not take their seats in the House of Lords—or what seats they might be offered. They have done all the work in getting together a huge variety of people, including RNIB Scotland, UNISON, Macmillan Cancer Support, Disability Wales, the Church of Scotland and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. I could go on: more than 40 organisations and NGOs support this amendment.
An absolutely crucial point, which the Minister did not tackle when I presented this amendment in Committee, was that this proposal draws in all four nations. That is something that Amendment 3, I am afraid, does not mention. My amendment would probably enable the Government to have much more support for their work; it would strengthen buy-in from stakeholders across the four nations and increase the status and profile of the evaluation.
Many of the points I wanted to make have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, very eloquently, but many bear repeating. The Government are closing their eyes to a potential problem. My key concern is about the health and social care workforce. The organisations that have contributed to this amendment are aware that some health and social care organisations rely heavily on workers from other parts of the EU and cannot continue in their present form without support. If they are allowed to fail, other parts of the health and social care system will be needed to fill those gaps.
On efficiency and effectiveness, research carried out by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland in communities across Scotland highlighted that people who use support and services have concerns about their future availability. That means that with the health and social care system already creaking, combined with an elderly workforce, some people will have to try to find their own ways to minimise any negative repercussions as a result of changes accruing from leaving the EU. Then there is the adequacy of public funding for the health and social care sectors. The alliance’s report raised major concerns about the impact of Brexit and the potential loss of EU funding in health and social care in Scotland, particularly to third-sector organisations, which have a key role in the provision of health and social care services. Any loss of funding will place a further strain on that whole sector, and it seems that the Government are not acknowledging that it will be a problem.
I would therefore like the Minister to answer my point that my amendment would create buy-in from the four nations, which the Government seem to be ignoring at the moment. Also, it is quite possible that without the extra workforce that we currently get through people coming from other countries, the whole system could start to fail. Are the Government prepared to put enough money into it to make sure that it does not fail and let down all the people who care about this service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Rosser for adopting many of the terms of my amendment in Committee and for the eloquent way in which he introduced his amendment.
No one could doubt that social care is under pressure. The social care workforce is already facing a crisis, with more than 120,000 vacancies. According to our House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, in 2018, 1.4 million older people in England had an unmet care need. The committee found that publicly funded social care support is shrinking, as diminishing budgets have forced local authorities to limit the number of people who receive public social care.
We are in a vicious cycle: after decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need in our care system increases; the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger; the supply of care providers diminishes; and the strain on the care workforce continues. That is even without considering the impact of Covid, which has been huge, and before the new immigration controls come in at the end of the year.
I therefore remain bemused by the decision of the Home Office to exclude the great majority of care workers from the new health and care visa as a result of them not meeting either the income or the skills thresholds that have been set. My noble friend Lord Rosser mentioned the Minister’s comments at Second Reading. She has justified this by the need for employers to end what she described as “the easy option” of using migrant labour to undercut our own workforce “for far too long”. She also pointed to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, which has maintained that the problems in this sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions, in itself caused by a failure to have a sustainable funding model—although as my noble friend Lord Rosser today suggested, the committee’s latest report clearly shows that it is now developing a rather more nuanced position. I wonder why. In Committee, the Minister went further. She said:
“If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, ‘Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage,’ first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with and, secondly, it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 610.]
I do not need reminding of how important skilled care workers’ jobs are. Of course I want more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage, but as my noble friend Lord Rosser said in Committee, you will not solve the care sector’s problems by suddenly snapping off its ability to recruit staff from abroad from the end of the year; all you will do is tip it into an even bigger crisis than it is in.
The Minister has never responded to the central point of my argument, which is that the major fault for the problem has to be laid at the Government’s door. This is a government-controlled sector. The Government are the main funder and regulator. They set the whole context in which the sector operates. They have had countless reviews, but refuse to come up with any solution. There is no sign of the long-promised Green Paper. Mencap said today that the sector needs a credible, well-thought-out and properly funded care workforce plan to create and maintain a sustainable social care workforce—I agree with that.
I want to come back to the Minister, because if she is saying that staff should pay more, I agree, but is she going to will the means? Will she commit to increase support to local authorities? What about self-funders? Does she think they should pay more? At Second Reading, I think, I pointed out that if you took the current lifetime pension allowance of just over £1 million and bought an annuity with it at age 60, you would not be able to cover the average nursing home fees. So can the Minister tell me whether the Chancellor is going to raise the lifetime pension allowance?
If the Home Office is convinced that the woes of the sector are entirely down to the sector itself, let it produce the evidence. Let the Minister agree to a rapid review of the funding of the care sector and the impact of Clause 1 in shutting off an extremely valuable source of labour for this important but vulnerable part of our society.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The greatest risk identified for health and social care in the House of Lords report The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care was the need for long-term funding arrangements for social care and, importantly, for an appropriately trained workforce for the NHS and social care. As far as social care is concerned, the Government have not addressed either, and more than three years have passed since the publication of the report. The result is that more care homes are closed and there is a massive shortage of care home staff, as has already been mentioned.
As a nation, we are getting to a point where “shameful” is the only word that can describe our failure to look after our old and frail. The pandemic has brought hardship and pain to all our citizens, but the elderly in our care homes have paid a heavy price: 30,500 excess deaths among care home residents and 4,400 more among those receiving care at home. We have failed them in many ways. We have exposed them to greater risk from the virus, we did not protect the few staff looking after them and we did not recognise their increased risk from the virus. It seems that the only people who stood by them were nurses and poorly paid care staff, the majority of whom are from overseas.
ONS figures show that social care workers are at highest risk of Covid-19 mortality. Shamefully, the United Kingdom ranks number two in the world, after Russia, for the number of deaths among healthcare workers, and the majority of them worked in social care. Some of the poorly paid and so-called unskilled paid with their lives. Many of them were not citizens of our country. We saw on our televisions poorly paid staff, many from European and other countries, working in crowded nursing homes and living in tents in the back gardens of nursing homes so that they could isolate and protect our elderly and vulnerable, who were also isolated from their families and friends.
It is estimated that we have a shortfall of approximately 122,000 care workers. So what are we saying to these dedicated, hard-working people who want to come and willingly look after our most vulnerable? We are saying, “When your visa runs out, we want you to go back to where you came from. We don’t want any more of you to come. You will not meet the unrealistic criteria we set for salaries, and the visa and health charges will be unaffordable for you as these are now our new rules. Besides, we are going to have mass unemployment, and we are going to ask all those unemployed to staff our care homes and look after our elderly. We don’t recognise that it is a task that requires some skills, compassion and a caring attitude or a feeling of vocation, as you do.”
It is time for the Home Office to review the current proposals, which do not provide a migratory route for care workers. This is a modest amendment, in that it asks for a review. All it asks is that the Government produce evidence of the impact of the legislation on the social care workforce and social care. I strongly support it, and I hope that many others will do so. It is about people whom we need—those who want the opportunity to provide compassionate care for the elderly and the frail.
I know that my namesake leads the Home Office, and we know each other, but I say to her, “Priti, on this occasion, I do not agree with you”.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 3. First, I draw attention to my interest, as recorded in the register, of receiving support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
In Committee, I spoke to an amendment that would facilitate the immigration of highly skilled people who had been forcibly displaced by war or persecution. I am glad that the Government have responded positively to that proposal, which others in this place spoke in support of.
I thank the Minister for the helpful and productive meeting that I had with her and her colleague, the Immigration Minister. I was joined by Talent Beyond Boundaries and Fragomen. I hope that she will be willing to place on the record today the Government’s commitment to developing a pilot for health workers, possibly in the education and business sectors. I and others here who are interested will be keen for her to update the House on progress in due course. Following that positive meeting and the promises made at it, I have not pressed the amendment that I tabled in Committee because of the Government’s constructive willingness to further develop the proposal, which applies to the health and social care area.
The Government, rightly, are keen to welcome those who wish to come here with the skills to support themselves and whom businesses in the UK are ready to employ. I am therefore puzzled that social care seems not to receive the attention in immigration policy that it should.
We all know that the average pay of care workers is not high. Indeed, the figures that I have seen suggest that it is typically around £17,000 per annum. This means that such workers will not qualify for a work visa, even with a reduced salary threshold. I know that the Government wish to encourage employers to increase salaries and train domestic workers, rather than allow migration to be used as a shortcut or cost-saving measure. That is welcome, although of course it will require the Minister and her colleagues to have stern conversations with their colleagues in other departments about the necessity for a better-funded care system. Such a system will also need radically better joint working between health and social care, as highlighted, for example, in the 2016 King’s Fund report, Supporting Integration Through New Roles and Working Across Boundaries.
The Migration Advisory Committee is surely right that over the long term the solution to our care crisis lies in raising wages to attract more domestic workers, rather than using migrant workers to plug the gap. Nevertheless, the MAC was also surely right to point out this week that the cliff edge of ending free movement in the middle of a global pandemic, in which care workers are very much on the front line of safeguarding our most vulnerable neighbours, friends and family, will very much increase the pressure on the system, as the MAC puts it.
Those of us who support the amendment hardly support low wages for key workers—far from it. I believe strongly in a real living wage above the national minimum wage and in care workers being appropriately recognised and rewarded for their vital work. We are concerned that the blunt treatment of social care in the new immigration system poses significant systemic problems that could include staff shortages. The impact of those shortages will be felt by the most vulnerable in our society who rely on social care. They deserve better than “fingers crossed”, which is, I am afraid, the impression that we are left with of the current approach.
I am not unused to working within institutions with byzantine processes—I am a bishop of the Church of England, for goodness’ sake, as well as in this place. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the Government’s desire to simplify the immigration system and to resist a proliferation of special routes for particular circumstances, yet simplification is not a virtue if it becomes inflexibility or bluntness in the application of rules that will exclude from coming to the UK the very people our care sector most urgently requires. The creation of a health and care visa has, of course, been welcome news, but I know that my puzzlement that social care appears not to be adequately included is shared by others.
The amendment strikes me as modest but important. It places on the Government merely a duty to publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social are sector. Since international workers account for one-sixth of care workers in England, we would have to be dangerously incurious not to want to know the impact that the biggest change in immigration policy in a generation has on a sector that cares for the most vulnerable among us. Such reports as we have had already from the MAC and others only confirm that there is a knotty problem still to unravel in this tangle of issues about chronic low pay and an unnecessary reliance on skilled migrant carers. I will therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He, like others, made a very comprehensive speech in defence of the arguments for the maintenance of the social care sector. If we as human beings applauded, as we did earlier this year, this sector, which is central in our fight against Covid-19, then the Government and all of us acting together in Parliament should show due recognition of it and support this amendment. It would allow a report to be carried out within six months of the Bill being passed showing the impact of the ending of free movement and the non-accessibility of visas for care workers on that sector and on our healthcare system.
I have had many letters from those involved in the caring profession, who want us to support this amendment. It is vital and is supported by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. At Second Reading, I said that this legislation ends the free movement of citizens from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland to the UK. Many in our social care sector come from those countries. They provide an invaluable service with care, compassion, hard work and diligence to a large range of people who are deeply unwell. That work has become particularly acute during our ongoing Covid crisis. At a stroke, the decision to end free movement diminishes the UK. Not only does it break family ties and damage our economy but it creates huge obstacles for employers and degrades international research, co-operation and understanding. It also derails our social care sector.
Social care is already under pressure not only because of Covid but because of rising waiting lists for health and medical care in the health service. If people are not allowed to remain and are no longer employed in the National Health Service, which we cherish, that will place it under a tremendous burden. We should try to remove that burden, so I make a special plea to the Minister to accept the amendment and ensure that a report is made available within six months of the passing of this legislation. Perhaps for the first time, we will be able to see, in statistical data, the contribution made by these people and by our social care sector, as well as the deficits in the sector where the Government need to plug the holes.
If the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who I believe is already of this mind, decides to push the amendment to a Division, I will support him.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 3, I congratulate the movers. However, I hope that the Government will realise that we are now in a social care crisis and that we should face up to the challenges now. There is a serious shortage of live-in carers to help disabled people, due to the combination of coronavirus and Brexit. Good social care takes the pressure off the NHS.
Many elderly and disabled people are at serious risk because they have had their benefits cut. Coupled with shrinking local authority budgets, the workforce is under pressure exactly when it is needed most. Also, the vast proportion of migrant employees in social care will be ineligible to work in the UK ,as most care workers’ earnings do not meet the threshold for the new skilled visa, as has been mentioned several times.
I wish Amendment 3 good luck.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I was not able to take part in Committee because of the all-consuming HS2 Committee, along with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who I see is in his place. However, I sat in on part of the debate and heard the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, a very formidable pair when they debate these issues. It is rather like facing Federer and Djokovic at the same time, because of their very stringent remarks. In a conversation outside the Chamber, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that from what I had heard, I thought that he rather had a point. We all know where we want to be with social care. We want a well-paid and well-motivated workforce. We all know, sadly, where we are, and as he said in his previous remarks and repeated today, it is a question of the transition, of how we get from where we are to where we want to be.
Two things have happened since the previous debate. First, we had a report yesterday from the Migration Advisory Committee, which, as I am sure that the Minister will say when she winds up, is particularly concerned by the problem we face of a sudden end to the situation we are facing today, a precipice, before we reach any better solution. Incidentally, the MAC’s report covers 650 pages; I hope that when the Home Office look at some of these reports it cuts down the bulk. I do not know whether Ministers read all these reports, but it has become pretty much impossible. We are almost beyond despair when we see such a bulky product.
The second thing to have happened since the previous debate is the Chancellor’s Statement last Thursday. He flagged up in detail the situation which we all have been facing regarding unemployment, and finally put some numbers on it, pointing out that with the withdrawal of the very supportive job system that he has at the moment, we may well be looking at an additional 2 million unemployed people. At the moment, there are an estimated 122,000 vacancies in the social care sector, but surely it is not beyond the wit of God to find among those 2 million people some who might help in the social care sector. Indeed, it is likely that they will be exactly the sort of people who could care for people—they are people from the retail sector and from the hospitality sector. Some of them may not have exactly the right aptitudes and attitudes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said—a nightclub bouncer might not be exactly the right person to go into the social care sector—but many will have exactly the human skills that we are looking for. If you cannot find 122,000 people from that additional 2 million unemployed, you really are not trying.
It is fair to say that many of the companies in this area who manage the care homes are a motley crew. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in the previous debate, made the point that many of the private equity companies got into this area and—sad to say—piled up debt on many of these companies and have sought a way out without too much care for the social consequences or the effect on their clients. That is a fair point, which I am worried about as well, but there are also many good companies in this area, trying to do good work, who really care about their clients and are trying to find a way forward. Therefore, we should give them the opportunity of recruiting from among those British people who may become unemployed.
As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that this is a sector that overall is controlled by the Government, that is fair, but none the less the Government are providing £1.5 billion of extra money for the sector through additional local authority subvention. There is also the Skills for Care programme, which is ongoing. This all indicates that there may be additional support for a company which is trying to do the right thing.
The MAC also said in its report that immigration is not the answer in the long term, and I do not think it should be. It highlights that, all too often, we have looked at recruitment difficulties and said that we must import from abroad, rather than looking at it the other way around, at what the problems are and how we can recruit, train and pay properly the people in this country before we look abroad. Indeed, I had the advantage of a personal chat about this with Professor Bell, the new chair of the MAC, and he made a very interesting point. He said that, in other countries with an equivalent of the Migration Advisory Committee, its reports do not just go to the Home Office, as they do here, but in the first instance to the education, business and health departments, with the implication “What are you doing to solve the problems of recruitment yourselves, before we even consider going abroad for further support?” Traditionally, we have too easily looked at this the wrong way around.
Mention has been made of the British Medical Association’s briefing, which we have all seen today. Once again, it makes the same mistake by talking about how we must import people to help with the obvious problems of recruitment in various sectors, from doctors and nurses to social care workers, but there are two remarkable omissions in that briefing. First, there is no mention of manpower planning in the NHS. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out in a previous debate on this subject, 43% of those who apply for a nursing course are turned away. I cannot believe that 43% of those who apply are inadequate for the job, but they are being turned away for some reason. Equally, we do not know the situation with doctors, where there are similar figures. But, none the less, we should look at manpower planning as a whole in the NHS sector.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very thoughtful and interesting contribution. I agreed with some of it, in particular the accolades paid to my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Hunt. They made such excellent speeches that I can be brief, given that many Members wish to speak today, and I have some sympathy for both Front Benches regarding the length of our sessions at the moment, not least on this Bill. However, I want to draw attention to one or two of the issues that have arisen.
Mention has been made a number of times of the Migration Advisory Committee. I heard Professor Bell on the radio yesterday making the perfectly reasonable case that, as my noble friend Lord Rosser excellently pointed out, it is important that care workers be paid more and respected more. I am fully in favour of trying to tackle head-on the understaffing, underpaying and undervaluing that currently constitutes the general attitude, despite all the sympathy often exuded towards those working in the care sector. However, Professor Bell eloquently made the point that I want to make: that you can get almost £1 an hour more working in general retail than in residential care, despite the enormous challenges arising during the Covid pandemic, as spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Here is a thought. I have it on the good authority of Professor Bell that, according to the Migration Advisory Committee, which concluded its main survey work in March, the consequences of the pandemic are twofold. First, yes, there will be greater unemployment, and that will be felt differently in different parts of the country and will therefore have a differential impact. I do not expect people to move for £8.70 an hour—which is the average pay in residential care, because that is the minimum wage across the country—given that they could not even afford to pay the rent; that is, if they have not been evicted by the time they get there because the moratorium has been lifted. We therefore have to have some common sense here.
There is no sign of the pay increase that should be taking place now, and the oven-ready deal promised a year ago has not yet emerged from the AGA—when it does, it will probably be grossly undercooked—so we will not have a solution. It is no good Professor Bell —I am very happy to debate him on this—going on the radio or producing a 650-page report saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the Government coughed up the money so that local authorities can pay increased rates?”, and that we should protect ourselves from exploitation. That is not happening. I pay tribute to the noble Lord who has just drawn attention to what I said in Committee about private equity investment in this area.
My noble friend Lord Hunt made the important point that there will be a cut-off point in three months’ time. Yes, of course we should be emphasising this and supporting people to take up jobs in social care. We should be training them properly and giving them a career pathway so that they can see the way ahead. Their career pathway is somewhat blocked at the moment by the fact that, the higher up you go, the more likely the Government are to allow someone from outside the country to come in and take the job. I tried to explain that on a previous occasion, but I do not think I was eloquent enough. I will use this example: you can come in and drive a BMW but you cannot come in to drive an elderly Robin Reliant that has rusted to the point where the brakes do not work and the doors are falling off. That is what happened in social care, as illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. There is death and fear within the sector. You will not cure that in three months, nor persuade other people to move house to take up jobs because they have just been made redundant from quite well-paid employment in areas where they hope to take up training and other opportunities.
I therefore appeal for everybody, including the Migration Advisory Committee, to get real. I appeal to the Minister to go back to government—it is not her fault but that of the Treasury—and say, “In the next three months, we as a Government will not solve this problem. We will not be able to encourage sufficient people to take up these jobs. We know that the turnover rate is massive”—it is even greater than my noble friend Lord Rosser said—“that the vacancies exist and are unattractive, and that some people will be highly unsuitable.” So, for goodness sake, let us have a continuing review. That is all Amendment 3 asks for: to get this right and ensure that the consequences of closing the door to the other 27 members of the European Union on 31 December do not have a disproportionate impact on the care of those we are supposed to care about. This is why this debate is taking place, because of the new situation arising from the way we are treating those from the European Union and the EAA. Were that not to happen, we could have a more rational debate, as appealed for by the previous speaker, on how we adjust to ensure that we are not reliant in key areas —including, apparently, butchery—on drawing in people from across the world. That includes, of course, doctors and nurses, who, under the programme that has been laid out, will be allowed to be recruited into the country.
There are such contradictions and we are in such a cliff-edge position that I have gone on longer than I intended, because the more I think about it, the more passionate I am to ask for a bit of common sense.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 3. Personally, I have quite a lot of sympathy with Amendment 30, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which she referred to as “tougher and more radical”. I voted to remain in the European Union precisely because I recognise the importance of free movement of people. I agreed with virtually every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I shall be brief, because I am aware that we are only on group 2 and the target is to get to group 14 this evening.
The social care system is in crisis. All noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the difficulties that it faces—problems that have been made clear by your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee over the years. The Minister should not have to answer for the social care system. She is not the Minister for Social Care; she is Minister of State in the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is right: the equivalent of the Migration Advisory Committee should report to not just the Home Office but to the Department for Education, the department of health, the Treasury and BEIS because they all need to understand the skills deficits in this country.
The specifics of Amendment 3 are about the social care sector. This Bill is in front of us today because of Brexit but the social care sector is highlighted because of the Covid crisis. Today’s amendment would have been necessary even without six months of a global pandemic, but that pandemic has made clear to everybody both the importance of social care and the huge numbers of EU and third-country nationals in this country looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
It cannot be right to say that those people should not be here and should not be working. We value people being here. Although the noble Lord, Lord Horam, is undoubtedly correct that we need to ensure that British people are adequately skilled, can we really assume that we will suddenly go in the next 14 weeks from no training to saying that someone who is unemployed can take on a job in the care sector that is being vacated by an EU national who has gone home and will not be replaced by another EU national? There might be medium and long-term aspirations for change, but we must accept that the change on 1 January will be immediate.
For that reason, I ask the Government to take this modest amendment very seriously. In her letter to noble Lords earlier today, the Minister referred to Amendments 3 and 30. She stressed that the MAC is a “world-class, independent body” and that it will report. Well, it reported yesterday and expressed its concern about the social care sector. If she cannot give us an answer today, will she come back before Third Reading with some recommendation of how she plans to reconcile her letter to your Lordships, the MAC’s report and the importance of ensuring that, on 1 January, the social care system is not even more vulnerable than it is already? I strongly support Amendment 3.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in particular and Amendment 30. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I want to follow up on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I remind my noble friend the Minister that she will have encountered in her previous life many of the problems that are being rehearsed by noble Lords speaking to Amendment 3. I remember being a local MP. For the first 13 years, I did not have a jobcentre in my constituency; only in the last five years was I able to visit a local jobcentre in my constituency. When we got the figures on unemployment, I always asked for the figures on job vacancies. Inevitably, the majority of them were for social care workers and were the hardest to fill.
I know from personal experience of two care providers for young people requiring social care—there was Leonard Cheshire initially, then Wilf Ward, both of which do marvellous work; I pay tribute to them—that they are unable to match the basic starting salary of someone in a supermarket who may want to come off the current unemployment list to take any job. Stacking shelves in a supermarket is less demanding, less physically onerous and pays more. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister shares my pessimism but I do not foresee a rush of people—who in any event may not be suited to be a carer. The clue is in the name: you have to care, to be incredibly patient and to be quite physically fit. Many will simply not qualify.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser very much for moving this crucial amendment in such a powerful and forceful way. I should declare an interest because my grandson, who is very close to me, took the opportunity of the longer summer break for schools after the public examinations to go and work on the front line in a care home. He is intelligent, perceptive and caring, so I learned a great deal from what he told me.
What troubles me in our considerations is this: just how many of us would have thought of using some of our available time working in a care home? Would the noble Lord, Lord Horam, for example? We expect all sorts of other people to do it but we are not prepared to commit ourselves. Of course, this is also coupled with the extraordinary way in which we are so sentimental about workers in the care sector. We clap our hands and celebrate—I have done it—but where is the recognisable esteem in which we hold these people? We all know that they are grotesquely underpaid. We talk about them and how we will find sufficient numbers and all the rest of it; perhaps we should have at the top of our list proper remuneration for this highly demanding work.
A lot has been said about workers from outside Britain. It was quite insensitive because some of the most dedicated, loving care for those with serious conditions has come from those workers. Why can we not talk about them as people—fellow members of the human race—rather than as immigrants?
The amendment is important because we all know that the past summer—goodness knows what will happen this winter—has demonstrated an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, dedicated staff, against all the odds, have been doing their best in so many places to help those in great need, while we have failed to accord proper status in our social order to the people doing such work. It is surely because we have become a society in which success is regarded as a matter of how much money you make and how quickly you make it, rather than a society in which care, support and service to the community are regarded as of the highest order and significance. We have had a terrible crisis in the care sector this past year. May it not be repeated. Let us look at some of the underlying issues and put them right at once. The amendment will help us to introduce the necessary disciplines if we are to approach issues of this kind.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has clearly passed on to his grandson the importance of contributing to service in its widest sense. I very much agree with his analysis but then I almost always do.
By definition, members of the largest cohort in the social care sector do not fall within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 but are very much affected. They are certainly part of the social care workforce and are impacted by the availability of social care workers employed in the sector. I mean, of course, the many people who support and care for someone older, disabled or seriously ill at home. According to Carers UK, one in eight adults—6.5 million people—are so engaged. The carer’s allowance is around £67 a week. I could go on but I do not get the impression that noble Lords need to be convinced of the importance of the sector, including those who do not have formal, paid-for care at home or in a care home. The informal carers and those for whom they care are impacted as well as those in public or private employment. The number of those in private employment is considerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the NHS.
That is not the only reason we support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Committee, reminded us that there are 115,000 European nationals in the social care workforce, despite high vacancy rates. It is, as other noble Lords, have said, a skilled profession with some skills that cannot be trained into a person and come from one’s personality and often culture, and include physical fitness, as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. At a previous stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that he would have supported similar amendments but for the absence of a reference to training, which is now included in the amendment—rightly so—because training in practical and technical matters is important. However, that does not detract from my observations about personality.
The need for carers will not diminish. My noble friend Lady Barker reminded us, although I do not need reminding, that many of us are ageing and do not have children to shoulder the work—and it is work —done by families, however lovingly. She gave us the figure of 1 million but one should add families with a disabled child, for instance.
Like my noble friend Lady Smith, I have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 30 and many of my comments apply to it. In Committee, the Minister relied on the MAC having licence to consider any aspect of migration policy. However, when prompted by yesterday’s report, I looked at the website—it may have been changed now—which referred only to commissions by the Home Secretary. However, the committee’s pursuit of the matter is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, will note that in quoting the chair’s reference to the
“struggle to recruit the necessary staff if wages do not increase as a matter of urgency”,
I am relying on a press release, not the 600 pages of the report.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, it is right that the assessment should be commissioned by the Home Secretary, because she should own the work. We are not “incurious”, as the right reverend Prelate said, and will support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in one of the most thoughtful debates on the Bill. I want to reflect first on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who said that had it not been for the pandemic, we might not be having this debate. I honestly think that we would have been doing so in some form or other. I am not taking issue with what she said but I want to make a further point.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I said that we would have been having this debate but the pandemic made it worse.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In that case, I agree with the noble Baroness. However, the main part of my point was related to the issue on which my noble friend Lady McIntosh challenged me. She asked whether, given my background, I could see the problems to which noble Lords are referring. I can absolutely see them. In fact, in 2005, when I was a new leader of a council, and David Cameron a new leader of the Opposition, he asked me what the biggest challenge was for local authorities. Straight off, I said social care, and, 15 years later, that remains the case. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referenced those who care voluntarily. There are so many that they save the state billions of pounds a year for the work that they do without being paid. I therefore join noble Lords in paying tribute to this sector, which has done so much, particularly during the pandemic. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, people in social care have given and lost their lives to the fight against the disease.
I turn next to points about the Migration Advisory Committee. First, I turn to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which he has made before, about the contradictory nature of what we are debating. In one sense, we highly value our social care workers and in another, as someone else said, they earn less, in some cases, than retail workers. That is the challenge at the heart of this: social care needs to be paid decently and seen as a decent career path for people to want to go into it.
I could stand at this Dispatch Box and give my view on the silver bullet that would sort this all out, but I am afraid that I cannot. It is not that it is above my pay grade but, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, this is a challenge for every department and government —and, actually, every one of us. I had a chat with my noble friend Lord Hodgson before this debate; he is probably sitting there very frustrated because he did not put his name down to speak, and I know that he would have wanted to talk about the report that the MAC issued yesterday on the review of the shortage occupation list. One of its key findings is that senior care workers, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants should be added to the UK-wide shortage occupation list. The Government want to take time to consider carefully what the MAC has said—as noble Lords I have said, it is a 650- page document—before we take any final decisions, and we will of course respond in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, challenged me for a timescale, and “in due course” is about as far as I can go at this stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about the devolved Administrations’ part in all this. Of course, it is a reserved matter. The new system will work for the whole of the UK and we have a national advisory group, with which we are engaged on the proposals, but it includes the Welsh NHS Confederation, Social Care Wales, NHS Scotland and Scottish social carers.
I turn to the amendments at hand. Amendment 3 returns to issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in Committee, but it also incorporates a requirement to report on immigration routes for social care workers, which was raised during Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and goes to the essence of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Committee, about a specific route for the social care sector. During our debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly highlighted the significant shortages in the social care sector, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, amounting to around 120,000 vacancies. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, also talked about the high turnover, which I think I said was 31%, but he thinks might be even higher.
We must keep it in mind that that is the situation despite the fact that EEA and Swiss citizens have had, and continue to have, free movement rights up to the end of this year. The noble Lord also highlighted the fact that the social care workforce is made up of approximately 83% British citizens, 7% from the EEA countries and about 9% from non-EEA countries. What struck me as interesting about those figures is that a higher percentage of people from non-EEA countries than from EEA countries are working in social care, even though they have no dedicated route to do so. Currently, while social care workers do not meet the skills threshold, a range of other immigration routes are available to them which provide a general right to work, such as dependants, those on family routes or youth mobility.
As part of the UK’s new points-based immigration system, we are expanding the skills threshold, which will bring jobs such as senior care workers within scope of the skilled worker route. Increasingly, people of all nationalities will be able to benefit from this offer providing they meet the other requirements, such as salary threshold. However, I want to be clear that, as my noble friend Lord Horam points out, the Government do not see the immigration system as the solution to all issues in the social care sector. I think there is now general acceptance across your Lordships’ House that that is the case.
With that in mind, we are working alongside the sector to ensure that the workforce has the right number of people to meet increasing demands, with the right skills, knowledge and approach to deliver quality, compassionate care. The Department of Health and Social Care has launched a new national recruitment campaign called Every Day Is Different to run across broadcast, digital and social media. The campaign highlights the vital role that the social care workforce is playing during this pandemic, along with the longer-term opportunities of working in care.
The Government have also commissioned Skills for Care to scale up capacity for digital induction training provided free of charge under DHSC’s workforce development fund. This training is available for redeployees, new starters, existing staff and volunteers through 12 of Skills for Care’s endorsed training providers. The Government are committing record investment to the NHS, including the NHS long-term funding settlement, which has now been enshrined in law. At the Budget, the Chancellor outlined over £6 billion of further new spending in this Parliament to support the NHS. This includes £5.4 billion to meet our manifesto commitments of 50,000 more nurses, 50 million additional appointments in primary care, more funding for hospital car parking and establishing a learning disability and autism community discharge grant to support discharges into the community.
As my noble friend Lord Horam pointed out, we are also investing in social care. DHSC is providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adult and children’s social care in 2021. We have also announced £2.9 billion to help local authorities in response to the coronavirus crisis. The Department of Health and Social Care is also working closely with Skills for Care to help employers train new recruits and volunteers and to refresh the skills of its current workforce.
In Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham of Ilton, highlighted that working in social care, especially when caring for people who have severe disabilities, requires much more than just technical skills. I totally agree. Social care jobs will not be for everyone. However, it is a sad consequence of the current pandemic that many people have lost their jobs. While not all of them will have the necessary caring skills, I think there are many people in the UK who really do care, and it is vital that we take the opportunity to emphasise the importance of social care work and ensure that it is a rewarding job for people.
The view that migration is not the solution to the challenges faced by the care sector is supported by the Migration Advisory Committee. My noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Lilley referred to that in Committee. We need to make changes to the way we train, recruit , attract and, crucially, retain staff in health and social care, but without making changes, the immigration system will continue to be used as a failsafe to maintain a broken system that relies on bringing people in on minimum wage and holding down wages.
The Government continue to commission and fund a range of training opportunities to help recruit people into the sector and develop leadership within social care. This includes the Think Ahead programme, which has taken on more than 400 applicants since it was launched in 2015. It trains graduates to become mental health social workers. There is also the workforce development fund, which helped nearly 2,800 establishments to support nearly 14,500 learners in 2018-19. This fund will continue to focus on key priorities in future.
Turning to the specifics of the amendment, it is of course sensible that policies are kept under review—something the Government stand by in the current system and will ensure continues under new arrangements. We already have the MAC, and its advice has been accepted by all types of Government over many years. I know that some noble Lords do not share my views on the expert advice provided by the MAC, but surely there cannot be disagreement that the MAC has repeatedly considered the needs of the social care sector, as referenced by the report yesterday.
We should not take for granted the Government’s own extensive engagement with stakeholders across the whole of the UK, and indeed the critical role that this House plays in scrutinising policies and intentions. So I do understand the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment to ensure the protection of a vital sector. We already have a world-class independent body with new autonomy to review any part of our immigration system, as referenced today, in the last 24 hours. I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel that Amendment 3 is not necessary and will be happy to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received no requests from noble Lords wishing to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to reply.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, I share the views that the Minister expressed about the quality and value of this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I thank the Minister for her response.
I think that there is a general acceptance that the social care sector is in crisis, with low-paid and undervalued skilled work, a very high staff turnover rate and a very high level of vacancies. On top of that, the crisis could well be exacerbated by abruptly closing down a significant source of labour from abroad in three months’ time. In response to my amendment, the Minister referred to the role of the Migration Advisory Committee. But the MAC is not a specialist committee on the social care sector, as, frankly, was indicated very clearly by its recent 650-page report, Review of the Shortage Occupation List: 2020, which simply indicates that it covers a wide breadth of sectors and occupations within those sectors and is looking at migration issues.
However, it is clear from the MAC’s recent report that it feels that the views it has expressed in the past have not had much impact, because it has made reference to “again” expressing concern about the social care sector, and to issues that it has been pressing “for some years”. I think this means that, while the work that has been done by the MAC over a number of years is to be welcomed, clearly it does not feel that that it has had much impact. Perhaps that is because it is not a specialist committee on the social care sector; it is a committee that looks at migration across the board.
I think that that makes the case that, in view of the crisis in the social care sector, which may well get worse at the end of this year in light of the changes to the immigration system, there is a clear-cut case for a stand -alone, in-depth, specialist report on the social care sector and the impact of the provisions of the Bill, as provided for in the amendment, and that it is needed now if the goals that have been set for the sector—goals relating to better pay, training, professionalism, a reduction in turnover and a reduction in vacancies—are to be achieved. We badly need this in-depth specialist assessment to be made, as called for in the amendment, and I do wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that the technology has let us down and that the attempt to vote on Amendment 3 has failed. I believe that the intention now is to adjourn the House briefly while we sort out the problems, and then rerun the vote.
Motion to Adjourn
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for 15 minutes while we try and sort out those problems.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the problem with the technology is not yet fixed. I do not think we are very clear about how long it will take. Therefore, the suggestion is that the House should be adjourned during pleasure.
Motion to Adjourn
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until the time shown on the Annunciator.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the technical hitch; it is the first time that the voting system has let us down. I am afraid that it is not going to be fixed today. We have talked to the clerks and the usual channels, who have shown great flexibility, and I think noble Lords will be amazed at the speed at which we are altering procedures. We intend to carry on with the debate outlined in today’s list. As usual, movers or Front-Benchers must give notice of whether Members wish to vote or wish to withdraw their amendments in the normal way. Then we will have a deferred Division on the amendment at some time in the future if the mover or Front-Bencher indicates that they want a Division. That will probably be on Monday 5 October, the second day of Report. That will allow the House to continue its scrutiny and also, where necessary, to test the opinion of the House, albeit later.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Division on Amendment 3 has been deferred, so I now call Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. As we have just heard, anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division—which I should emphasise will not take place today—should make this clear in the debate.
Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision
Amendment 4
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s discretion and preclude the making of unnecessary regulations.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I moved Amendments 4 and 5 in Committee; they are amendments to what the Public Law Project called the “breathtakingly wide” powers proposed to be given to the Secretary of State. It is ironic that when elsewhere negotiations are going on—or maybe not going on—regarding the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, we are being faced with exercising our sovereignty in order to pass it back to the Executive.
Amendment 4 would substitute in Clause 4, which is about regulation-making powers, the word “necessary” for “appropriate”. Amendment 5 would take out the ability for the Secretary of State to make regulations “in connection with” anything in Part 1. Taken together, these terms give the Executive huge latitude. I am glad that the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Pannick and Lord Alton, have been added to my amendments. The clause would read, “such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary in consequence of any provision” of Part 1.
The amendments follow the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a member of which, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a very balanced speech at the last stage of the Bill. She acknowledged, as I do, that consequential amendments through means of secondary legislation are generally needed—although, as she said, when they can be they are to be put in the Bill, with regulations then used for tidying up. But as the breadth and number of amendments in Committee showed—that is, amendments to the Bill —a huge number of topics can fairly be said to be connected with Part 1. Those topics were all approved by the clerks to the House as being within scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, chair of the DPRR Committee, said that he spoke in sorrow, rather than being vicious, about its reported criticisms or concerns about the clause. I think we are entitled to expect more of the Government—and this is not vicious, but many degrees up from sorrowful—than the defence that:
“There are clear constraints on the use of the power in Clause 4. It can be used only to make regulations that amend primary or secondary legislation ‘in consequence of, or in connection with’ Part 1”.
That is exactly what we object to. I had forgotten to comment on the offensive—and I say that deliberately—power to amend primary legislation through regulations. The Government’s reply to the committee’s report included the Minister again asking your Lordships to consider the illustrative draft of the regulations which, shortly before the last stage, had been circulated, and to
“take comfort that this power is specifically to deliver the end of free movement”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 641.]
That is also relied on in the long letter from the Home Office, which I received at lunchtime today—and I dare say that the timing was similar for other noble Lords. I have to confess that I have not been able to get my head around quite all of it.
The draft regulations referred to are, frankly, fiendishly complicated, and are causing a lot of anxiety both as to the extent they are understood—especially as to any omissions—and to the extent they are not understood. But whatever they are like, we have nothing that we can look to as an assurance that there will not be more regulations. The “lawyers”, I am told, are engaged in an exhaustive process of analysing this draft. It may bore others as much as it does me to say it, but whatever the intentions of this Government and this Minister today, that would not matter one jot tomorrow in terms of curbing the power in Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree, as I usually do, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She mentioned the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There was also a report on this subject by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member. We issued a report on 2 September, our 11th report of the session. At paragraph 22, we said:
“We agree with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the powers in clause 4. A Henry VIII clause that is subject to such a permissive test as ‘appropriateness’, and which may be used to do anything ‘in connection with’ in relation to so broad and important an issue as free movement, is constitutionally unacceptable. Such vague and subjective language undermine fundamental elements of the rule of law.”
That is the view of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, in a unanimous report from Members from around the House. I am very disappointed that the Government have been so far unwilling to engage with that advice—and certainly to accept it.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted, in paragraphs 18 to 19 of its excellent report, the exceptional breadth of Clause 4(1). What it does is empower the Secretary of State not merely to make regulations “in consequence of” this legislation but “in connection with” this legislation. As the committee explained, that would confer on Ministers the power to make whatever regulations they think appropriate, provided they have some connection with the legislation, “however tenuous”. Given the exceptional breadth of the delegated powers in Clause 4, I also support Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which would impose a sunset clause on these powers.
I have one further point. This Bill is far from unique in seeking to confer excessively broad powers on Ministers. The Constitution Committee has repeatedly drawn attention to the need for effective limits on delegated legislation, to ensure ministerial accountability to Parliament. I am pleased that Members of the House of Commons, in the last few days, have begun to recognise the dangers of such legislation, not least because, when regulations are brought forward, they are unamendable. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has regularly made this point in reports over the last few years. The unacceptable breadth of provisions such as Clause 4 in the Bill is, I regret to say, typical of a Government who, too often, see Parliament as an inconvenience rather than the constitutional authority to which the Government are accountable.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, first of all, I would like to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for missing, in these rather disrupted circumstances, the very beginning of her speech today. But I am very pleased to be able to support her amendment and the others that are grouped with it.
In Committee, we had a discussion about some of the powers contained in this Bill, and I am pleased to be a signatory to Amendment 4. But I would also like to support Amendment 5 and, for the reasons my noble friend Lord Pannick has just advanced, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which is about a sunset clause. Amendment 5 seeks to narrow the powers of the Secretary of State, and in a way that is at the heart also of Amendment 4, which is what I want to address this afternoon.
All these amendments seek to rein in some of the powers which Ministers are taking. It is a particular pleasure to be able to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Pannick. He referred to the Constitution Committee and its work, and I entirely agree that the substitution of the word “necessary” for “appropriate” places a higher threshold into the Bill—but you might wonder why on earth we would be spending so much time on just two words. Why does that really matter?
Yesterday in Grand Committee, in the context of the Trade Bill, I questioned, yet again, the Government’s overuse of secondary legislation and their unconvincing assertion that this amounts to effective parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I recall that the last time the House of Commons failed to pass an affirmative action Motion was in 1978, the year before I was elected to the House of Commons. The chairman of the 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady, has rightly warned of the dangers of the Government taking a whole range of powers that effectively neuter due parliamentary process, and I agree with him.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for introducing this group of amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his powerful intervention on behalf of the Constitution Committee. If we take our committee system seriously, we should take very seriously indeed the unanimous view of the Constitution Committee on such crucial issues.
I am afraid that what we have before us is another example of what I think is a deliberate confusion. Tremendous emphasis was made at the time of the referendum that the case for Brexit was to take power back. What on earth does that mean in a representative democracy? It means giving strengthened powers to a democratic political system—parliamentary democracy. Are we a parliamentary democracy, or are we not? The powers that are envisaged in this legislation are too great and too wide; they are in need of very careful scrutiny.
I am glad that we have moved forward since Committee, because we previously talked about a 12-month curb on the powers but now we are talking about a six-month term, which is an altogether sensible and healthy development. I strongly support this group of amendments.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the intentions and objectives of Amendments 4 and 5 for the reasons given by all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Amendment 9, to which my name is attached, as is that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, provides for a sunset clause on the powers set out in Clause 4 of the Bill. It stipulates that regulations can be made only under subsection 4(1) for six months after the end of the transition period. Clause 4(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of this Part.”
The part in question is Part 1, which contains the measures relating to the end of free movement. The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4, which are so wide-ranging in the way they are worded that they would enable the Government to modify by unamendable statutory instrument both primary immigration legislation and retained direct EU immigration legislation, are to address only necessary technical changes to primary legislation arising from the ending of free movement.
I put a similar amendment down at the Committee stage, but the difference is that that amendment provided for a longer sunset clause. I have now reduced it to six months in the light of the Government’s response in Committee which was—I shall heavily paraphrase—that we will have used the powers in Clause 4(1) for the required consequential amendments regulations relating to the end of free movement within the next few months, if not by the end of the transition period, and that therefore there is no need for a one-year sunset clause. The Government went on to say that they needed to retain the power to make regulations under Clause 4(1) because—I shall paraphrase once again—they might find that, at some stage, they have overlooked the necessary consequential amendment and would not want to be faced with the prospect of having to pass further primary legislation to rectify the problem. In other words, these Henry VIII powers which are being handed to the Secretary of State cannot be time-limited because the Government are not confident of their own ability to identify the required consequential amendments in good time.
The Government have also argued that, since the powers in Clause 4(1) relate only to the ending of free movement, the passage of time itself will eliminate the need to use these powers. I would argue that having a sunset clause, now reduced in this amendment to six months in the light of the Government’s response at the Committee stage, would help to concentrate the mind of the Government in making sure that they had correctly identified all of the consequential amendments related to the end of free movement. Knowing that the power to continue to use Clause 4(1) is there for however long it is needed is surely not conducive to effective and properly thought through legislating. Instead, it is conducive to sloppiness over legislating if the prospect of having to go through a further stage of primary legislation to correct an oversight that should have been avoided is removed. I also think that giving these considerable powers to the Secretary of State without any time limit for the reasons the Government have given is, to put it very politely, an incorrect application of the purpose for which such powers were envisaged and intended.
Although I am not going to call for a vote on my Amendment 9, I hope that the Government will be prepared to reflect further on this and come back at Third Reading with an alternative approach.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for speaking to their amendments, which concern the regulation-making power in Clause 4. I shall reiterate the point I made in Committee, which is that it is absolutely right that parliamentary scrutiny should include the scope of delegated powers in the Bill. The debate in this House was helpfully assisted by the latest report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the intervention of its chair, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, for which I am grateful. The Government have considered the recommendations made in the report carefully and I have written to my noble friend and other Members of the Committee.
I shall address first Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness. The purpose of Amendment 4 is to limit the use of the power in Clause 4 to make legislative changes that are “necessary” rather than “appropriate”. The purpose of Amendment 5 is to limit the power to changes that arise as a consequence of Part 1 of the Bill but are not “in connection with” it. The Government have now shared an illustrative draft of the regulations which are to be made under this power later in the year, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill. As I explained in my formal response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
“In so doing, the Government’s intention was to demonstrate the necessity of having the power in clause 4, as it is drafted, and how it will be used in tandem with the power in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to end free movement in a way that is coherent, comprehensive and fully meets the requirements of the withdrawal agreements.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thought I would leave the Constitution Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and he did not disappoint—he never does. Words such as Parliament being “an inconvenience” and “the fiction” of Parliament’s involvement have been referred to. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was not here to hear my compliments to her on her very measured speech as a member of the DPRRC at the previous stage, but it was measured, and the more powerful for that.
I do not resile from the comments that I have made about the single words which somebody said we get excited about. I do get excited about single words—they are very important. Like other noble Lords, I feel that Parliament is being sidelined.
The lawyers who have been engaged on the draft SIs that have been published must be absolutely exhausted. I think that they would probably be the most enthusiastic supporters of Amendment 9, but perhaps I am too sympathetic as a long-retired lawyer. I wonder whether there might be a need for further tidying up but I do not want to make the Government’s case for them.
The Minister said that the debate has been assisted by the DPRRC and its chair. It has been assisted but it has not led to any change. In the reply that we have had today, she has used similar language—that the inclusion of “in connection with” provides a clearer basis for dealing with issues and that the words are more apt to describe the cohorts referred to. However, for me, that raises more problems, because it distinguishes between those who have exercised the opportunities to apply for settled status and those who would rely on treaty rights to which they are not entitled. I am becoming quite technical here but that takes us to the issue of comprehensive sickness insurance, which I hope we will get to on Monday.
I have said it before and will say it again today—I hope, for the last time—that of course we do not expect to see another illustrative draft instrument, but there would be nothing to prevent the Minister bringing forward further statutory instruments in the next few months. It is the words in the clause rather than any limited time in which the clause might apply that are the most relevant.
Now that I have said all that, I shall not say it all again and I do not propose to ask the House to consider it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Green of Deddington
“( ) Any regulations made under subsection (1) which make provision to permit EEA and Swiss nationals to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment must include a specified limit on the total number of such persons to be granted permission for that purpose each calendar year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to place an annual limit on the number of EEA and Swiss nationals that may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up employment when making regulations under Clause 4(1).
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her full and careful answers to a number of points that I raised in Committee. However, I now turn to Amendment 6.
Many noble Lords will have noted that I have retabled the three amendments that I put down in Committee. My reason is that the Government’s responses to these issues need further exploration—indeed, they set the tone for the whole new immigration system. The first of these amendments, concerning the cap, is by far the most important and of course is the subject of this amendment.
In Committee, I made the case for a cap with the powerful support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and I was also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—a man who clearly has the courage of his convictions.
I see that the Home Office has today announced a new nationwide campaign to ensure that businesses are ready for the introduction of the UK’s new points-based immigration system as free movement ends. I note that this is going ahead before this Bill has been passed by Parliament and before the new Immigration Rules have even been published.
The Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, Mr Kevin Foster—by the way, I think he is the 16th Minister for immigration that I have dealt with—is reported to have said:
“Our new system has been designed with businesses in mind, treating people from every part of the world equally, welcoming them based on the skills they have to offer and how they will contribute to the UK, not where their passport comes from. It will be simpler for businesses to access the talent they need as we have removed the Resident Labour Market Test, lowered the skills and salary threshold, and suspended the cap on skilled workers.”
What it comes down to is this: the Government have cherry-picked advice from the Migration Advisory Committee to enable them to produce a policy that is entirely to the benefit of business and which, frankly, ignores the interests of British workers. Indeed, we now face a situation where millions of British workers will become unemployed and yet, for the convenience of business, the door will be wide open for an unlimited number of foreign migrants to come here and work. So, noble Lords may think it is “game and set” to the CBI. Maybe, but it is not “match”.
It seems that the Government are just ploughing on. Never mind that the MAC advised in January 2020 against the introduction of a tradable points system for the main work permit route—indeed, it pointed out that such a system had failed in the UK in the past, as some of us remember—and never mind that the Australians, on whose scheme this one is supposed to be based, have a cap on a number of key categories.
This policy is extraordinarily dangerous. The number of UK jobs that will be affected is huge—in the order of 6 million or 7 million. The number of potential candidates around the world who meet the A-level requirement and are of an age at which migration is quite common runs into literally hundreds of millions. How many of those speak enough English we do not know, but the point is that the numbers are huge.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the Government address these issues in purely economic terms. This is not solely an economic matter. The real-world impact on our own people is also extremely important. As I mentioned, we have a rapidly rising level of unemployment that will also run into millions, yet the Government’s policy not only ignores that baleful prospect but runs entirely counter to the sense of fairness that is such a strong British characteristic.
That, I am sure, is why public opinion is so strongly in favour of control. Nearly 60% of the public indicated in a recent YouGov poll that immigration has been too high and needs to be much more carefully controlled. Indeed so. Nor, by the way, is this a question of “Little Englanders”. A 2019 Delta poll found that the share of Scots in favour of a firm limit on the number of work permits was even higher than in England, 76% compared to 71%. Of course, the Scots are well-known for their common sense.
The central difficulty with the Government’s policy is the clear risk that the numbers will run away with them. If that were to happen at a time of high and rising unemployment, their credibility with key supporters would be shot. Yet the irony is that an effective precaution is a relatively simple matter: to introduce a cap on a monthly basis until the situation is clearer. Even now, it is not too late for the Government to rethink and remind the business community that they are a Government for all the people, not the tool of the few. What reason could they give for such a change? Simple: that this policy was drawn up, and indeed announced, before the full force of the Covid virus had struck the UK. What explanation could be clearer, simpler or easier to justify? I hope we will hear a cautious response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and to which I and my noble friend Lord Horam—a fount of experience and common sense, as we heard in his earlier comments on social care—have added our names. Of course, the noble Lord is an esteemed expert in the field; there is no greater expert on some of these matters.
As the noble Lord said, the amendment calls for a limit on the total number of EEA and Swiss migrants coming into the UK for employment each calendar year. In practice, this would involve a limit on all immigration for employment. There is clearly a serious risk of the numbers getting very large indeed, as we have heard, if we do not find a way to control immigration more directly. We have to get this right or we will feel the result in public anger in years to come. Effectively leaving the number of migrants to the interests of employers, as is now proposed, is one-sided and inappropriate. It would make it impossible to plan properly for the investment we will need, given the scale of the dynamic change we will see. We will need additional houses, schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and transport facilities; we debated that in Committee but I do not think that anybody disagreed about the need for public investment to deal with the demographic change.
I know that we have the Migration Advisory Committee to help us and that, unlike SAGE, it includes economists; indeed, it is dominated by them. However, as I have already said, I fear that it is too focused on attracting talent from abroad in the employer’s interest; indeed, the Minister’s statement today heightens that fear. It is odd for me to speak against what might be seen as my own interest as a director—I refer to my interests in the register—but we are dealing with difficult economic dynamics and sensitive points of politics in what is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, this is not an economic matter alone. Fairness is very important.
I believe that we need as many jobs as possible for those already in the UK, particularly given the extension of the Covid restrictions and the resulting rise in unemployment, which, sadly, will grow further. We also need a greater incentive for employers to train in the skills that we require in a more digital, flexible world. I therefore very much welcome the fact that a revolution in skills was at the heart of the Prime Minister’s welcome announcement yesterday. However, as the noble Lord said, it is not too late for the Government to look carefully at the arrangements they have made and perhaps change them in the light of the Covid tsunami.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, it has been obvious during these debates on the immigration Bill that there are two clear points of view. One is that we should carry on roughly with the status quo, which primarily reflects the interests of business. The other view, which perhaps supports workers’ interests, is that we need more control than we have now and a lower level of immigration. My point is a simple one: both points of view can be accommodated. I hate to use the phrase, “We can have our cake and eat it” because it has been somewhat devalued by our Prime Minister. None the less, the fact is that we can do that if we think this through carefully.
The supporters of the existing immigration policy, at a fairly high level, want to have freedom of movement for academics, creative people, entrepreneurs, engineers and all the valuable people we need in our society and contribute so much. For example, it was recently pointed out that nearly 50% of the Nobel prizes won by people in the UK have been won by people who originated abroad. However, to get that element in society, you do not need to have a net immigration level of over 350,000 a year. It can all be done on a net immigration level of 50,000, 70,000 or less than 100,000, which we had for decades before the Blair Labour Government opened the gates in the early part of this century.
Therefore, the problem with the large-scale immigration that we have had for the last 15 or 20 years, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, is that it affects the quality of life, puts a huge strain on resources, has a big environmental and social impact and affects jobs and wages. Even the MAC has pointed out that people on low wages have had them reduced by 5% in real terms over the last few years. It even led to the biggest tragedy of all for people who are remainers, like myself—Brexit. The casual treatment of people’s views on immigration was a clear factor in the referendum and certainly a decisive view of those who voted for Brexit. In other words, the liberals and middle-class people who wanted more immigration dug their own grave over the referendum.
The way out of this dilemma is absolutely clear, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. It is to have a cap at a reasonable level. You could then accommodate the people who want to bring in the creative artists, entrepreneurs, businesspeople and so forth without having the numbers that are objected to by the workers and the bulk of people in this country.
In my previous speech, I praised the pamphlet produced by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who looked at the issue in totality in relation to the demographic trends and population. I will now quote from another pamphlet that was brought out a lot less recently: Beyond the Net Migration Target, by the Onward think tank. The author is Will Tanner, who was a special adviser in the Cameron Government to Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary. He states:
“We recommend that the Government moves to a detailed and transparent Sustainable Immigration Plan, which would set out ministers’ objectives for the level and composition of migration and be updated on a rolling basis every year… This type of detailed approach is commonplace in other countries… For example, Australia has an annual planning program, where it sets the number of permanent visas in the budget each year.”
Tanner sets out what happens in Australia. For example, from 2019 to 2020, they planned to have 30,000 employer sponsored visas and skilled independent visas to the tune of 18,652. All this is set out in an annual budget decided between the various departments and stakeholders concerned, brought to their Parliament, debated and settled, and they have another look at it the following year. It is all perfectly transparent, above board and very democratic. The same thing happens in Canada and New Zealand. All these people are very experienced in dealing with this problem of immigration.
There it is: it can be dealt with by the simple methods already extant in other countries. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is the way forward to meet both these objectives: those of the people who understand the value of a limited amount of immigration and those who do not want the high level of immigration that we have had over the last 20 years. Both sides can have what they want, and I present this to my noble friend as one of the answers to the way forward. It is a very simple pamphlet and, unlike the 650 pages of the MAC report, at 21 pages it is very readable. I hope that she can take this on board and present it to the Home Office as a very sensible way forward.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested she did not want to do the Government’s job for them. On this occasion, I beg to disagree with her and hope that maybe I can begin to do the Government’s job for them. In Committee, there were criticisms of certain amendments being put forward because they related only to EEA nationals. In particular, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister of Burtersett, said that if they had been able to they would have created amendments that were holistic, but they were told that such amendments would be out of scope because the Bill is limited to immigration responding to the context of Brexit.
My starting point on reading this amendment was simply to ask why. If one had a normal debate in which one could intervene, particularly at an earlier stage—in Committee, not on Report—the obvious thing would simply have been to jump up and intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, moving the amendment and ask why. The question of a cap for EEA nationals raises all sorts of questions which I hope the Minister will say are not acceptable in the context of the Bill, because why should there be a cap on EEA nationals? Whether you believe in cakeism—as the Prime Minister does—or, like the noble Lord, Lord Horam, you are trying to find a way to meet the concerns of those people who want to limit immigration and those who want a more open approach to immigration, there is surely a question of why there should be a cap on EEA nationals. I can only assume that it is because those noble Lords who tabled the amendment could not bring in a cap more generally.
It will come as no surprise that, from these Liberal Democrat Benches, I am not in favour of a cap. In particular, some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, seem to relate to questions of migration much more generally. We are talking about the context of the transition period ending on 31 December and a change from 1 January. Are we really anticipating that, all of a sudden, millions of EEA nationals who are not currently in the United Kingdom will want to rush to the United Kingdom to fill jobs? I do not think we are. Surely, if we are interested in fairness, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, talked about, we should think about everybody who might want to come to live and work in the UK. Why should there be a separate status in that sense for EEA nationals?
I cannot see a case for this amendment, and I hope the Minister might, for once, actually agree with me.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is not speaking on this amendment, so we will go directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has said, and she is much more polite than I feel able to be. This amendment is nasty and it is pointless. It is nasty because it panders to a right-wing obsession with immigration caps that are utterly arbitrary—on an arbitrary group of people or a number—and it is pointless because the Bill already removes freedom of movement. Can we please not bother debating this any more? It is not worth it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is no longer speaking, so we will go directly to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Government will listen to the noble Lord, Lord Green, who has been very persuasive over a great many years. He does his homework and is well worth listening to.
Context is the key issue. It does not take a genius to work out that we will probably have higher unemployment in the next two years than anyone in this House has ever experienced. Against that background, the driving force must be how we get our people back into work. That must be the number one priority.
I had the privilege, with my noble friend Lord Horam, of reading economics at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. We were taught in some depth about Keynesian economics. Keynes came to the fore between the wars, with the unemployment situation. It was his driving force that produced the system whereby the public sector produced public sector works and employed the unemployed. That must be the driving force for the next two years.
There will be sections of society where we need immigration. Two come to mind: we always seem to be short of qualified doctors and we are clearly short of lab technicians, otherwise the testing and the analysis of it might be working together instead of one behind the other. Sections of our economy will need immigration, but it is not beyond the worlds of all of us to sit down and work out where that should happen.
I am pleased the Minister has made a statement today having consulted business—somewhat in contrast to Mr Gove and the haulage industry. Nevertheless—although I have not seen the whole speech—if he is talking to business, that is good.
We need more control. I do not know what the right figure is, but it is 100,000 or under. Our Government should look at that hard and in the context of where we really need some help because we sadly cannot use our unemployed.
I finish with basically the same sentence as I finished up with on the Agriculture Bill: we need to produce more home food. To do that, we need people to work in the fields, bring in the harvests, pick the apples, dig up the leeks, whatever it may be. If there are not enough people among the unemployed in Britain prepared to do that, we jolly well have to take it on the chin and bring in people to do it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I was very sorry not to be able to be here for the debates in Committee on these amendments, to which I put my name. I had an unavoidable business commitment elsewhere. I apologise to the House; I took the trouble to read Hansard carefully.
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green. We need a limit on the annual numbers from the EEA and Switzerland seeking employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said we should stop talking about it and just get on with it. She is right in a way, because a cap is inflexible and clumsy, but I have come to the conclusion—somewhat reluctantly—that it is inevitable and the only way we will be able to grasp the challenges that the number of arrivals in this country now poses.
Simply put, without a cap the Government will never get control of this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who I am glad to see is still in her place, asked why we think this. History, particularly recent history, has shown how extraordinarily difficult it is to grasp this problem. We have heard a lot about taking back control, but the awful fact is that, where we have no control over current arrivals—those from the EEA—arrivals are falling, but where we have always had control, they are rising sharply. In 2016, there were 133,000 arrivals from the EU; now there are 58,000, in the figures produced by the ONS a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the non-EU arrivals were 175,000 and are now 316,000—nearly double.
I sat in this Chamber for many hours, hearing all those noble Lords saying that Brexit was going to chase everybody away and no one would come here because we would all be anti-foreigner. I can tell the House that in 2016, 308,000 people arrived here, and the latest figures say that 374,000 have arrived, so that is not a sign that people are being frightened away. Nor is it about no immigration. It is about scale—about 374,000 people. It is about 900 a day and all that means. I will not go through the things other noble Lords talked about, such as houses and the impact. We have 6 million more people in this country, and that is with drastically reduced levels from where we are today. If we go on at the current level, it will be 8 or 9 million more. At 6 million more people, we will build over an area the size of Bedfordshire by 2040. No ifs, no buts, no maybes—that will happen. We will almost certainly be unable to stop it, because you always look 10 or 15 years out when you do demographic planning. We need to be honest and clear about the implications of the decisions that we take in Bills and statutes like this.
How has this happened? At root, it is because it is in employers’ commercial interest to recruit trained but cheaper labour from overseas. Why go to the trouble and the expense of training members of a settled population, many of whom may be quite recalcitrant and not particularly grateful, when you can avoid all that effort by recruiting someone from overseas, who is probably jolly grateful? British industry and commerce have become addicted to overseas recruitment at the expense of our own people. Figures bear that out. My noble friend Lord Horam referred to the think tank Onward. Last year it reported:
“Since 2011 employer spending per trainee has fallen by 17% in real terms”.
Employers have avoided having to put money into training; they have been able to go overseas instead.
In researching the pamphlet I recently published, I investigated the engineering industry, another sector where employers are always bemoaning the lack of UK-grown engineers. I was absolutely astonished to learn that last year, six months after graduation, fewer than half the engineering graduates of this country were working in engineering. I understand that they are not all going to go into engineering, but fewer than half is a surprisingly small number. When I went to talk to some of these young men and women about why they had not moved into engineering, they said that one of the problems is that UK employers preferred to offer jobs to someone with experience—no surprise there. UK undergraduates find themselves in a position where they cannot get experience without a job, and they cannot get a job without experience.
My noble friend will no doubt point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been the subject of a number of our conversations this afternoon, and its enlarged remit. The MAC is a fine body of men and women, but even a cursory reading of its annual report shows the enormous pressure that it is under to effectively abandon all controls. To quote from page 81 of last year’s annual report: “The majority of respondents”—that is, employers sending information to the MAC—
“agreed that there should not be a salary threshold above the National Minimum Wage”.
Secondly:
“There was stronger support for the idea of a salary threshold that was in some way variable to reflect employer needs”.
That effectively means nothing. On page one of the report, the MAC pointed out that this was the inevitable conclusion of “an employer-driven system”.
My noble friend on the Front Bench is a redoubtable Minister, as is the Home Secretary. No doubt there are many redoubtable Ministers in the Government, but they will find themselves under irresistible pressure, carefully argued by employers, about the inability of the UK to compete on a world stage unless more arrivals are permitted. Under that pressure, Ministers will first buckle and finally break. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the full effect of the pandemic has yet to make itself felt. Surely none of us seeks to argue that the consequences for the employment of our settled population will be anything other than lessened. Against that background, allowing annual immigration of 374,000 a year—1,025 a day—must be ill-advised and maybe runs the risk of societal disorder. That is why a cap—clumsy, yes; inflexible, yes—set annually, debated and approved in Parliament, is critical. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Bill is about ending the free movement of people from the EU and EEA, and Swiss nationals. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords oppose the proposed points-based immigration system that relies on measures other than a cap on numbers to control immigration to the UK. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham said, on 1 January at the end of the transition period, the rights of EU citizens to come and work in the UK will be replaced by controls based on salary and skill levels. That will also apply to migrants from the rest of the world. The number of EU migrants has already fallen significantly, and will continue to do so, as a result of the end of free movement that the Bill brings about. While we on these Benches regret that, it is the consequence of leaving the EU. That is what the UK people voted for; we have already left and will suffer the consequences.
I shall engage to some extent with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, raised and come back to them on future amendments. He said that the system was entirely for the benefit of business and not of British workers, would cost between 6 million and 7 million jobs, and that there were hundreds of millions of people potentially qualified to come to the UK to take those jobs. He said that the public were in favour of control. However, my understanding is that there will be control but of a different type from setting a cap. Presumably, although the Minister will enlighten us, salary levels and qualification requirements can and will be varied if necessary if consequently we suddenly face a so-called avalanche of people coming to the UK from areas other than the European Union. Any avalanche from the European Union would have happened already because, at the moment, there is free movement.
It is interesting that noble Lords opposite talk about business interests, yet in other debates they argue that we need a strong economy to pay for public services. The fact is that migrants, particularly migrant workers, contribute far more to public services than they receive in public services, and they certainly contribute more than the average UK resident does.
We on these Benches believe that government departments such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care have knowledge of the migrants that the UK economy needs, and that they, not the Home Office, should decide on immigration policy, points-based or otherwise. I will not entirely do the Minister’s job for her but perhaps she can convince the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that his amendment is not necessary because the points-based system will effectively reduce immigration.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, in Committee and my noble friend Lord Rosser responded to that debate. I think it is no surprise that I do not agree with the amendment as worded for several reasons. In particular, I do not believe that it serves the interest of the United Kingdom well. Governments can set targets and give the impression that they are doing something to grab a few headlines but, after that, can fail to deliver what they said they were seeking to achieve. Immigration is often treated like that, so an arbitrary cap that is routinely broken is of no use whatever.
As we complete the Brexit process—I hope that we will have an agreement with the European Union in place shortly—we need an immigration system that responds to the needs of the economy and the welfare of the United Kingdom. That is what is important here. We do not want something that will be bureaucratic and unworkable and that would cause more problems than it would supply solutions. Our economy will have enough problems in the years ahead without the difficulty this amendment could wreak on it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
No. In their contributions, the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to think-tank reports. I will be interested in the reports from those think tanks. I should declare that I am the treasurer of a think tank—the Fabian Society—but I am a bit concerned about these bodies because, unlike the Fabian Society, a lot of them are quite opaque. We do not know who funds them, where the money comes from or who is behind these reports, so I would be a bit more interested in what those bodies had to say if we knew who paid for what. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will speak on the next group, so maybe he can tell us who funded the report to which he has referred many times. I will be interested to hear that.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point about the number of EU migrants coming to the UK. In fact, that number has fallen. I carefully read the debate in Committee on this and on many points I found myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I have heard nothing so far in the debate to persuade me otherwise.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green, for retabling his amendment; I acknowledge and respect his expertise in this area. I also apologise for allowing the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, to intervene because I have now set a precedent. I should never have done that. No one is allowed to intervene.
The amendment effectively intends to reintroduce an annual limit on the number of people who may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up skilled employment. The existing cap, which the Government have committed to suspending, is set at 20,700, and is administered on a monthly basis to those seeking entry clearance as a skilled worker. As outlined in Committee, this sounds like a very sensible measure to control and limit migration to the UK, but we cannot know how many people will seek to come to the UK using the new skilled worker route. The impact of some of the key changes, including the expansion of the skills threshold and the reduction of the general salary threshold, is also unknown. Where possible, Home Office analysts have tried to predict possible impacts, and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Green, made so eloquently may well come to pass.
The amendment provides an opportunity for me to reinforce the importance of implementing a flexible immigration system. Our proposals will do that and ensure that the system can be adapted and adjusted, subject to social and economic circumstances—to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, alluded—but we cannot get away from the fact that the amendment would add to the burden on businesses, considerably slow the process of recruiting a skilled migrant, and create uncertainty among employers.
Any cap, including the one we have at present, creates an odd dynamic when it binds us to consider a migrant a valuable addition one month but unwanted the next. This may only be a perception based on the mechanics of a cap, but it is a perception that we want to address, instead focusing on our commitment to continue to attract those with the skills and talents that we need.
The noble Lord highlighted three issues with suspending the cap. The first issue is that an estimated 7 million UK jobs will be open to new or increased international competition. However, these jobs are currently under more competition due to freedom of movement. The imposition of any control, instead of allowing free movement to continue, protects those jobs. Ending free movement and requiring an employer to meet the requirements of being a Home Office licensed sponsor and pay relevant immigration charges, including the skills charge, makes the employment of a resident worker the simpler option. Again, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Migration Advisory Committee’s September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK. It said that it did
“not believe that the welfare of existing residents is best served by a cap for two reasons. First, the cap, when it binds, constrains inflows of a group of migrants which the evidence suggests are the most economically beneficial … Second, the cap creates unpredictability when it binds as there can be sharp increases in the minimum salary threshold that skilled visa applications face.”
The salary requirements rise as this is the mechanism for selecting which roles are granted permission.
The noble Lord’s second issue is that the number of potential applicants is huge. That has always been the case. The advancements in education around the globe and the increase in populations inevitably mean that more people can qualify as skilled migrants. Addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the MAC also said:
“We believe that if the Government wants to reduce migration numbers it would make more economic sense to do so by varying the other aspects of the scheme criteria”.
Therefore, we have retained the immigration skills charge in the future system and will continue to operate a range of salary thresholds.
Thirdly, the noble Lord advocates that there would be a great incentive for employers to go for cheap, competent, non-unionised workers. To this end, we are maintaining the position in our new immigration system that those under the skilled worker route be paid a minimum salary level, which has been calculated so as not to undercut domestic workers. The level and operation of salary thresholds has been based on the advice of the MAC. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that considering the impact of policies on the UK’s economy is an area that the MAC excels in.
Maintaining a sponsor licence also requires compliance with UK employment laws on treating employees equally. We completely accept that the first stage in our plans for the points-based system will need monitoring to assess the impact of the changes on the resident labour market and key sectors, and we are committed to doing just that. On the basis that we are maintaining robust protection for resident workers and providing certainty for UK businesses and employers, and because the key expert advisers have said that we should not apply an annual cap on skilled workers, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
There are no requests to speak after the Minister, so we return to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I will study very carefully. I welcome her indication that the Government will keep a close eye on the numbers. I hope that that will not exclude the possibility of introducing a cap if, in the light of experience, they feel that they should move quickly.
I am grateful for the widespread and powerful support from most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly appreciated that the proposed cap was to apply to immigration as a whole from 2021. Leaving aside the mechanics of this Bill, the policy issue is for immigration as a whole from next January.
I would like to correct one misapprehension which is important. We are not suggesting that 6 million or 7 million people will arrive. That is the number of jobs that will be open to competition under the new regulations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords again that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 7
Lord Green of Deddington
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for the Resident Labour Market Test (as set out in the Immigration Rules Appendix A: attributes) to apply to job offers where a job offer forms part of the application of EEA and Swiss nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that job offers made to EEA and Swiss nationals which form part of an application for that person to enter the United Kingdom should first be advertised in the domestic labour market in accordance with the Resident Labour Market Test.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, in Committee, the Minister quoted extensively from the Migration Advisory Committee. She said that the MAC had reported that it was “sceptical about how effective” the labour market test would be in giving settled workers the first opportunity to fill jobs—I think she just mentioned that again. She went on to quote the MAC saying,
“We think it likely that the bureaucratic costs of”—
a labour market test—
“outweigh any economic benefit”.
Her third quote was that the MAC thought it
“important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers.”
It continued:
“The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge”. —[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 844.]
Those are the technicalities.
I have checked those quotations. They came from the MAC final report on EEA migration in the UK, dated September 2018. This report specifically recommended that there should be no change in the £30,000 general salary threshold that was in effect at the time—yes, no change. So those quotations have clearly been stripped of their original context.
If the Government are now keen to invoke the MAC, they might wish to note the committee’s previous findings. In February 2012, it said that increasing exemptions from the labour market test would mean:
“Resident employees stand to lose out from increased labour market competition.”
Again, in 2015, it said that the labour market tests
“help protect the domestic workforce from being displaced or replaced by migrant workers”.
Whatever it said most recently and in whatever context, it has clearly consistently recognised the impact of a labour market test. In the light of those previous recommendations and the lack of any subsequent detailed work by either the MAC or the Home Office to consider the potential displacement impact, the complete abolition of the labour market test is of considerable concern.
The context in which these proposals are now being considered, of rising unemployment, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, and increasing youth unemployment, surely requires the Home Office to commission some serious analysis before implementing what could be a drastic step.
Further, the MAC, and worse still the Government, completely ignore the fact that widespread concerns about the abolition of the test are not just about economics. Other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of fairness. These matters are about fairness and perceptions of fairness. That explains why, as I mentioned in Committee, 77% of the public believe that employers should prioritise the hiring of UK workers.
At this point, I should like to recall that this amendment was powerfully supported in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, both basing themselves on their experience of these matters at very senior levels of industry.
It is now obvious that the Government are struggling to justify a complete failure to give British workers an opportunity even to apply for jobs that are to be offered overseas. What this comes down to is whether the Government are going to cave in to the convenience of business or give British workers a fair chance. Which is it to be? Or have they already decided against British workers?
Finally, I notice that both the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokespersons avoided taking a view on this matter in Committee. They seemed to be unsighted. Perhaps they will take the opportunity of Report to clarify their positions. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name. Indeed, of the three proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green, this is the one I have most hope of the Government accepting, in the context of the narrow EU-EEA focus of the Bill. I find it extraordinary that we should be thinking of dropping the long-standing requirement that jobs be advertised in the UK before overseas recruitment takes place. This will encourage employers, especially big employers, to recruit overseas without even trying the home market. We already have the benefit of the pool of 3.8 million or so EU citizens who have applied for the EU settlement scheme. Thanks to coronavirus, UK jobs are being lost everywhere, from the high street to our wonderful arts and entertainment industries.
In earlier discussions, defending the decision to dispense with the labour market test and the 28 days of domestic advertising it lays down, the Minister put a lot of emphasis on the salary thresholds and the immigration skills charge. I am not against the points-based system, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seemed to suggest; however, with my experience of a number of industries, I think the thresholds look much too low, especially post-Covid. The skills charge has to be set against the recruitment fees that might have to be paid in the more demanding UK market. I appreciate, of course, that there will be scope to flex these numbers going forward—that seems to be what the Minister has been saying—however, I think this particular change is especially unwise.
While I do not rule out special arrangements for agriculture, mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Naseby, and for health workers—although the latter steals training and talent from countries that sometimes badly need it—we need our jobs to go to the home team wherever possible. We need a mechanism to encourage training, especially in the social care sector, which is crying out for suitable people, as my noble friend Lord Horam explained so eloquently in relation to Amendment 3. We are embarking on a skills revolution in the UK, and a jobs-first pledge, by advertising at home, should be part of our prospectus.
As I have said before, I am puzzled that trade unions such as USDAW, who I have worked so well with and who have done such a fine job in retail, are not strongly supporting the retention of some form of labour market test.
Lord Horam (Con)
This is about the resident labour market test and I find it quite astonishing, like my noble friends who have spoken to the amendment, that this should be removed at the point when we are entering a period of huge unemployment, as predicted by the Chancellor in his Statement only a few days ago. It is completely astonishing that that should be the case at the moment.
It is also amazing that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has so far not supported such an amendment: it beggars belief, frankly, that the Labour Party spokesman is willing to give this up in such circumstances. I hate to attack—rather, argue—with the noble Lord but he did take me on in our last debate. I will not take long over this but he did ask, “Who is this think tank, Onward?” It is a perfectly reputable, charitable think tank. The point it was making, as am I, is that Australia has had a cap on immigration for years. We have imported half the Australian points-based system but are refusing to import the rest, which is the cap. They say in Australia, “no cap, no control”, and that is why they have a cap.
It is the same in Canada, where they have the same system and it is debated in Parliament. It is all perfectly transparent and its Parliament has a role. It is the same in New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also said that he was worried about the economy, but Australia and Canada have successful economies and caps on immigration; New Zealand has a successful economy. They are all rather more successful than we are, in many respects. I advise the noble Lord, as a true friend—we served together on the Electoral Commission and I really appreciate him as a stalwart Labour man—to think again about this and reposition his party. Believe you me, if the Labour Party does not reposition itself on immigration, I can tell him, it is in real trouble.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, as the House would expect, but before I get there, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, threw down a challenge and I had better get to that first. I am pleased to be able to tell him that I paid for every single bit of that pamphlet. Every single envelope, stamp, and bit of printing was paid for by me and I am happy to share the receipts and information with him if he wishes. The only time that I used any of the facilities of the House was to distribute the pamphlet, a copy of which went to every Member of your Lordships’ House and every Member of the House of Commons.
I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Green, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Horam. I do not want to go over all that again now. In my remarks on Amendment 6, which we have just dealt with, I explained how employers have become addicted to cheap labour from overseas because it is in their commercial interests to do so. As a result, we have become thoughtless and careless about the employment opportunities for our settled population. We have young people locked into zero-hours contracts. We have members of minority communities locked into low-paid, low-prospect jobs. Increasingly, and really seriously because they are a larger part of our population, the over-50s find it hard to get jobs even as we raise the retirement age. A 2018 House of Commons report revealed that 1 million people over 50 would like to work or work more; 14% of 50 year-olds are out of work and 35% of 60 year-olds are out of work. Removing the resident labour market test opens them up to an even greater degree of unemployment risk.
As many noble Lords have said, as the impact of the pandemic makes itself felt, all these problems will get worse. How do we protect and look after our settled population in these circumstances, particularly since these same economic pressures will make employers ever keener to game the system and access cheaper labour from overseas? The first line of protection would have been a cap but we are not going to have it because my noble friend the Minister has told us so. This amendment is a second line of protection, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, since the resident labour market test prevents the grosser excesses of undercutting wages by recruiting from overseas.
I apologise to the House for not having been present in Committee, but I have read the debates and, following a point made by my noble friend Lord Horam, I was really astonished by a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at col. 843 of Hansard, about the trade unions. Why every union at the Trades Union Congress is not down here supporting this amendment as a way of helping and protecting the working man they seek to represent, absolutely astonishes me. Now, that is for the party opposite to sort out.
The strains that our society will face do not just come from the pandemic. They will come also from the impact of the fourth industrial revolution—from artificial intelligence and robotics, not often mentioned in our debate so far. In those circumstances, policies that will likely result in close to 1,200 people arriving on an average day cannot be sensible.
A key determinant of a person’s self-confidence and sense of self-worth is, undoubtedly, purposeful and secure work. Professor David Blanchflower said in his book Not Working, published last year:
“Unemployment hurts and it hurts a lot.”
The amendment, if the Government accepted it, would help reduce but, sadly, not eliminate that level of hurt, which is why I support it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I begin to wonder whether we should swap Benches at this stage. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, longs for the old immigration regime that he has criticised so much. This time it is the resident labour market test or, as the former leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, may have put it, “British jobs for British workers”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, posited that UK employers were likely to recruit from overseas without even considering UK workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that UK employers were addicted to using imported, low-wage labour. I thought that under the points-based system there was a minimum salary of £25,600, which does not sound to me like undercutting UK labour.
Surely, British employers will look to avoid the immigration skills charge by hiring a UK resident in preference to a migrant, if they possibly can, and British employers will look to avoid having to pay a licence fee to be an authorised sponsor of migrant workers, if they possibly can. Migrants will be deterred from working in the UK, including in the National Health Service and social care, because they will have to pay the immigration health surcharge in addition to income tax, national insurance and VAT—effectively, having to pay twice for the National Health Service. Migrants will also be deterred from working in the UK because they will have to pay far more than the cost price of a visa, and because of the salary and skill levels they will have to attain to secure enough points to get a visa in the first place. From 1 January, all that will apply to all new migrants from the European Union as well as those from the rest of the world. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary and we do not support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 7, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was discussed in Committee. I am all in favour of maximising opportunities for British workers to have employment and skilled employment. Good companies invest in their staff, and it makes good sense to do so. It is much more sensible, when possible, to recruit and train staff locally, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, including the charges that employers incur when recruiting workers from abroad.
This amendment adds a test and a further layer of bureaucracy. For me, the case has not been made for why we should support it. Again, I find myself in agreement with the Minister and her position, as well as with the position of the MAC, which concluded that the likely bureaucratic cost would outweigh any economic benefit of bringing this test back in.
I should say that I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Horam. We are good friends; we served together for many years on the Electoral Commission. My only point about think tanks—and I am heavily involved in one—is that for some we are unclear about where their funding comes from. I am pleased that we now know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, generously funded his own report. Sadly, of course, we do not know where the money of many of the think tanks that we refer to comes from. With all due respect, it is good of him to fund himself.
I do not think that the case has been made for this amendment in any sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. So far, I have heard nothing that could persuade me to support it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for the return of this amendment, on which we had an interesting and mixed debate in Committee; it has been no different on Report.
As I outlined in our previous debate on this matter, this amendment would have the effect of reintroducing into regulations a resident labour market test for EEA and Swiss nationals and reversing a government decision to abolish this test under the UK’s new points-based immigration system. I have to say to noble Lords that the Government did not take this decision lightly or indeed in isolation. On the face of it, it sounds absolutely fair and sensible to require a job to be advertised in the UK for 28 days to establish whether there is anyone suitable in the domestic labour market before the job can be offered to an overseas migrant. However, we should be imposing a resident labour market test only if we think it would genuinely offer extra protection to resident workers and, in turn, support UK employers and organisations to access the skills and talents they need. The Government do not think that is the case. Not only does it add a burden on business and considerably slow down the process of recruiting a skilled migrant, without any guarantee of a vacancy being filled from the resident workforce, but it does so at a time when we are seeking to streamline and simplify the system and give UK employers and organisations the certainty they need.
My noble friend Lord Lilley—I am glad he is in the Chamber—rightly drew our attention in Committee to his experience of visiting Nissan, highlighting its enthusiasm and drive for training and retaining people in the UK. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this is something to be celebrated and encouraged. Indeed, it fits with the Government’s clear assertion that immigration must be considered alongside investment in and development of the UK’s resident labour force.
However, I recognise the valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is not in the Chamber today, about the immigration system not being the way to enforce and encourage training of domestic workers. Where I would respectfully stray from her view is to say that while our immigration system should not be considered a silver bullet, it absolutely has its part to play in supporting businesses and ensuring that they invest in training to encourage staff retention. We must achieve a sensible balance.
That view and the decision to abolish the existing resident labour market test is not just a government opinion; it is based on the clear economic advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Green, and others in this House are correct in saying that the MAC’s expertise is focused on economics, but one strength of the MAC is that it does not represent any one sector or industry. The MAC is well used to running large-scale consultations and assimilates evidence from many employers, businesses and sectors to produce carefully considered conclusions that apply to the best interests of the whole of the UK. This is exactly what the MAC did in reaching its findings and recommendations in its September 2018 report. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Green, made about the MAC’s view on the salary threshold at the time.
The decision to abolish the resident labour market test was not simply a U-turn undertaken given pressure from businesses. I highlighted this during our debate on this subject in Committee, but it is worth reasserting what the MAC said given the concerns of many Peers—which I and the Government share—around the uncertainty that many UK workers will face as a result of the current pandemic.
In addition to the economic arguments, as part of its September 2018 report the MAC said:
“We do think it important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers. The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge and not the RLMT.”
The Government agree, and that is why we are maintaining a firm requirement in the new points-based system for migrants who come under the skilled worker route to be paid a salary which does not undercut domestic workers.
We are also retaining the immigration skills charge. The requirement to pay that charge—alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the proceeds of which contribute directly to the UK skills budget, helps ensure that employers are unlikely to employ a migrant when there is someone more suitable to undertake the role within the domestic labour force. Given the expansion of the skills threshold and the fact that UK employers will no longer be able to rely on recruiting EEA citizens coming to the UK under free movement, we consider it very likely that the charge will create an appropriate barrier and will result in businesses thinking twice before looking immediately to the overseas labour force.
On the basis that we are maintaining robust protection for resident workers, and because the key expert advisers have said that we should not apply a resident labour market test, which echoes views heard by the Government from extensive engagement with stakeholders across the UK, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This is not the time to counter anything that she might have said, but I fear that the Government may come to regret their reliance on a group of economists, however capable they certainly are. For example, she made no mention of the concept of fairness. I think that most of us who have dealt with employees of any kind understand the overriding need for people in charge to be fair. Therefore, I was amazed that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, care so little, it would seem, about the genuine concerns of what I like to call real working people.
I will leave it at that, except to thank the other noble Lords who spoke with most effective support for our proposals. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Where regulations made under subsection (1) make provision for the minimum salary requirement for new entrants to be lower than the equivalent salary requirement for other migrants, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “new entrant” means an EEA or Swiss migrant who meets one of the following criteria— (a) the migrant is switching from the Student or Graduate to the Skilled Worker route;(b) the migrant is under the age of 26 on the date of their application; or(c) the migrant is working towards a recognised professional qualification or moving directly into a postdoctoral position.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require parliamentary approval of regulations which would make provision for the recruitment of new entrants to the labour market at pay rates below the general salary requirement under the new Points Based System.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
Noble Lords will be glad to hear that this is the last of my amendments. I realise that I have not declared my non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch UK, but I think that that is very well known in the House.
I retabled this amendment because the prospects for young British workers are getting substantially worse as the Covid crisis intensifies, yet the Government seem to be set on a policy that can only make matters even worse for this very important section of our workforce and, indeed, our society. I just cannot understand how they feel that they can brush this matter aside.
The Minister sent a letter to all Peers on 15 September after the second day of Committee. In it she said that, although some of the questions raised in the debate were outside the scope of the Bill—which they were—she has sought to answer them as fully as possible, and I am grateful for that. The annexe to that letter set out the current arrangements for the new labour market entrants from overseas so as to allow noble Lords to “compare and contrast” them with the new proposals. Unfortunately—I say this with care—the effect of this is unintentionally, I am sure, misleading.
The document provides extracts from the current rules that appear to show that new entrants can already be admitted at a similar low-salary level to that proposed with the rather clear implication that little will change. However, no mention is made of at least two fundamental changes that would indeed make a clear difference.
First, the new proposals will allow not just graduates to come and earn £20,000 or so a year, as at present; they will also allow young migrants to come to do A-level jobs for the same money, thus enormously increasing the numbers of those—from all over the world—for whom £20,000 for an A-level job will indeed be an attractive salary. One could perhaps add that many will have families already here who will encourage them and that this can lead to settlement. However, the Government’s own impact assessment states:
“Setting the new entrant salary threshold at 30 per cent below the experienced threshold is estimated to reduce salary thresholds for 55 high-skilled occupations but increase it for 16 high-skilled occupations.”
Secondly, I stress again that there will be no cap under the points-based system; that is quite clear at the moment—they are not putting in a cap. Therefore, the numbers of young people recruited will be constrained only by employer demand. Furthermore, the removal of the labour market tests means that employers can go abroad directly, whether or not willing candidates might be available in the UK. Noble Lords might remember that, some years ago, a factory in Northampton that makes sandwiches brought in a plane of 250 people to work there; they were not necessarily young workers, but they were brought in en masse. I checked later with the Minister responsible and found that that firm had not even been in touch with the local jobcentre.
That is just one example of the way employers have brought in—and could well do so in the future under the new conditions—significant numbers of young workers who would directly take the jobs of our own young workers. Therefore, taken as a whole, the annexe to the noble Baroness’s letter, although described as a response, does not actually answer any of the points I raised. Rather, it confirms that the position is in fact very much as I described it.
In a nutshell, this is a wholesale revision of the so-called new entrant route, to the considerable disadvantage of our own young people. I had hoped that it would be called out in the responses from the Opposition Front Benches, but I have no great hope of that in the light of what they have just been saying. Therefore, I await the Minister’s response again, and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment, with which I have much sympathy. It seems surprising that we are offering a new entrant route, allowing employers to pay a third less than the headline rate, particularly as those with A-levels will now be able to come in as well as graduates, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just explained.
As a businesswoman with experience in quite a number of sectors, the going rates for the points-based system already look low and are likely to make overseas migrants attractive. That is especially true for the various professionals in the paper that my noble friend the Minister has helpfully circulated. That would be good news, for example, for US banks and legal firms in London, which should be employing local talent and not necessarily bringing it in from abroad.
Moreover, I think that the coronavirus will have had a dampening effect on some wage rates, so I think these numbers may already be out of date and, of course, it is important, as the Minister said, that the MAC keeps them under review very regularly. I hope I am wrong, but everybody has been saying that the tsunami of the coronavirus is likely to change the labour market.
Lord Horam (Con)
The contributions to this debate are getting shorter and shorter, and I intend to adhere to that pattern. The simple point I want to make is that this is part of a loosening of the arrangements—I would not call them controls—which were put in place at the beginning of this year and then amplified in July. Of course, since then we have had the coronavirus pandemic. We have the prospect now of an additional two million unemployed, and young people coming into the job market face a very bleak situation. These are not normal times.
The Treasury has responded rapidly and comprehensively to this situation with a major package earlier in the year and the less pronounced package of the last 10 days. What I hope and expect is that the Home Office reacts similarly and recalibrates the ideas it had before the world changed when the coronavirus set in. We really do need it to respond. I do not believe that the Home Office is unfit for purpose, as was once said by a Labour Minister. It has many able civil servants who are perfectly capable of responding to a changing situation, but they need to show it now; otherwise, people will lose faith in the Government.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, one of the weaknesses of the whole Bill is the extent to which the detailed implications are contained in regulations which are only now beginning to emerge. Every Member of your Lordships’ House will be aware that the scrutiny of regulations is much less effective than that of primary legislation; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised that issue in the debate on one of the previous amendments. I should perhaps, just for the record, declare that I am the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but I am speaking for myself, not for the committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the regulations are unamendable, so the House is left with what I call the “nuclear option” of complete rejection. Unsurprisingly, the House has veered away from that course of action, except on the rarest of occasions. That is one of the reasons why I support the noble Lord, Lord Green, in this case, because he is actually trying to wrest back a bit of control by having some more specific plans built into the Bill. They are necessary for the reasons that he, and indeed my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, laid out. In its way, this amendment is the third and last line of protection in regulating the extent to which the employment opportunities of our settled population can be undermined.
We already know that there is no cap and that we will have no resident labour market test. Therefore, if my noble friend the Minister refuses to accept this amendment—and I fear that if I could glance over her shoulder at her speaking notes, I would see that she might just be going to do that—it is extremely likely that our future levels of immigration will continue, probably in excess of a quarter of a million each year. It may be slightly below what we have now, at 320,000, but it will be well over a quarter of a million each year.
In Committee I chided the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has been coming back at me this afternoon, when he refused to back my proposal to establish an office for demographic change, which was a planned idea, independent and transparent, to look at the complexities of these issues in the round—environmental, ecological, societal. It is easy to laugh—the noble Lord is already grinning—but the reality is that there are serious issues around water, land quality and species loss which are all related to how our population is growing. They are not entirely due to it, but they are very largely related.
I said to the noble Lord, I hope, gently, because I do not want to upset him—he is a sensitive soul—that his party had to decide where it stood on demographic growth, of which immigration is a part, because it is an issue that really resonates in the country. We have heard the percentages; 60% to 70% of people are concerned about it. In particular, his party must decide where it stands, or all the possibilities of recovering the red wall, now blue wall, seats will be vanishingly small.
However, it is perfectly fair to say that this is not without dangers for my party. We will face quite significant challenges. If those of us who are concerned about what happens if our population grows by 6 million or 8 million are right, and the package of policies before us continues to allow rapid growth—it is not about whether they are foreigners, black or white, or what their colour is; it is about the number of people—we will have two big challenges. First, a lot of the people who turned the red wall seats into blue wall seats did so because we promised a sustained reduction in the level of immigration. If we do not deliver that, they will feel betrayed and let down.
In parallel with that, every year we will have to build 100,000 houses to accommodate the quarter of a million people likely to arrive. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that they pay more in tax than they draw in benefits, but there is a much more complicated issue, with which I will not bore the House this evening, about the capital investment to maintain and extend our roads and structures. They are not covered just by taxes; a much bigger level of capital expenditure is required. He and I can discuss this over a socially distanced cup of coffee, but I will not bore the House with it now.
We will build 100,000 houses a year, and they will be built in our shire counties. These people will not be delighted about it. We know that; housebuilding is intensely unpopular. The coming storm about the planning algorithm, which is now doing the rounds, is just the beginnings of the trouble there will be if we continue down this road. My noble friends Lord Horam and Lady Neville-Rolfe are right. The Government are wrong in believing they have the situation under control.
My noble friend the Minister nobly and loyally marches to the beat of the Home Office drum, which essentially says, “Don’t worry; it will be all right on the night”. I wish I shared the department’s confidence.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my understanding is that what lies behind this amendment is the aim to allow Parliament to set a rate for new entrants instead of it being set at 30% lower than the national average going rate of £25,600 under the points-based system. To restate what I have said before, this Bill is about EU migration, on which there is no restriction at the moment. From 1 January, if this Bill becomes law, there will be restrictions on EU migrants and a salary floor for new entrants.
It seems that the gut reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, to the new entrant salary level being set independently based on economic research by the Migration Advisory Committee at £20,480 is that it is a bit low. But as the Minister explained in Committee, the MAC found that those starting in their careers were typically being paid 30% less than those who were established in their role; hence the floor for new entrants is 30% less than the £25,600 set as the salary floor for migrants under the new points-based system. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is arguing that £25,600 is too low and therefore the new entrant salary level is too low, or whether 30% less for new entrants is not typical of a new entrant and therefore it should be something other than 30% less than the established rate.
If the noble Lord’s amendment is agreed, I would have to ask him on what basis he thinks Parliament should decide the new entrant salary level. I understand that the noble Lord believes that migration decisions should be based not on economics but on politics. May I say that I deny that I care little for ordinary working people, as the noble Lord said? If he would care to read in Hansard what I actually said, he will see that I felt that there were alternative protections for ordinary working people to what he was suggesting, which is completely different
We on these Benches believe that economic migration should be based on economics, while immigration by asylum seekers should be based on the compassionate consideration of the evidence of their claim. On that basis, we cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 8, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is the third amendment that he has proposed; we considered them previously in Committee. I shall not detain the House for long, but I will say that I listened to the debate on 9 September and I have listened carefully to the debate today, but I am not persuaded by the arguments made so far. These matters are kept under review and if the problem the noble Lord is alluding to is a problem, I am sure that the Government would act. We are probably a bit constrained by our procedures in this debate; in many ways these amendments could all have been debated as one group.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am disappointed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I just do not accept the assertion behind these amendments—that the UK will be flooded with migrants from the European Union when we have heard that the numbers are actually going down, given the difficulties that will be in place at the conclusion of the Brexit deal. I am not prepared to accept what has been suggested. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Tesco and the Co-op are going out to recruit all over Germany, France and elsewhere for people to come and work here, given all the charges that would involve for these companies. All those sorts of companies recruit their staff locally. They have huge staff turnover and they engage people locally.
I am also happy to say that this country has benefited hugely from immigration over many years and we should never forget that. However, the one thing I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about is his point about Bills and regulations. He is right to say that over the past 30, or perhaps 40, years there has been a drift, so that Governments of all persuasions produce skeleton Bills with more and more stuff being dealt with in regulations. There are many times when we have all felt frustrated by how we are dealing with these issues. I accept that.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was interested in and concerned about the position of the Labour Party. I thank him for that. The Labour Party will be fine and we will put forward our position at the next general election. However, I thank him for his concern. I should say, however, that in all the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has spoken, his own Front Bench does not agree with him. He has a problem, I suggest, with the Conservative Party as well. Maybe he should look there.
I take exception to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that I care little for ordinary working people. I care greatly about workers in this country and their families. We do not agree in this House—that is fine—but to suggest that I do not care, or that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with whom I agree, does not care, is wrong. That suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Green, is regrettable. We can disagree on politics and policies. I come from a family of people who have worked hard in this country and care about how the working people in this country are looked after and protected. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for retabling his amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken in support or opposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, seeks to put in place separate parliamentary approval for regulations allowing EEA and Swiss nationals who are new entrants to the labour market to be paid less than other skilled workers. I recognise the intention behind this amendment. He is absolutely right that, in using salary thresholds as a mechanism to control immigration, protect the domestic workforce from being undercut and ensure the UK’s economy prospers, we must have confidence that salary requirements are set at the right level. It is for these objectives, in addition to ensuring that migrant workers are not exploited and that a skilled migrant is coming to the UK for genuine skilled employment, that a system of salary thresholds will form a critical part of our new skilled worker route.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe spoke about the risk of losing control of our borders and disadvantaging young people and the unemployed in the UK. The noble Lord also mentioned the Government’s recently launched Kickstart programme and his concerns that its benefits would be reduced due to our young people facing further difficulties and unlimited competition from those overseas migrants who meet the new entrant definition. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that this is simply not the case. Our salary requirements for all skilled workers are based on national earnings data for UK workers. Furthermore, while new entrants will benefit from a reduced salary rate, recognising these individuals should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they typically earn around 30% less than experienced workers, they will still need to meet other mandatory requirements to be successfully granted leave. Namely, along with all other skilled workers, they must have a sponsoring employer, a job at the appropriate skill level and be able to speak English to an accepted standard. Furthermore, the new entrant rate is not an indefinite offer. It is designed for those essentially at the start of their careers.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, also voiced concerns about settlement, given that the new skilled worker route will be a route that allows this, subject to meeting relevant requirements. While this is indeed the case, I can confirm that individuals will need to be paid at least the going rate for their occupation by the time they reach settlement. While it may not sway the views of some noble Lords, the Government did not agree this proposal in isolation. We sought independent advice from the MAC, outlined in its January 2020 report on salary thresholds and a points-based system and, following careful consideration of its findings and our own extensive engagement, accepted its recommendations.
I should like to put on the record that reduced rates for new entrants are not new; they have been a part of the immigration system since 2013. While we intend to continue the new entrant salary rate, in future the Immigration Rules will set a more consistent 30% reduction across all occupations. As the MAC identified, the differences in the current system are very large for some occupations. New entrant quantity surveyors, for example, may be paid 69% less than more experienced migrant workers in the same profession.
Turning to the crux of this amendment, the noble Lord is right that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of these requirements, but there is already a long-established procedure for that. The Government are required to set out their immigration policy in the Immigration Rules. This includes salary requirements and reduced rates for new entrants which can determine whether an immigration application succeeds or fails. Changes to the rules must be laid before Parliament, either House may disapprove the changes by negative resolution within 40 days of them being laid and the Secretary of State shall make any changes that appear to her in the circumstances to be required. Any such changes will be laid before Parliament within a further 40 days. I do not think it is necessary or proportionate to introduce a new procedure for salary requirements for new entrants, particularly at a time when the Government are committed to simplifying and streamlining arrangements. Furthermore, there seems to be no particular reason for the procedure for new entrant salaries to be different from the procedure for the general salary requirements or, indeed, any other requirements for skilled workers.
Additionally, as is made clear in recently published policy statements on the UK’s new points-based system, measures will be introduced in a phased manner and we will retain the ability to make adjustments based on experience and, crucially, to respond to the needs of the UK economy. New regulations under an affirmative procedure would lessen this responsiveness and could risk splitting up interconnected policies which together create a robust element of control, protect domestic workers and ensure that those who have the skills and talents that we need and who want to make a positive contribution can come to the UK.
For the reasons that I have set out, and on the basis that we will continue to lay before Parliament the full details of the requirements, including those for new entrants, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full account of the Government’s policy, which we will study in detail. It is not feasible to do that on the hoof. Let me say first that I certainly did not intend to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, or the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, do not care about working people. Clearly, they spend much of their lives among working people and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was actually a trades union official for some time. However, I think they have not correctly judged the likely effect of the measures the Government are bringing forward, and I fear that—from everyone’s point of view—it is going to go pear-shaped. I am grateful for the powerful support of the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
In the end, this comes down to a question of judgment about the raft of measures that the Government are bringing in in January and applying to the whole world. We have dodged some of the technicalities, but we are not talking about applying these things to EU citizens only. We have a brand-new, massively new system and it is very dangerous for the stability of public opinion on this matter. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, hit the nail on the head with some very wise words. She said that this looks as though it is going too far with too many changes at once. That was simply put but none the less powerful, relevant and to the point. In the end, we will see what the numbers do. It will be a while before they take off, but my instinct is that they will, and at a very awkward time for the Government. That is their problem, but they have been warned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 10
Lord Rosser
“( ) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (1) unless—(a) a Minister of the Crown has published guidance on the “reasonable grounds” for permitting applications to the EU Settlement Scheme on a date later than the deadline for application to the scheme;(b) the guidance includes instruction on the immigration status of a person who is eligible to apply for the scheme in the period between the deadline for application and the date their application is made; and(c) a copy of that guidance has been laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent regulations being made under this Clause until the Government has published guidance on what reasonable grounds will be accepted as a reason for making a late application to the EU settlement scheme and how a person will be affected in the gap between the deadline and the date they apply.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 10 and 13, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, both relate to the EU settlement scheme, on which we had debates in Committee. I have tabled the amendments in this group not in order to have a rerun of those debates but to follow up on some specific points.
Amendment 10 would require the Government to publish guidance on the “reasonable grounds” that will be used to permit late applications to the scheme, with particular focus on the interim period between the deadline for the scheme and the date on which a late application is entered. The Minister has said in previous debates that early in 2021 the Government will publish guidance on what constitutes missing the deadline.
Our concern is the gap between the deadline and the date on which a late application is made. If a person applies to the EU settlement scheme after the deadline with a legitimate claim that is successful, there will have been a gap of perhaps some months between the deadline and the date on which they applied, during which they did not have legitimate immigration status in the UK. They might be an elderly person who has continued seeing their GP in that time, or a key worker who has continued going to work. Will there be repercussions for having continued these activities while not in possession of settled or pre-settled status? Or, once a person applies and is accepted, will they be considered to have had that status, which they are entitled to, for the entire period since the deadline? It would be helpful to have some clarity from the Government on that issue.
Amendment 13 relates to the protection of rights during the grace period between the end of the transition period and the EU settlement scheme deadline. I thank the Government for providing an illustrative version of the SI, but some concerns have been raised over its scope. The3million has raised concerns that
“In their current form, the regulations appear to exclude a large cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period and whilst their application is pending. The regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were ‘exercising treaty rights’ in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period.”
This appears to mean that EU citizens not exercising their treaty rights would fall outside these protections. That could include a person who is self-sufficient or reliant on their spouse for household income, or someone who is currently out of work and does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. It could also include those who would have a hard time showing evidence of economic activity, such as victims of trafficking or of modern slavery.
The current context of the Covid pandemic and job losses is relevant here. Job losses have been considerable and the prospects of new work can at present be low. To fall within the protection of the regulations, there must be the prospect of acquiring further work following the loss of a job. Stakeholder groups are concerned that there is a serious risk that those who cannot find work by the end of the year will not be protected by these regulations. Can the Government provide reassurance on the scope of the intended regulations? If that is not possible now, will the Minister undertake to look at this issue? I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having introduced this amendment, for the considerate way in which he did it, and for the questions which he posed to the Minister, to which I hope she will reply.
It would be difficult to overestimate the degree of concern that exists among voluntary and civil society organisations which are looking after children and seeing to their protection. I know that across the House, irrespective of party, there is a real concern that we should always be seen in the world as a country which gives genuine priority concern to children.
Among those organisations is of course Amnesty, and it is worth seeing what it has to say on this. Many of these children may do themselves harm; many of them will be British citizens or entitled to register as such. It is vital to their interests that they are encouraged to act on these rights of British citizenship and that local authorities are encouraged and supported to assist children in doing so. If that is not done, these children may lose their rights to British citizenship, either because for some the right is lost on their reaching adulthood since delay may mean evidence becomes increasingly inaccessible to establish, or because an encounter with the criminal justice system may bar their exercise of the right on the basis that they are regarded as not of good character.
Amendments 10, 13 and indeed 18 are concerned with ensuring that EU citizens are not left without settled status. These are important concerns, because being without status or confirmation of it exposes someone to immigration powers and exclusions. These immigration powers include the ability to detain and remove a person from the United Kingdom, and those immigration exclusions include the ability to prohibit a person from such things as working, renting accommodation, holding a bank account, accessing free healthcare and applying for social welfare. There are a number of telling concerns around this area of the Bill, and I thank my noble friend for having introduced the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, late applications are indeed very important, and guidance will be essential. There is a lot of concern about what may lie behind an EU citizen not having applied for settled status, not with the intention of somehow evading the authorities or doing anything sinister or underhand. For instance, as we have said before, people may believe that an application is not necessary because they have a permanent residence document. Many reasons are cited, and no doubt there are many which none of us has thought of. After all, that is the human condition.
There are people whom the Home Office information has failed to reach or who have not understood it. I am aware that the Home Office plans to step up its communications after the end of the year to try to reach those who have not applied. However, it is worth mentioning again that, when the UK switched to digital television, there was an enormous campaign which was generally accepted as successful, but even that success left 3% of households not switching and finding overnight that their televisions did not work, and that was a much more straightforward subject than this is.
The point made within the amendment, and by the noble Lord, about status in the interim period is hugely important, and I hope to come back to that later in this Bill. They have got to be secure in the interim; it would be an enormous breach of faith if that was not the case. In Committee, the Minister sought to reassure noble Lords that there is plenty of time to apply under the EU settled status scheme, but that is not the point; it is what the Government’s “compassionate and flexible approach” will amount to in practice in their pragmatic take on this.
I confess that I had hoped to get an amendment down on comprehensive sickness insurance—essentially, what the position is on the grace period—in time for today, but it defeated me. I refused to be completely defeated and, with a little more energy, got back to it and it has been tabled, but too late for today, so we will have an opportunity on Monday.
We have the Government’s SI in draft in what I understand to be close to its final form, but those who know this subject inside out—and I do not—are still poring over it. That includes the3million, which is doing the most impressive job on all of this subject, both at a technical and at a human level. It is entirely appropriate to seek an assurance that the draft regulations provide the protection that we, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would expect to see during the grace period.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right to remind us of the particular position of children who have not been able to exercise treaty rights, if I understand the position properly. The guidance needs to be as extensive as is appropriate or, to hark back, as is necessary. I say that because on a different matter, on 9 September, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, from the Dispatch Box, said that an amendment which I was speaking to was not necessary, and referred the Committee to the draft illustrative regulations proposed under Clause 4(1), which, as he said, do not include any provisions relating to the subject matter I was discussing. They do not. But reading that afterwards—and I do not think the noble Lord meant it as cynically as I then read it—it was tantamount to saying, “It is not necessary because we are not doing it.” I did read the passage through two or three times.
I have my concerns, as I have said, about the whole of Clause 4, but I am not sure it is appropriate to hold back on all the regulations until this temporary protection is sorted out. But then, frankly, I am not here to help the Government sort out that type of thing. I am glad the noble Lord has tabled this amendment, spoken to it and drawn the potentially precarious position of a number of people—possibly quite a lot of people—to our attention, and I support him.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his amendments. I hope that what I will say will reassure him and that he will feel happy to withdraw them. Both amendments seek to prevent the Government from making regulations under Clause 4 until we have published guidance on late applications made under the EU settlement scheme, the grace period statutory instrument and guidance on its operation.
I turn first to Amendment 10, which concerns the publication of guidance on how the Government will treat late applications to the EU settlement scheme. The Government have made clear their commitment to accepting applications after 30 June 2021, where there are reasonable grounds for missing this deadline. This is in line with the withdrawal agreements, which now have direct effect in UK law via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, so this commitment is effectively enshrined in primary legislation.
As I mentioned during Second Reading and more recently in Committee, the Government intend to publish guidance on reasonable grounds for missing the deadline in early 2021. This will be well in advance of the deadline. For now, our priority must be to encourage those eligible to make their application before the deadline. This will ensure that they can continue to live their lives here, as they do now, with the certainty that status granted under the scheme will provide them. We do not want to undermine those efforts and risk inadvertently causing people to delay making their application.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd—humanitarian that he is—supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about vulnerable people, particularly children. The Government are doing all that they can, using all available channels, to raise awareness of the scheme and ensure that vulnerable groups are helped to apply.
The published guidance, when it comes at the beginning of next year, will be indicative, not exhaustive. All cases will be considered in the light of their individual circumstances. Apart from asking for the reason for missing the deadline, the application process will be the same; we will consider the application in exactly the same way as we do now, in line with the immigration rules for the EU settlement scheme.
A person with reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, who subsequently applies for and obtains status under the scheme, will enjoy the same rights from the time they are granted status as someone who applied to the scheme before the deadline. However, they will not have those rights in the period after the missed deadline and before they are granted status, which is why we are encouraging and supporting people to apply as soon as possible. It is very pleasing that over 3.9 million people have done so.
In addition, it is important to remember that the regulations under the Clause 4 power include provisions relating to the rights of those with status granted under the EU settlement scheme. To delay those provisions, as envisaged by this amendment, would therefore be counterproductive in our collective effort to protect the rights of those resident in the UK by the end of the transition period, as well as Irish citizens.
Amendment 13 would require the Government to publish the draft statutory instrument that will temporarily protect the rights of EEA citizens who are eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme but have not done so by the end of the transition period, together with accompanying guidance. That instrument, as noble Lords know, is the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which I will refer to as the grace period SI. An illustrative draft was shared with this House before Committee. Since then, on 21 September, the Government have formally laid the SI in Parliament.
The purpose of the grace period SI is to set the deadline for applications to the EU settlement scheme as 30 June 2021 and to protect the existing rights of resident EEA citizens and their family members during the grace period. It will save relevant legislation otherwise repealed by Clause 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Bill at the end of the transition period. This will mean that EEA citizens can continue to live and work in the UK as now throughout the grace period and pending the resolution of their application to the EU settlement scheme, providing they apply by 30 June 2021.
I reassure noble Lords that EEA citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK will not change during the grace period, nor does the grace period SI change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. Therefore, there is no change to the Government’s policy that comprehensive sickness insurance is not required to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme.
Noble Lords asked me about the scope of the regulations. People need to exercise free movement rights to benefit from the savings in the grace period SI. We are not inventing rights of residence to save them, because that is not what the withdrawal agreement says. The statutory instrument will be subject to debate and approval by Parliament and will need to come into force at the end of the transition period. Where relevant, Home Office guidance will be updated to reflect the statutory instrument before the grace period commences.
I hope that I have explained that clearly and that, therefore, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions to this brief debate, and the Minister for her response, which I shall read carefully in Hansard. At the moment, I am not entirely sure whether I have had the reassurances that I sought; maybe I have and I shall realise that when I read her reply.
I raised the issue of someone who applied late and ended up with a gap of some months between the deadline and the date when they applied, in which they did not have a legitimate immigration status in the UK. I sought an assurance that, once a person in that situation applied and was accepted, they would be considered to have that status to which they were entitled for the entire period since the deadline. I am not quite sure whether the Minister was saying that they would, or not, but I shall read her reply very carefully.
I was not entirely clear again whether the Minister accepted the view of the3million organisation that the regulations would exclude a cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period or whether she was saying that would not be the case. Again, I shall read her response carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid that we need to have a very short break to assist those who are looking after us technically.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 11
Baroness Hamwee
“(5A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of—(a) the Withdrawal Agreement,(b) the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or(c) the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members.(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members of UK citizens which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as on the day on which this Act comes into force.(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—“close family members” means—(a) children (including adopted children), and(b) other close family members where that relation subsisted on or before 31 January 2020 and has continued to subsist; “Withdrawal Agreement”, “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill and very late in the debate on this amendment, which was then in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight—I am glad that he is able to be here this evening—having listened to the Minister I asked what she would advise a couple living in the EU, one British and one an EU national, if they both have elderly parents, on one side of the family in the UK and on the other in that EU country. They would be—they are—faced with not just the end of free movement but an impossible choice: not just where they should live after March 2022 but which parents they should decide to care for personally. They will have to make that decision within the next 18 months—15 months after the end of the transition. The Minister had an impossible task in responding to my question as to whether picking between parents was a humane response. She argued that people will have had plenty of time, but does that really address the point?
Since Committee, I have had so many emails, as no doubt have other noble Lords, making it clear how many different family situations there are, but all presenting families with similarly impossible choices. I thank everyone who has written to me and to other noble Lords. They have taken such care to contact us, not with standard formulaic emails but with powerful descriptions of their situations, their concern and their distress. Noble Lords will understand that I want to read some of them into the record, and that I cannot read them all. As examples, however, there is a lady of 75 living in the Netherlands supporting a Dutch companion, and vice versa, whose mother is 96 and in a care home there. There is a lady of 79 in the UK who expected to receive support and part-time care from her daughter, who would be prepared to give it provided that her French husband is able to move to Britain. A couple in France with a 12 year-old son are faced with whether to uproot him from school. There is a family in Italy, one parent British and one Italian, with two teenagers of dual nationality—one of whom has just started at university in the UK, while the other may want to make her life here; the parents may want one day to follow their daughters. And so it went on.
We are a global society. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and in all places. Many people make the point that their residence outside the UK makes them feel no less British and that they are surprised to find themselves writing as they do. Many say that the prospect of separation from family is unbearable. All say that when they moved abroad, they had no idea that there could be restrictions or conditions on returning as a family.
The amendment provides that the regulations
“must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of”
the agreements referred to
“to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members”
without
“conditions on the entry or residence of close family members … which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement … on the day on which this Act comes into force.”
I have been asked about a detail of the amendment: the reference to “close family members”. As it happens, in a Select Committee yesterday the Immigration Minister used exactly that phrase in discussing family reunion. I suppose the technical answer is that these provisions would be implemented by regulations which would be precise, but by anyone’s definition partners and parents “where that relation subsisted”, which in the case of parents it obviously would, at the end of the year and continues to do so would fall within it, as well as children.
The Minister explained in the context of various amendments in Committee that the Government were seeking to be not discriminatory but to end discrimination between, on the one hand, EEA/Swiss citizens and, on the other hand, other citizens. But the Government’s proposals for ending the current arrangements in March 2022 would discriminate between those families of mixed nationality who happened to have settled in the UK and those who settled elsewhere in the EU. They would require Britons who wish to return to meet conditions for sponsoring a spouse and children.
The financial requirements—the minimum income requirements—are not easy nor by any means available to everyone. Some 40% of UK workers could not reach the minimum income requirement, and the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only after six months, assuming he or she can get here in the first place. If you want to bring elderly parents, they have to be so much in need of care that, according to evidence given to a working party that I chaired some years ago, they would probably be unfit to travel. If you yourself are older and no longer earning, can you reach the income threshold? This would be discrimination against our own citizens, imposed retrospectively on citizens who had no expectation that this choice might lie ahead.
Lifting the end date would not mean unlimited numbers of people coming here with their families. As I have explained, we are talking about people who fall within the agreement, their families and children, and others with whom the relationship subsisted before January 2020. I asked rhetorically in Committee if this was really humane. I ask now whether it is the right approach—to ask that, I think, would also be rhetorical. Since Committee, I have begun to realise just how inhumane it is, so I give notice now—I suppose it is notice for Monday—that, barring assurances which I cannot say I anticipate, though they would be very welcome, I will press the matter to a vote in accordance with current procedure. For the purposes of the debate this evening, I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. When I spoke to it in Committee, I genuinely thought that this was something the Government had overlooked. I discover that this is not the case and that there is some history behind the Government’s position. The reason perhaps for my naivety is that the argument as I saw it, and as I still see it, is very simple: it would be wrong to put a deadline on British citizens returning to the UK with their families. It would be deeply unfair to do so, and I am glad that the noble Baroness intends to press this to a vote if the Government do not accept the amendment.
The Minister cited in Committee the case that the Conservative Government of the day brought against Surinder Singh in 1992, and said at the beginning of her reply that the amendment
“refers to a specific cohort of people relating to what is known as the Surinder Singh route for family immigration.”—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 827.]
I fear that this statement betrays an element of cynicism in government thinking about this issue—for which I of course do not blame the noble Baroness. However, this is an inappropriate analogy, in the sense that the Government have clearly not accepted the decision made in Surinder Singh’s favour. It is an inappropriate analogy for a couple of other reasons. One is that there is a universal cut-off point that applies both to British and European families, which is of course the end of this year. We will not then be part of the EU and there will be a limit on the number of families, European and British, who might then come to this country from Europe.
The second thing to say is that we are talking about many British citizens who have been married for many years, often to other European partners—though it should not matter where in the world their partners have come from—and often they are building families with strong and complex roots in the UK and the rest of Europe. They have done so believing at the time that they had a settled life in Europe, wherever that may be in Europe; that was their bone fide position. Yes, people get divorced—and indeed married—for all kinds of reasons; that is life. But this Government are applying the Government of 1992’s perception of that case to generalise about all British families living in Europe. British citizens and their families in Europe are not that cohort, as this Government perceive it, and it is insulting to all British families currently living in Europe that they should draw that analogy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, after the powerful debate we had in Committee, I am very sorry that it was still necessary to put this down again.
In our debate on Amendment 6, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, referred to the long and continuing discussion the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and many others—including myself—had in Committee about the many amendments that we sought to have applied to all affected by immigration law, the ruling out of the scope of those amendments and the claims from the Minister that what we were tabling was subsequently discriminatory. However, that is an argument that cannot—or, certainly, should not—be applied to this amendment; the situation of Britons married or partnered with Europeans is particular, but it can only be said that it is particularly awful.
No one with a non-EU spouse or partner could have predicted the “onerous” and “unjustified” minimum income requirement applied in 2012. Those are not my adjectives but those of a High Court judge. What I would call an unreasonably harsh assessment might be to say “Well, they should have known that the rules could change when they made their family arrangements”. Yet the many Britons who have been writing to me—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, no doubt to many other Members of your Lordship’s House—who established families in Europe decades ago, in many cases, could not conceivably have imagined the dreadful state of British politics over the past five years that has brought us to the current pass. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking all of them for taking the time and having the courage to share their circumstances with us in the hope that we can get the Government to listen.
Rather than making my own arguments, I want as closely as possible to let Jane, a Briton who gave me permission to share her story, speak for herself in your Lordships’ House. She says:
“I am a British citizen, resident in Italy since 1993 with my Italian husband and children; I have my widowed mother, aged 76, living alone in the UK. She is fortunately in good health at the present time. However, one must be realistic. In time, she may need extra care. As her only child, I, with my husband, have always reassured my mother that we would be there to care for her in her later years, but due to the possible outcome of this Bill, we are increasingly worried.
Like many other Britons who moved to the EU while Britain was a member, I had—and expected to keep—an almost unfettered right to return to the UK with my family. My mother and I were safe in the knowledge that I could always come back should the need arise. I do not want my mother to have this worry. I would like her to grow old knowing that we can come back to the UK should that need arise. Unless this Bill is amended, this right will be removed on 29 March 2022, creating impossible choices for me and thousands of families like mine.
The Government’s answer is that we are given 15 months from the end of transition to return with our families to the UK. This is ignoring the massive practical difficulties of uprooting ourselves from family life and work in our country of residence. I have my own business here in Italy, not to mention my husband’s work and our children’s education, and there may be no need for that uprooting.”
Will the Minister personally respond to Jane and tell her what the Government’s justification is for putting her and her family in this situation?
The Green Party group wholeheartedly offers the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, its support if she chooses to put her amendment to a vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was prompted to speak in support of the amendment by an email that I received this week from a British citizen born of British parents in Britain. During voluntary service overseas, she met and married an Italian. She lived in Italy, working for a UN agency for 30 years. They adopted a boy whose nationality is Italian. After her husband died, she hoped to return to the UK, where her brother and sister live. However, this would now mean her leaving her son behind, which, she writes,
“I could never do. We are very close. I could never leave him behind, with me in one country and him in another.”
Both she and others in a similar situation cannot believe that their families will be split up in this way in future.
I refer to what the Minister said in Committee at the end of the debate on another amendment relating to family reunion. She appeared to agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for raising the minimum income threshold—referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—from £18,600 to £25,700, or even £38,000, to cover the cost of public services or make a net contribution to public finances. I know that these figures came from the Migration Advisory Committee but they are premised on a narrow understanding of what constitutes a contribution to our society. It is the same kind of thinking that will exclude care workers and other key workers from immigration, as we heard during the debate on a previous amendment. The argument discounts the importance of the right to family life. I hope that the Minister will say now that I misread what she was saying and that she was not supporting the suggestion to raise the threshold.
The damaging impact of the minimum income threshold has been documented in a number of studies, most recently from the University of Bristol. It wrote of
“not just emotional impacts of separation, but financial, mental and physical hardship.”
The family reunion rules divide far too many families already. They need reviewing. For now, we can at least prevent even more families—like those of the mother who emailed me and the many other people who have emailed other Members of your Lordships’ House—being split up in this cruel and heartless way. We can prevent that happening by supporting this amendment.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has already eloquently set out the powerful arguments for this amendment, as have the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Lister of Burtersett.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee told us, in Committee she asked the Minister how she would advise a couple, one British and one an EU national, who both have elderly parents, in which country they should choose to live. Which set of elderly parents should they pick? In response, as my noble friend reminded us, the Minister said that the Government had given people “plenty of time”, but that is not an answer. It does not matter how much time they have had; they could have had all the time in the world. It does not change the fact that the Government are forcing them to make an invidious choice, to make it by 2022 and to live with it ever after. If they need to stay in the EU member state of the EU national to look after his or her parents, after 2022 they will no longer be eligible to return to the UK together. I ask the Minister once again: how should that family make their choice? I would like her to provide an answer to that essential question—which she failed to give to my noble friend—because it goes to the heart of the issues and the terrible choices that will be inflicted on our citizens and their families as a result of the Government’s policy.
The Government have made much of taking back control. This is a test for Ministers of what that control will mean in practice. Will they act with compassion or with cold-hearted indifference and in doing so inflict intolerable injustice on thousands of families of our citizens? I am sure I am not alone—and we have heard testimony from previous speakers—in having been contacted by numerous British citizens with heartrending stories of the misery that the Government’s present policy will cause to them and their loved ones. People who settled as British citizens in the EU and who made their lives there with their partners, who now, through no fault of their own, face their future plans being torn up by ministerial obduracy and callousness.
One such example is Fiona, who lives in Luxembourg with Miguel, her German-Chilean husband. He studied his O and A-levels in the UK, where his father was a professor. He later took a job as a translator in Luxembourg, where Fiona joined him. They have now been married 25 years and have lived in Luxembourg all that time. They always assumed they would be able to return together to the UK, as Miguel was an EU citizen, and they made their life plans on that reasonable assumption. Now—through no fault of their own—unless they return before 2022, Fiona would only be able to do so alone. In theory, her two children could come with her, as they are dual nationals, but if this is the way the UK intends to treat their German father they have no wish to do so, and I cannot say I blame them. Fiona says: “As a British citizen, I feel exiled from my country of birth and the rest of my UK family.” That is the reality of the Government’s position: to de facto exile British citizens from the land of their birth.
The only argument I have heard Ministers advance to justify the injustice they are about to inflict is that somehow maintaining the existing position would not be fair on British citizens living outside the EU who are married to non-UK nationals. This is the hollowest of empty arguments. British citizens moving to live in an EU member state had the reasonable expectation that they would be able to return to the UK with their partner at any point. The gross injustice lies in the fact that existing rights are being stripped away. If the Government do not move on this policy, British citizens will face a very stark choice come 2022: they will either have to return alone, without their wife, husband or other family members, or not at all. That is the reality.
I hope that all Members of the House will be clear, when they eventually get to vote on this amendment, that they will not be voting on some abstract piece of policy; they will be deciding the future of thousands of British citizens and their families. They will be deciding whether those families have to pick which elderly parent they will stay to care for, or which life plans they have to tear up. Above all, they will be deciding whether to lift a massive burden of anxiety from the shoulders of our citizens in the EU or to impose a further weight of misery upon them. Even at this late stage, it remains in the Government’s hands to show, by accepting this amendment, that they have a human face. However, if they do not, I hope that they will be resoundingly defeated when the virtual Lobbies function once again.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her stamina and courtesy in enduring a lot of Second Reading speeches earlier. I wonder whether, like me, she misses Lady Mar, who was very good at intervening on Report to criticise those making Second Reading speeches. This debate is rather different and I sympathise with the Minister for a different reason: she has a very difficult task in answering the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, repeated again tonight.
The oddity of this debate is that we are seeking to avoid discrimination against UK citizens. The EU citizen who is here now or will be coming here by the end of this year has, quite rightly, the right to keep here or bring in family members, but from 2022 the UK citizen living abroad, where he or she went exercising legitimate expectations, will have that right withdrawn. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has just said.
I find it hard to understand the response that the Minister gave to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, last time. I am particularly puzzled by the Catch-22 situation: from 2022, the accompanying partner will have to satisfy the minimum income requirement, but how will the returning partner be able to demonstrate the six-month history of earning in order to satisfy the requirement? It seems to be a really rather vicious Catch-22.
However, the core of the matter is the extraordinary callousness of requiring our citizens living abroad to make the difficult choices that are spelled out in our email inboxes these days: whether to break up the family, to favour looking after a dependent relative in the country of residence somewhere in the EU 27, or to come back to look after a dependent relative in this country. Those are the only three options available. It really is extraordinary that we should put our citizens in that position. They exercised their legitimate expectations and expected to lose none of their rights—and were told that they would lose none of their rights—when they chose to marry and live somewhere in the EU 27, or 15 or 12, or whatever it was at the time.
We need a proper answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we do not get one—and I feel sorry for the Minister, because I do not think that she will be able to answer satisfactorily—then I will certainly vote for this amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was absolutely right. Do we want to be a society based on compassion and concern, or to become a nation without a beating heart on humanitarian issues of this kind? As far as the European Union is concerned, there is of course a special challenge because citizenship means citizenship, going right back to classical times, but we took away what people in good faith had come to understand as their citizenship and the rights that followed from it when they went to make lives, futures and careers overseas. They never dreamed that they were breaking links with their home base. Many of them wanted to return at some point and of course, as we have heard from one speaker after another, many have families rooted here for which they feel responsible; they want to be able freely at a time of crisis to return and succour the needs of such people.
It is altogether good news that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has moved this amendment; it represents the kind of Britain in which I want to live, given the values behind it. Do we believe that families are fundamentally important psychologically, for mental health more generally, for physical health and to the well-being of citizens, or not? Do families provide a unit of stability in the midst of an increasingly complex, demanding and unpredictable world, or do they not?
What are we doing with this Bill? It is almost impossible to understand how the Government have got themselves into this position. I hope we stand very firmly behind the noble Baroness this evening, or whenever it is we are allowed to vote on this matter.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That probably comes as no surprise to noble Lords.
I am going to do something that I normally try not to, and that is to rehearse one of the arguments that has been going on for years. For five of the six years that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House we have been talking about having a referendum on leaving the European Union, having that referendum, and then trying to deal with the fallout from it. The debates that we were having in October 2015 have been rehearsed again and again. I have tried not to rehearse them; I recognise that the UK voted to leave, that we have left and that at the end of the transition period things will be different.
However, one of the points made during the debates on the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was the importance of enfranchising EU nationals resident in the UK but also UK nationals resident elsewhere in the EU. That was suggested precisely because those groups of people were disfranchised yet were potentially going to—I will not use “suffer”, as I realise that that could be seen by some as inflammatory—be more clearly affected than many of the rest of us who are not actively using our rights as EU citizens. British citizens who have opted to use their rights under EU law to marry, reside and exercise the right to family life as EU and UK citizens should not have those rights torn away from them.
We have heard many individual cases this evening, but I will take a slightly more general approach. When an EU national is working abroad in another EU country, family members also have the right to reside and work in that country, regardless of their nationality. That has applied to UK citizens. The Minister puts forward the idea that somehow people have 15 months to make a make-or-break decision: “You can come back now or stay away. You can’t come back with your spouse, your children, your in-laws, your close family members.” Is that really what people thought that they were voting for? Taking back control surely is about us making the right decisions. They do not have to be xenophobic or exclusionary, or choices that say no to people. Why should we make it harder for those British citizens who have chosen to live in other countries—because they were exercising their rights and living with people they loved—to be back in the United Kingdom after March 2022 than it will be for EU citizens with settled status? We should at least be as generous to our fellow British citizens who have used their EU rights as we are to EU citizens who will benefit from settled status. Can the Minister please talk to her colleagues in the Home Office and make the Government think again?
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Government have already seen what course of action they should take. I can see absolutely no sensible reason for the proposals being as they are and, apart from the issue of acting in a civilised way towards individuals, I cannot believe that so many people or such high costs are involved, so I cannot understand why so far the Government have been stuck on this issue.
As we know, the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the rights of UK nationals living in the EEA and Switzerland who return to live in the UK in future to bring with them or to be joined by non-British family members on the same terms as at present. Unless this Bill is amended, British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while the UK was a member of the EU will lose their right to return to their country of birth with a non-British partner or children, unless they can meet financial conditions beyond the reach of many. If they need to return to look after an elderly parent, thousands will now have to choose between returning alone and leaving their families behind or abandoning their parents to stay with their non-British families in the EEA. Nobody should have to face such a choice.
The problem is that the Government are using the end of free movement to make these British citizens for the first time meet the minimum income requirement for family reunion. The MIR has been roundly criticised, because it is so high that 40% of UK workers would not be able to reach it, and because of the Catch-22 rule that the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only if they have been working in the UK for six months. How can they get into the UK if they cannot satisfy the MIR? The MIR is harsh but what makes it doubly unfair to apply it to this group of British citizens is that the change is, in effect, retrospective. When they left their homes in the UK to move to the EU or EEA, those people were safe in the knowledge that if they established a family while they were abroad they could bring them back to Britain, and the British parents they left behind had the same expectations.
It also leads to the perverse result that the British Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens: while British citizens who have moved or will move to the EEA before the end of 2020 will face these restrictions, EU citizens who have moved or will move to the UK before the end of 2020 will not. They will have the right under the withdrawal agreement to bring existing family members here for life, as well as keeping their existing rights to return to their country of birth with families they have made in the UK.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, makes herself available and is happy to give us briefings and have chats about impending legislation. I had quite a long chat with the Minister the other day about this Bill and this amendment.
I cannot help feeling that the Government are making an enormous mistake. This is not the way to treat people; this is not the way to behave. We were told that people will have 15 months to sort themselves out, but this proposal takes away a basic right—whether you have 15 months or longer to accept it, it is still taking away a basic right. That is surely unacceptable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, just said, this is retrospective legislation. Nobody knew at the time; this has been invented subsequently. Not a single person in this position—and I have had masses of emails, as we all have, with terribly sad stories of people who are bewildered and agonised over what to do—had any idea that this was going to happen to them. None of us did until recently. For a year or two after the referendum, we had no idea that this would be the case.
When I had a chat with the Minister and her officials, one of the arguments put—I do not think I am out of order in putting the argument, as she is bound to put it herself later—was that we would have two sorts of British people. Say we had a British person married to an American, compared with a British person married to a French person: the British person married to an American would not have the right that we are arguing for on behalf of the British person living with an EU partner. But, of course, no British person married to an American ever thought that they would have that right, but we are taking away the right from people who expected to have it all along.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, also said, this discriminates against British people. How does it do so? An EU citizen living in Britain with a British partner has the right to go backwards and forwards to EU countries with no constraints of the sort that we are seeking to impose on British people. We have retrospective legislation that will discriminate against British people, which is surely outrageous, and the arguments do not stand up. I honestly believe that the Government should back off. This is a very big mistake.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will not go through and repeat all the arguments in favour of this amendment, so eloquently put by many noble Lords. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said. I want to read from one of the emails that I have received. It says: “I am a British citizen, born and bred in England, who currently lives in France with my Dutch partner and our 12 year-old son. My ageing parents still live in the UK and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that at some point in the future, I would like to return to live in the UK, principally to be closer to my parents and to help look after them in the autumn of their years. I was horrified to learn that, as things currently stand, from 2022, I would face a means test in order to return to the UK with my family—a means test to return to the country of my birth and of which I am a fully fledged citizen. I am sure you can appreciate what an absurd situation this is. Like all other British citizens who moved to the EU while Britain was a member, I had and expected to keep a right to return to the UK with my family. At the time I left the UK, my parents were safe in the knowledge that I could always come back, should the need arise. Many of us met a non-UK partner while living in the EU and made a family with them, believing that our family would remain united wherever we lived. Unless this Bill is amended, our right to return home with our families will be removed from 29 March 2022, leading to impossible choices for me and thousands of families like mine. This would be a completely inhumane situation.”
I shall read just the last sentence of another email I have received. It says simply: “Unless this Bill is amended, the right of UK citizens to live in their own country with the partners of their choice will be negated for no obvious benefit to anyone. Is this a humane or necessary approach?” No doubt that is a question that the Government will answer in their reply, but I say now that if this amendment is put to a vote, we will be supporting it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to Amendment 11, which seeks to continue the current family reunion arrangements provided under EU law, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, pointed out, by the so-called Surinder Singh route. This amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Flight in Committee. It would require the regulations made under Clause 4 to provide a lifetime right for UK nationals resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied or to be joined by their close family members under current EU free movement law terms. The amendment seeks to provide this cohort with preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The result would be that the family members of such UK nationals would forever bypass the Immigration Rules that otherwise apply to the family members of UK nationals.
Family members of UK nationals who are resident in EEA states and Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreements. However, the Government made the decision to provide arrangements for them. They will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members —a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after this date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Those family members will then be eligible to apply for status to remain here under the EU settlement scheme. Family members will, of course, be able to come to the UK after 29 March 2022 but will then need to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules applying to family members of UK nationals, irrespective of where they come from.
A number of noble Lords asked me to advise them on what choices they would make. For a number of reasons, I cannot do that, not least because I am not an immigration lawyer. But it is not the case that UK nationals who wish to return to the UK from living in the EEA after 29 March 2022 will be required to abandon family members overseas. Those families will have to meet the requirements of the UK family rules, as I have just said, the same as family members of other UK nationals who already have to do this. This is a matter of simple fairness.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Flight, was concerned that we were affording lesser rights to UK nationals than to EU citizens in this regard. Under the withdrawal agreements, EEA and Swiss citizens have lifetime rights to be joined here by existing close family members, but only if they are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period. UK nationals in EEA states and Switzerland have the same rights of family reunion in their host countries. By contrast, the amendment does not specify a date by which the UK national must return to the UK, meaning they could return at any point in the future and continue to benefit from EU family reunion rules. Such preferential treatment is unfair and cannot be justified in relation to the family reunion rights of UK nationals outside of EU law. The rights for those affected by the end of free movement should, after a reasonable period to plan accordingly, which our policy provides, be aligned with those of other UK nationals who have always resided in the UK or who seek to bring family members to the UK after a period of residence in a non-EEA country. To do otherwise would perpetuate a manifestly unfair situation for all other UK nationals wishing to live in the UK with family members from other countries.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Flight touched on the minimum income requirement. I appreciate the concerns that noble Lords raised in Committee. We think that the threshold is set at a suitable and consistent level and promotes financial independence, thereby avoiding burdens on the taxpayer. The MIR, as it is called, has been based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. The Supreme Court has also endorsed our approach in setting an income requirement for family migration which prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures that migrant families can integrate into our communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, referred to something that I mentioned in Committee. I am not sure that I am going to get this right. If I do not, I shall write to her or we can come back to it again. She was talking about £25,700. I understand that the minimum income requirement for a partner or spouse is £18,600, rising to £22,400 for sponsoring one child and the same again for sponsoring another. Can we speak after Report, or I will write to her after looking at Hansard?
My noble friend Lord Flight and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about Catch-22 in meeting the minimum income requirement. It does not exist as noble Lords described, as the minimum income requirement is generally to be met from the UK national partner rather than from the foreign national partner.
I know that I shall not have reassured noble Lords, because many of them tell me that they are going to vote on this, but that is my explanation of the logic of what the Government are doing. I hope—but I doubt—that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness on one thing: I am not going to withdraw my amendment. I thank all the speakers, all those who have written to us and the organisation British in Europe, which has helped us understand the position and made sure that so many British people in Europe understand it.
It was notable to me that the speakers all used different examples. I think all of us have had the experience of being briefed and finding that one’s briefing is anticipated by several previous speakers—not so today. Our correspondents have written a variety of speeches for us. What I had not known until this evening was the position of veterans who served in the Armed Forces abroad, and who—this is very powerful—are making their views known. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising that.
The Minister said we were asking to for ever bypass immigration laws. That is a very loaded way of putting it. She talked about simple fairness; well, simple fairness demands not changing the rules affecting our fellow citizens, who could never have anticipated the situation, nor anticipated that their own spouse would be regarded as an unacceptable burden on the state.
We should not be callous, to adopt one term that is being used, about the legitimate expectations of our fellow citizens. Let us not be callous, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, let us be civilised. So, I do not beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I will put it to the House when we are able to have a Division on the matter.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I will now put the question on Amendment 11. Notice has been given of the intention to press this amendment to a Division. I will need to collect the voices, but if there is a dissenting voice, the Division will have to be deferred.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
“( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to make provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement as defined by section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the power created in subsection (1) can only be used in ways that are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is an amendment I moved in Committee. I said then that there was nothing subversive about it, no cunning plan; it simply seeks to ensure consistency with the withdrawal agreement in the light of the power in Clause 4 to make regulations which may modify primary legislation.
When the amendment was originally drafted, the issue was not so topical as it has subsequently become—in another context, of course—and it is still topical. But I do not need to go there. The objection is to Clause 4. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty; we should be entitled to rely on it and not have the risk of the Government resiling in any way from it through any means, and certainly not through inherently low-profile secondary legislation, which is, in effect, unamendable and unstoppable.
Immigration law is fiendishly complicated and quite often changed through rules. I am not accusing Ministers of attempting to slip something through, but mistakes can happen. We should stick with where we believe we are on the withdrawal agreement. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Flight, who will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Flight (Con)
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the power created by this clause can be used only in ways which are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Clause 4(2) enables regulations to be made to amend earlier primary legislation. The UK-EU withdrawal agreement is incorporated in UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended. It follows that, as drafted, the Clause 4 power enables the Secretary of State by regulation to modify the application in the UK of the withdrawal agreement.
The withdrawal agreement is the vital underpinning of the rights created in UK law for UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living here. It is a matter of constitutional concern that it should be given the maximum possible legal protection. As regards immigration, it underpins the UK’s EU settlement scheme for EU citizens in the UK. It is therefore essential both for EU citizens in the UK and for British nationals in the EU that the withdrawal agreement remains sacrosanct.
It will no doubt be said that a UK Government would never act in breach of an international treaty. Be that as it may, Clause 1, enabling legislation, should never be drafted in such broad terms that this could happen. On Clause 2, where proposed legislation might be seen as a breach of the withdrawal agreement, the decision on whether it does in fact do so should be a matter for Parliament to consider properly through primary legislation.
Given the complexity of immigration legislation in the UK, without the amendment it is also possible that a regulation may be entirely unwittingly in breach of the agreement but that that inconsistency is not spotted. There is no downside to our proposed amendment. It does no more and no less than ensure that the withdrawal agreement is honoured.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, she tabled this amendment in Committee. It would prevent regulations that are made under Clause 4 being able to include any provisions that could be inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. Its intention is to make sure that nothing can be done that undermines the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens here that were guaranteed under the withdrawal agreement. I await with interest to hear the response. I assume that the Minister will be able to provide adequate reassurance that rights in the withdrawal agreement are protected. There would certainly be an issue if the Government were not able to provide that reassurance.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to Amendment 12, which as she said was previously tabled in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Flight and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for speaking in this short debate on it.
Amendment 12 seeks to prevent the Government using the power in Clause 4 to make regulations which are inconsistent with the EU withdrawal agreement. The Government have placed a very high priority on ensuring the protection of the rights of EU citizens who have made the United Kingdom their home. Our commitment is, I hope, evident in the effort and resources that we have already devoted to the EU settlement scheme. I am happy to restate that the Government have absolutely no intention of acting incompatibly with the citizens’ rights provisions of the withdrawal agreements.
As has been explained, we already have a legal obligation to comply with those agreements, which also have direct effect in domestic law in accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. If further reassurances were needed—and it sounded as if noble Lords wanted some—a formal independent monitoring body is being set up by the Ministry of Justice under Article 159 of the EU withdrawal agreement to ensure compliance by the UK with Part Two of the withdrawal agreement concerning citizens’ rights.
The Independent Monitoring Authority has been established under Section 15 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It will be a new, independent body which is fully capable of monitoring our domestic implementation and application of the citizens’ rights aspects of the agreements. It can launch inquiries, receive complaints and bring legal action to identify any breaches in how the agreements are being implemented or applied in the UK.
For these reasons, we continue to think that this amendment is unnecessary. Moreover, adopting it would call into question why this restriction has not been included in every other item of legislation across the statute book. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is fairly recently that some of us have felt it necessary to require assurances that legislation that a particular Government make will not be changed and broken—even in a specific and limited way. One understands that successive Governments may do so. It seemed necessary to make the point again because we are in such a strange situation. I was not sure about the powers of the Independent Monitoring Authority; I was under the impression—this is my failure to do my homework properly—that it would not have the power to take legal proceedings in a way which met this point. I am interested to know that.
I am clearly not going to pursue this. I want to take what is said at face value and I hope that the noble Lord’s successors do not prove me too naive in doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
“Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: entitlement to remain
(1) Any child who has the right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in Part 1 of this Act, and who is in the care of a local authority or entitled to care leaving support, is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister.(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose.(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted indefinite leave to remain status after the deadline for applications under the Scheme will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with that status from the time of the Scheme deadline.(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed and remains in effect for 5 years from the day of the deadline of the Scheme.(7) For the purposes of this section, children “in the care of a local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following provisions—(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: general);(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision);(c) section 75 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (general duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (provision of accommodation for children);(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (interpretation); and(f) Article 50 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (care orders and supervision orders).(8) For the purposes of this section, a child “entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following provisions—(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (preparation for ceasing to be looked after);(b) section 23A(2) of the Children Act 1989 (the responsible authority and relevant children);(c) section 23C(1) of the Children Act 1989 (continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);(e) sections 29 and 30 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities); and(f) Article 35(2) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (persons qualifying for advice and assistance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I express my thanks to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for a very helpful conversation we had about this and other clauses in the Bill. I am afraid that, despite that, it is my intention to seek the opinion of the House when we get to vote on it next Monday. I am still grateful to her—I do not want her to feel that conversations with me are totally without benefit for me; it was very useful to have had it.
The purpose of this amendment is to fast-track children in care and care leavers who are resident in the UK through the EU settlement scheme and grant them settled status. The idea is that they should have that settled status and not be undocumented, as they might otherwise become.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just explained, the amendment would ensure that children in care were entitled to remain in the United Kingdom.
When the same amendment was debated in Committee, several of your Lordships emphasised that post Brexit it is both logical and necessary for children who are already in care, along with those entitled to care, to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, for otherwise where would these children go?
Nor, of course, can it be in the child’s best interest to be removed from care in the United Kingdom simply because we are leaving the European Union. Equally, under our own law and that of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we are obliged to look after the child’s best interest in all respects. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister affirmed that this is what we will do.
However, the Government are concerned that post Brexit an automatic right to remain in care in the United Kingdom would encourage local authorities not to apply for leave to remain for each child currently in their care.
Yet surely local authorities providing care to EEA and Swiss children ought not to have to face the additional administrative burden and red tape implied—to have to make an application for leave to remain for each and every child before the given deadline.
Would it not be much better and far less time consuming if, rather than dealing with the majority of cases, local authorities instead had to deal with only very few of them? Those are the cases where it might not be in the child’s best interest to remain in the United Kingdom. For the latter cases, an administrative act could easily be made before the given deadline in order to avoid the automatic or de jure leave to remain after having left the European Union.
Therefore, without the amendment, local authorities would have to shoulder an unnecessary burden just at a moment when they had many other pressing tasks to perform.
Yet, at the same time, acceptance of the amendment means that children currently in care would no longer be uncertain about their future care if, for whatever reason, local authorities should not be able to meet the deadline for an application for leave to remain.
Worse still, without the amendment there is also a risk that, after the given deadline will have passed, some children might then be deported.
For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposes.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which seeks, of course, to offer security to EEA children in care in the UK and those entitled to care-leaving support. The noble Lord and his colleagues have set out the case for the amendment very clearly and I certainly do not want to repeat their comments, but I want to add my support as someone who worked in mental health services for many years—decades, actually—originally on the front line. My recollections of the vulnerability of those children remain with me even after what is perhaps four decades.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her helpful letter explaining the Government’s position. I welcome her assurance that protecting the rights of EEA citizens who are resident in the UK has been the priority since the outcome of the EU referendum, and that the Government have been working with local authorities and others to ensure that vulnerable children obtain immigration status. It seems that the Government agree with the sponsors of this amendment that it is essential that children in care and care leavers have secure UK status.
The Government may have identified a weakness in our amendment—that it would not in fact provide these children and young people with the clear status we all want them to have—although I was very much reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hope the Minister can clarify this point, because it really is of fundamental importance.
If needed, I hope the Government will table their own amendment at Third Reading to make sure that the Bill fulfils what are not only our objectives, but theirs. I think the Minister would welcome the fact that the amendment places a duty on local authorities to identify which children in their care are at risk of losing their status when the UK leaves the EU, and therefore which children need support to get through the hoops to achieve settled status. This is so important, because local authorities do not routinely collect nationality data on children in their care. They may assume that none of their children are from the EEA and will not take any action on this important issue. It is easy to anticipate that, through no fault of their own, these children could end up undocumented.
The evidential burden for settled status is another problem, particularly when people are up against a deadline. By reducing the evidential burden, many of these vulnerable children will be rescued from having undocumented status after the transition period. The Home Office has previously stated:
“Children who do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. This includes children in care and care leavers”.
If the Home Office is committed to the principle of late applications for these vulnerable children, why not support that principle through this amendment? Or does the Home Office have in mind that these children be given pre-settled or temporary status? If so, Ministers will know that this only defers the problem of lack of documentation when they come to apply for permanent status. I would be really grateful if the Minister clarified this point.
Finally, the numbers of children involved are perfectly manageable: 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers across the whole of the UK would need to apply to the EU settlement scheme. My preference would be for a government amendment, if necessary, meeting the precise objectives of this amendment, to be tabled at Third Reading. If, however, the Minister is unable to agree to work with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others to generate the right amendment for Third Reading, if necessary, I hope that he will press this amendment to a vote, and I will certainly support it.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I can be brief, because this amendment has cross-party support, but I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I did not read the amendment as declaratory. My reading was that looked-after children should be given settled status. I assume from the Minister’s letter of earlier today and the comments on the declaratory scheme that the problem with Amendment 14 lies in proposed new sub-paragraph (1):
“is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain”.
Perhaps “is deemed to have” suggests that that person will not have any documentary evidence.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, if that is indeed what the Minister understands by the declaratory nature of the amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister considered a rephrasing in a government amendment that would have the import of granting settled status to looked-after children and care leavers. Then, they would have settled status and documentary evidence, since the only reason that such people would end up in a Windrush-style situation is if the Government left them there.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I too speak in favour of this amendment and support fully the explanation of why it is needed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but also the very helpful interventions by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Smith, who asked for clarification of just what the objection is. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I do not read the amendment as declaratory. It is about being granted indefinite status but, as both noble Baronesses said, if the Government can come up with slightly better wording, fine.
I simply remind the Minister and the Government that it is their responsibility to protect the most vulnerable children in our society, which surely includes children in care. They have an added vulnerability when they have uncertain status, so it is absolutely the Government’s responsibility to ensure that these children are not left with anything indefinite at all about their standing, and that their welcome as part of our society is clear.
In the Psalms, the King is told that he is to
“defend the cause of the poor of the people”
and
“give deliverance to the children of the needy”.
The King in those days, of course, had absolute rule. For our current purposes, it falls upon the Government to defend the cause and give deliverance to the children of the needy. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment is necessary and that if it needs altering, she will bring back the relevant changes at Third Reading.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I refer to my interests as recorded in the register. In the letter that the Minister was good enough to send us at lunchtime today, she said of this amendment that
“it would risk putting children in a more vulnerable position because they would effectively be required to prove that they were once a child in care every time throughout their adult life that they were required to prove their status. We cannot put our most vulnerable children in this precarious position and the Government is adamant it will not do so”.
Yes, but I would like to encroach, very rashly, on the territory of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and refer to King Herod. I am sure King Herod was quite adamant that it would be entirely wrong to make all boys in and around Bethlehem prove throughout their adult life that they were not the King of the Jews, particularly when a simpler remedy was at hand. The statement in the letter is odd.
I supported this amendment in Committee because it seemed to me that there was a real risk of these children falling into a crack and that we had a duty to make sure that they did not. I do not think that their problem, if this amendment were now carried, would be that they had, for the rest of their lives, to carry proof that they had once been in a care home. I do not see that at all. I listened very carefully to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Smith, and it seems to me that they would be carrying proof of their status, which would have been established; that would be the proof they would carry, not proof that they had once spent time in a care home.
If there is a technical problem with the drafting of the amendment that enables the drafter of the Minister’s letter to conclude or pretend that we who support this amendment are ready to see people having to prove, for the rest of their lives, that they were in a care home, let us correct it. I think the amendment does not indicate that this is the risk; it requires local authorities to act in loco parentis and, if it is in the best interests of the child, to get the process under way to give children the proof of the status that they will enjoy like anybody else who has citizenship, pre-settled or settled status, leave to remain or whatever. That would be the proof they would need to carry and, yes, that might be quite onerous, but the Minister could assist us on this when we come to Amendment 18 and agree with those of us who think that it would be a kindness to allow physical proof.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am always attracted to any amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as he is inestimable in this field. I was going to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench some questions, but they have already been asked.
We have one advantage—or I do—which is that, because we are talking about a deferred Division on Monday, I can listen to my noble friend the Minister’s replies and, more importantly, have the weekend to digest them before I decide whether I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in this amendment. I agree with those who say that, if the amendment is deficient in some ways, I would like to hear that something will be brought forward that could rectify this and make it possible for the sentiments in the amendment to be raised.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always a particular pleasure for me to support anything put forward in this context by my noble—and very good personal—friend Lord Dubs. As I have asked on other amendments, do we or do we not see the well-being of children as one of our high responsibilities in any future society that we want to become? How can it be in the interests of stability and security to have children who are semi-alienated by the situation in which they find themselves? That spells trouble for the future.
However, it is not just about our security. It is about wanting to ensure that children who have been through God knows what—it is very difficult to imagine the traumas that they must have had—are given the certainty that they need, with the backing of local authorities. This is not just a technical matter. In requiring local authorities to play their part in this, we will be building up a culture in which the nation shares in this commitment to children.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, yesterday the EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee was discussing refugees and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with the Immigration Minister. He said, and I made a particular point of noting it—the Minister here does not need to look worried—“We always listen very carefully to Lord Dubs.” Well, that will be important for the next amendment, but I will apply it to this one as well, and I am very pleased to have added my name to the amendment on behalf of these Benches.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie said at the last stage:
“We all know that children in care are especially disadvantaged, almost by definition”.—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1292.]
I much prefer that term to “vulnerable” because many of them are extraordinarily resilient. But, however resilient you are, if you do not neatly fit a Home Office category, you are likely heading for problems and any parent, including a corporate parent, should do their best to pre-empt that.
In Committee the Minister explained the support services, I think she called them, for looked-after children and care leavers to assist them to make applications. That is of course welcome, but it would take someone much more confident than I am to be certain that no one will slip through the cracks.
In view of the time and in particular of the very thorough analysis of the amendment, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I do not think I should take more of the House’s time, other than to encourage noble Lords to support the amendment—unless of course we hear from the Minister that the point is going to be taken up.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 14, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which would add a new clause to the Bill. This clause was debated in Committee. I was persuaded by my noble friend’s argument then, and I am very much of the opinion that he is right on this issue and deserves the full support of the House when we vote on this issue next Monday, if the Government are not prepared to give way.
The clause would provide for children who are EEA or Swiss nationals and in care, along with those entitled to care leavers’ support, to be granted automatic indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme. The amendment, as we have seen tonight and as we saw in our debates a few weeks ago, has cross-party support. I am sure the Government have seen that support, and it would be good if the Minister could tell us what discussions took place at the Home Office between Committee and Report. I would be interested to know that; I hope this has not just been rejected out of hand.
My noble friend Lord Dubs said that the amendment would ensure that none of the children became undocumented. Identification is a serious problem for individuals, as my noble friend has outlined. There is also the whole issue that my noble friend talked about of local authorities all having different practices.
The amendment would speed up the process and enable social workers—who generally do a fantastic job, and we all know how much pressure they are under —to go straight to the Home Office and not have to deal with consulates and embassies, getting documents from abroad and the general bureaucracy of dealing with another country. It would avoid all that paperwork. My noble friend also set out the real problems that these children could suffer if the amendment is not agreed.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This really is a sensible amendment that deserves a positive response from the Government. I also agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
This is the decent thing to do for these children. We are talking about a relatively small number of children, but the amendment would ensure that no one fell into the trap of becoming undocumented. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned in the previous debate, children in care face all sorts of additional challenges. They are not with their parents. In effect, the local authority is the parent looking after them. All this amendment seeks to do is ensure that they do not have further issues to deal with, either as a young person leaving care or in many years’ time when being undocumented may pose a problem and leave them unable to establish their identity properly. The Government should give way on this small measure.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the new clause proposed by his Amendment 14. I also thank the noble Lords who spoke to it.
We are all absolutely united on one thing: that children in local authority care need secure status just as much as any other EU citizen needs secure status. On that, we are absolutely as one, I think. However, the amendment does not provide for the fast-tracking of children through the EU settlement scheme because subsection (1) of the proposed new clause says that a relevant child
“is deemed”—
that is the word used; we assume that it is a declaratory system—
“to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain”.
It therefore bypasses the EU settlement scheme by giving indefinite leave to remain without the need for any application to the scheme—that is, no secure evidence of status is documented and the child would have to prove constantly that they were in the scope of this declaratory system. The only way to prove status is through the EU settlement scheme, in my view.
A near-identical new clause was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee. It called for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to be granted ILR—indefinite leave to remain; that is, settled status—under the EU settlement scheme automatically, removing any requirement for a local authority to apply on their behalf.
I am afraid that those good intentions—they really are good intentions—will not be well served by this proposed new clause. I am trying to be helpful rather than resistant to what noble Lords are saying because Windrush has shown us that a declaratory system under which immigration status is conferred on people automatically, without providing secure evidence of it, does not work. We need to learn the lessons of that.
The proposed new clause would place a vulnerable group at greater risk of ending up without secure evidence of UK immigration status. That is not an outcome that the Government can accept or one that your Lordships would want. We are focusing our efforts on working closely with local authorities—I will go into more detail on that—to ensure that these people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This will provide them with secure evidence of that status and ensure that they can prove their rights and entitlements here in the years ahead. That really is the right practical approach.
We have discussed and agreed with local government its role and responsibilities towards children and care leavers under the scheme. Local authorities and, in Northern Ireland, health and social care trusts are responsible for making an application under the scheme on behalf of an eligible child for whom they have parental responsibility by way of a court order. Their responsibilities in other cases to signpost the scheme and support applications have also been agreed, including where care leavers are concerned. That is reflected in the guidance issued to local authorities regarding their role and responsibilities for making or supporting applications to the scheme in respect of looked-after children and care leavers. We have also provided a range of support services—such as the Home Office-run EU Settlement Resolution Centre, which is open seven days a week—to ensure that local authorities can access help and advice when they need it.
We have heard estimates of the number of children in care. In the absence of local authority data, the Home Office made some broad initial estimates. These were based on data from the ONS, which put the proportion of EEA citizens per local authority at 5.8%, and on government data on the volume of children in care and care leavers per local authority. The resulting figures—of around 5,000 children in care and 4,000 care leavers—provided a reasonably generous basis for the new burdens assessment.
We have also recently conducted a survey of local authorities across the UK as part of the support that we are offering them with this very important work. The survey asked them to provide an assurance that they have so far identified all relevant cases. Just under 80% of local authorities have responded so far, and I thank them for that, given the pressures which the pandemic has placed on them. The emerging picture is that actual volumes of eligible cases might be significantly lower than the overall estimate of 9,000. The results are still being collated, but we have so far identified fewer than 5,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with around 40% of these having already applied for status under the scheme and most of that group having already received an outcome of settled status.
Obviously there is more work to be done to check and analyse the results, but the initial indications are that local authorities have the work to identify and support relevant cases well in hand. We will be sharing that data from the survey with the EU settlement scheme safeguarding user group, comprising experts from local authorities and the voluntary sector, to help them discuss the scheme’s progress. As noble Lords will know, we have also given money to voluntary organisations, and earlier this year we announced a further £8 million for this work in 2020-21. In addition, the withdrawal agreements oblige us to accept late applications where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline of 30 June next year—a matter I talked about earlier.
I think noble Lords can see that the Government are doing everything they can not only to identify these children but to ensure that, through the EU settlement scheme, not through a declaratory scheme, these children will have the secure status that they rightly deserve. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received requests to ask short questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about declaratory arrangements, and said that the lessons of Windrush are that this is dangerous. Is the problem not how the Government respond to situations in the future, rather than what type of scheme it is?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I hope I made it very clear at the beginning of this debate that I want each child to have secure status, and a declaratory system does not ensure that, both now and in the future.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Just to pursue that point, can the Minister set out why that is the case? If you have the children—you know who they are and you have their details—the Government can then set out that the children have settled status, and then you would have records. The problem with Windrush was that there were no records, and that was the dispute, but if the Government actually set out to create records then you have got that system there.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate that an application to the EU settlement scheme is an application, with a result of settled status being either confirmed or not. A declaratory scheme confers a deemed leave on a sort of blanket basis, as opposed to each individual applying to the scheme. Therefore, children in years to come might have to prove that they were in the scope of that declaratory scheme; that is what I mean. We are not seeking different ends in this; we are just talking about different ways of going about it. I am trying to explain why an actual application is a more secure way of going about it.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part and contributed to the debate, even if one or two of them posed a few questions, which I shall try to deal with. I am also grateful to the Minister for her positive attitude to the end we all seek, even if the path to that end may differ in her view from our view. I emphasise that this amendment had cross-party support in the Commons and has cross-party support here, so there is a wide level of support for this.
On the question of declaratory or granted and so on, my understanding is very clearly that the intention behind it was that children would be granted settled status—not declaratory status, but settled status. The fear was that if any of them were undocumented and slipped through the net, they would be in the Windrush situation, not the other way around.
The process is, I believe, as follows: the social worker would be able to contact the Home Office directly about the individual and their background, the result of that application would be that settled status would be granted, and that would be indisputable and there could at no point in the future be any doubt about it. That seems to me pretty clear. The danger that the amendment refers to is that if there is no settled status, and the child is undocumented, then trouble can begin. In many cases, I agree that that would be picked up, but it may not be picked up in every case, and the dilemma for any young person who finds that they are undocumented and have all sorts of difficulties seems to me awful. That is the purpose of this amendment.
I might be persuaded by the Minister if she said that at Third Reading she will put forward an amendment which will deal with this apparent difficulty—I do not think it is a difficulty. I repeat that the purpose of the amendment is simply to say that they should be granted settled status—not declared to have a status, but granted settled status. That seems to be absolutely clear, and that will be the result of the social worker approaching the Home Office. In the circumstances, I beg leave to press the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I will now put the question on Amendment 14. Notice has been given of the intention to press this amendment to a Division. I will need to collect the voices, but if there is a dissenting voice, the Division will have to be deferred. We heard the mover, taking part remotely, say he wishes to divide the House in support of this amendment, and I will take that into account.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 5th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
14:17 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 224 - Amendment 3 agreed.
14:31 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 11 agreed.
14:43 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 227 - Amendment 14 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
As it was not possible to proceed with Divisions on this Bill on Wednesday, I will call the deferred Divisions on Amendments 3, 11 and 14, which were fully debated and pressed to a Division on Wednesday. No further speeches will be heard on these amendments.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 5th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
17:20 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 15 agreed.
22:06 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 18 agreed.
22:46 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 19 disagreed.
23:51 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 20 - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 156 - Amendment 20 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we will now proceed with the remaining amendments and debates. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate.
A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave shall be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Amendment 15
“Leave to enter: family unity and claims for asylum
(1) For at least such time as a relevant agreement has not been concluded and implemented, a person to whom this section applies must be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) is on the territory of any relevant Member State;(b) makes an application for leave to enter for the purpose of making a claim for asylum; and(c) would, had that person made an application for international protection in that Member State, have been eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 by reason of a relevant provision if the United Kingdom remained a party to that Regulation.(3) An application for leave to enter under subsection (2)(c) shall be made in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe save that—(a) there shall be no fee for the making of such an application and no requirements may be prescribed that are unreasonable having regard to the purposes of this section and the circumstances of persons to whom it applies;(b) in relation to such applications, the Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that applicants receive a decision regarding their application no later than two months from the date of submission of the application.(4) A claim for asylum made under subsection (2)(b) must remain pending throughout such time as no decision has been made on it or during which an appeal could be brought within such time as may be prescribed for the bringing of any appeal against a decision made on a claim or during which any such appeal remains pending for the purposes of section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeal); and a claim for asylum remains one on which no decision has been made during such time as the claim has been made to the Secretary of State and has not been granted, refused, abandoned or withdrawn.(5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring that unaccompanied children on the territory of a relevant Member State continue to be relocated to the United Kingdom, if it is in the child's best interests.(6) For the purposes of this section— “applicant” means a person who makes an application for leave to enter under this section;“claim for asylum” means a claim for leave to enter or remain as a refugee or as a person eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection;“Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013” means Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council including the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast);“relevant agreement” means an agreement negotiated by a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the United Kingdom, with the European Union in accordance with which there is provision for the transfer of a person who has made an application for asylum in a Member State of the European Union to the United Kingdom which is no less extensive than Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 insofar as that regulation operated to enable the transfer of a person to join a child, sibling, parent or other family member or relative in the United Kingdom before exit day;“relevant Member State” means a Member State for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;“relevant provision” means any of the following articles of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013—(a) Article 8,(b) Article 9,(c) Article 10,(d) Article 16,(e) Article 17.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause aims to ensure that rights under UK law to family reunion, at present covered by the Dublin III Treaty, will continue after the transition period and that unaccompanied child refugees in Europe will have a legal route to sanctuary in the UK.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one I moved in Committee. It has cross-party support, and in due course I shall seek the opinion of the House on its merits.
The new clause aims to ensure that rights under UK law to family reunion, at present covered by Dublin III, will continue after the transition period, and that unaccompanied child refugees in Europe have a legal route to sanctuary in the UK. Our attitude to child refugees will help to define the sort of country that we are. Yesterday, the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said that coronavirus had forced us to reflect on what is important to us in the UK: family, community and fair play. That is the focus of this amendment, although I am sure that her conclusions will differ from mine.
Child refugees are the most vulnerable of all refugees. One of our concerns must be to tackle trafficking and give child refugees legal routes to safety. If there are no legal routes to safety, the traffickers simply exploit vulnerable people, make a lot of money and endanger the lives of the children. Obviously, we cannot take all unaccompanied children in Europe, and I never suggested it, but I do intend that we should share responsibility for this with other European countries. The numbers are still relatively small, and the principle is important.
I visited the Moria camp on the island of Lesbos in Greece about 18 months ago. It was not only a camp, but also a powder keg waiting to blow up, and it has got worse since the fire. Clearly, that was an enormous tragedy. We have all seen the consequences. We also saw the Greek Government pleading with other countries for help with the numbers in Moria before the fire and repeating the plea after the fire. Despite all the arguments that are going on, I believe that if the arguments regarding child refugees were put to the British people, they would still basically be supported—not unanimously, of course, but I believe that there is a broad measure of public support for us being humanitarian and supporting child refugees.
I will develop some of these points. I mentioned Dublin III, and I shall go on to mention Section 67 of the 2016 Act, covering children who do not have family here. The Dublin III is for family reunion, and both represent legal routes to safety from Europe for children seeking to come to the UK. Family reunion under Dublin III is currently the only legal pathway to reach the UK from the EU for the purposes of claiming asylum. It will no longer apply after the transition period, so child refugees have only two and a half months to access a safe alternative to a lorry or a dinghy for crossing.
It is true that Her Majesty’s Government has a draft proposal for family reunion, but I contend that it is inadequate. It seems to have been rejected by the EU anyway, as there are no plans to take it forward during the current negotiations, but even if there were, there would be serious problems with those proposals. They remove all mandatory requirements to activate family reunions. They remove the child’s right to appeal against refusal, and some children would not be covered by the narrower definition of “family” which Parliament passed in the 2017 Act. Other safeguards have been removed too, such as deadlines. Indeed, according to an NGO, 95% of people helped by NGOs would fail the test proposed by Her Majesty’s Government, so I do not think that this proposal has much merit.
It has also been said that Immigration Rules are there, but they are limited and simply do not cover this contingency. However, in contrast to the vagueness and imprecision regarding their approach to family reunion, the Government have proposed very firm measures indeed to return failed asylum seekers, and there is a real contrast between what we do to remove people and what we do to accept people who have a legitimate right to seek asylum here.
Given the deficiency in the Government’s proposal, this amendment gives Parliament a chance to ensure the basic principle of family reunion. The numbers under Dublin III have in recent years been very small. Up to 2014, there were about 10 or 11 a year; since 2016, a little over 500 have come in under this. These numbers are important but are still very small compared with the movement of people and children into Greece, Italy, Malta and elsewhere.
Of course, we have all been appalled by the dangerous channel crossings—some of them involving children—but they are attempted only when the legal route is closed. Last year, some 3,000 unaccompanied children claimed asylum in the UK. Most of them came illegally. That imposes an enormous burden on Kent and Croydon. I will deal with a way forward a little later on.
Although we are out of the EU, when the transition period is over, we will still maintain the need for a future with European countries. In other words, we need a good relationship with Europe, we need to be on good terms and we need the good will of our European friends in these matters—indeed, in many other matters as well.
We were all shocked by what happened in Moria. I believe that we have a duty and a responsibility to help in such instances. In 2020, some 12,000 unaccompanied children have been granted asylum in this country, but more than 10,000 came via dangerous and illegal routes. Contrast that with Germany, which took 35% of child asylum claims; indeed, according to the UNHCR, it took 71,000 children in 2019. France, Greece, Spain: all have higher numbers than we have.
One can look at the list of countries that have offered to help the Greek Government in dealing with the consequences of the Moria fire and the other difficulties consequent on people fleeing across the Mediterranean for safety in Greece. Quite a few countries have stepped in to help. I have mentioned a few of them already but I will mention some of the others: Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Croatia, Finland, Germany—which I have mentioned—Ireland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Lithuania and Slovenia have all committed to welcoming unaccompanied child refugees. Even non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Norway have made such offers. It is rather disappointing that we have not yet made such an offer. We should join them in doing so. I do not know whether I mentioned Ireland in my list; if not, I should have done. There is an international responsibility, which we should share in. That is the proper way forward.
I turn to Section 67, the provision that enables unaccompanied child refugees who do not have family here to come here. A week or so ago, 21 council leaders urged the Prime Minister to support legal protection for refugees. I have mentioned the difficulties for Kent. I spoke to the leader of Kent County Council. Of course, all parts of the country should help; Kent should not have to bear the responsibility by itself. The national transfer scheme is sensible as far as it goes because it takes the pressure off Kent and Croydon and ensures, or helps to ensure, that other local authorities take a share of the responsibility. However, if we ask local authorities to take only national transfer scheme children, we block the route to safety for those children who are still in Europe. That means that we will encourage trafficking because we will be blocking a legal route. It is right that local authorities should be asked to play a part in the national transfer scheme but it is also right that local authorities play a part in taking children from northern France, the Greek islands and elsewhere.
Some time ago, 25 councils pledged more than 1,400 places for child refugees in Europe if the Government provided a safe and legal route for these children to come. I should mention that Scotland has played its part. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, wrote to the Home Secretary on 10 August. In the last sentence of her letter, she said:
“We stand ready to play our part again and urge you to take a humane and welcoming approach to the resettlement of these refugees on the Aegean Islands.”
We have commitments from a number of councils. Indeed, these councillors come from different parties. My amendment is a cross-party one. Support for child refugees—and the willingness to support them—comes from councillors of different political complexions, including Conservative ones. Councils prefer children to come via the legal route, of course, because then arrangements can be planned, the proper provisions can be made and it is not done in haste, as Kent must do if a dinghy arrives; it means that it can be done properly, which makes much more sense for local authorities.
We know that local councils have faced enormous financial pressures over the years—particularly recently—but as long as they are funded and supported adequately by central government, they are willing to welcome refugee children from Europe. We do not want children to arrive on our shores, on beaches in Kent and elsewhere, having gone across the most dangerous bit of water in the world. These pledges represent an enormous commitment that we should take advantage of.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, although he is also a bit of a pain because he has made such a powerful case that there is nothing really left to add. My speech should be seen as a footnote to his.
I declare my interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council. I followed the noble Lord there too; for a long time, he was the driving force and inspiration behind the Refugee Council. I want to get my revenge on him for stealing all the arguments that I was going to make by embarrassing him in telling the House that the Refugee Council now meets in its new headquarters in Alf Dubs House in east Stratford. I want to get that on the record just to embarrass the noble Lord.
At the end of the Committee stage, the Minister kindly wrote us a letter to pick up on some of our points. In relation to this issue, the Minister confirmed that it remains the Government’s goal to negotiate new arrangements for family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I should hope so, because we will fall out of the Dublin III regime at the end of the year and new arrangements will be needed if we are to fulfil our responsibility for these vulnerable children, stuck on their own in continental Europe, and unite them with their families here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said and as my Refugee Council experience confirms, there is considerable evidence that the country would like to see us do so. Of all the asylum issues on which there is considerable public interest and support, family reunion is the one where public opinion is most strongly in favour of us doing our job.
I have to tell the Minister that her letter reads a little disingenuously. It repeats our government line, which has lost all credibility because there is no relevant ongoing discussion about new arrangements. There is no negotiation on this subject with the EU 27; the issue was not addressed in the first Frost-Barnier negotiations, which led to the withdrawal agreement; and it is not being addressed in the current negotiations, which might lead to a free trade agreement, and it now cannot be—Monsieur Barnier has no mandate to discuss it because our Government failed to include it in the joint political declaration a year ago.
The joint political declaration was, understandably, taken by the EU as the basis for the mandate for the present negotiations. We tore up the political declaration. We decided that on foreign policy, governance and, notoriously, on the level playing field, we no longer meant what we had subscribed to, but the other side took it as defining the negotiation that is now going on. Also, there was nothing about replacing the Dublin regulation in it.
So there can now be no bilateral UK-EU arrangement from January; nor can there be UK bilateral agreements with individual EU member states, because this is a subject on which we and they decided some time ago to empower the Commission to act on our behalf. Therefore, what will be needed is a new free-standing, EU-UK negotiating track. That does not exist now and will have to be established. We could of course have sought to establish it at any time but we did not, presumably because the subject was not particularly high on the list of the Government’s priorities. The amendment would change that, but we too can change it: we can put it on the Government’s priority list, bypassing this amendment, and I very much hope that we will.
Because the Minister would be very disappointed if I did not raise it, I shall say a word about the camp on Greece and the 400 unaccompanied children sleeping rough because the camp burned down. The Government’s line, as set out in the Minister’s letter, is that we are in regular touch with EU member states, including Greece, which are responsible for arranging transfers. That is the standard line, relying on the Dublin regulation, from which we are pulling out, and there is nothing proactive at all. There is nothing about going to find those of the 400 who would like to join their families here. It really is shaming when one thinks of what the Germans are doing, and it really is extraordinary given British public opinion on family reunion.
I strongly support the amendment and I hope that, when she speaks to it, the Minister will at last be able to tell us that we will do something about the unaccompanied children who are vulnerable and sleeping rough on the island of Lesbos.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, it had been the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to speak to this amendment, tabled in his name as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and but for the hiatus in the voting technology when the House last considered the Bill on Report, he would have done so. He regrets that he is unable to attend today’s proceedings.
When we previously considered this amendment, in Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham reminded us of the story of the good Samaritan. It is not just, or principally, a story of instinctiveness goodness, or we would soon tire of hearing of it. It recounts several characters, including a person who needs help, those who do harm and those who have choices about their actions in response—doubtless all individuals who paid their taxes, counted their accomplishments, did well by their families and friends, and obeyed the law. It was the victim’s instinctive enemy who did right by him in showing compassion. Sometimes the choice we all face is whether or not to exercise generosity of heart.
We read in the helpful letter from the Minister of 30 September about the scale of refuge granted to vulnerable children proportionate to the European Union. Such welcome, especially to the most vulnerable, is to be acknowledged, as is the Government’s attempt to reach an agreement with the EU on post-transition arrangements. However, given the sheer scale of raw human need that exists in the area of vulnerable children and family reunification, will the Minister please explain to the House what she believes the disadvantages would be of importing into our domestic law the very wholesome provisions of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013? The regulation is entirely sensible and reasonable in requiring the Government to consider the best interests of the child.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, the earlier technical glitch means that we will be pressed for time in this debate. Also, the technical difficulties of the hybrid House, which I fully understand, mean that we cannot indulge in what I think we should be doing, which is having a proper debate. We are making statements in these debates. I understand why and that is what I have been doing in these proceedings, but, because I do not want to delay matters, I want to ask the Minister a question. Are there ongoing discussions, as she said in her letter, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, just said, is that not the case? That is really what I want to hear and I shall wait until the end of the debate to do so.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee I expressed dismay that in their negotiating proposals the Government seek to replace refugee children’s rights under Dublin III with a discretionary provision that provides vulnerable children with neither the certainty nor the security that they need. The Minister did not respond on that point and I would be grateful if she could do so today.
I also raised the question of when the Government plan to restart the resettlement programme, paused because of Brexit. Although she justifiably made much of Britain’s record on resettlement, she did not answer the question, which was also raised in the Private Notice Question by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Last Monday in the Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained that,
“as soon as we are safely and properly able to resume activity, we will do so.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/9/20; col. 10.]
Can the Minister tell us what criteria will be used to decide when it is safe and proper to do so? I am not sure that she answered precisely the right reverend Prelate when he asked a similar question on the PNQ.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my old and noble friend Lord Dubs has, with his usual firmness, introduced this amendment and the reasons for it very well indeed, and the intervening speeches have all put the position strongly. I want to add a word or two.
The first point I want to make is that as we consider this huge and grievous humanitarian challenge, it is just as well to remember that we are dealing with a tiny proportion of what is happening across the world. Repeatedly, in all parts of the world, there are stories of a similar kind which undermine the whole cause of decent humanity.
This also makes an important point that I cannot resist making: we are always dealing with the symptoms. Although these symptoms are very real and must be dealt with, there is a challenge here for the international community to root out and face the causes of the problem. That should start with us working with our European colleagues, but we need international strategies. It is an incredibly difficult challenge, but we need to do this, and we must not lose sight of it by becoming preoccupied with particular aspects of the whole issue.
It is very easy, when looking at the situation across the globe and reading harrowing accounts of what is happening, to begin to feel a sense of helplessness and ask what on earth we can do. However, here we can do something. It is only a beginning, and only a small part, but we can do something; that is important not only in itself but will send a signal to the international community.
It would be immensely strengthening for the role the Government keep saying that they want to play, of being an outward-looking member of the international community. We have some difficulty in believing that that is a real conviction on the part of the Government, but it would give them immense strength if they were to take this course.
I am sure that most noble Lords will feel the same way, but I simply cannot with ease contemplate the prospect of vulnerable children, who have been through God knows what kinds of traumas, trying illegally to get into the UK during autumnal storms and the cold winter months. They are not illegal immigrants—what they are doing may be illegal, but they are not illegal immigrants. They are vulnerable, desperate children seeking our support, care, love and concern. We can do something here, not least on the issue of children having to come here illegally by God knows what kind of dangerous route. We can play a really important part. I hope that there will be strong support across the House for this amendment.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, much has been said in the debate and I want to add a couple of quick points.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made clear in introducing this amendment, it provides a way forward for the Government to plan what we are to do in responding to the humanitarian crisis we face with regard to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made it absolutely crystal clear to the House that there will be no route through by the end of December in negotiations with our European partners, either in collective negotiations with Michel Barnier or bilateral negotiations with EU member states. New negotiations will have to be started, but we will not be able to do that in time. My noble friend Lady Lister made an incredibly important point about the context and the misinformation that is being put forward about the ability of this country to provide safe sanctuary for those unaccompanied children who desperately need safe routes and have families here in the UK who could support them.
I do not want to go over the ground of other speakers. I want to ask the Minister, in her reply, to explain the way forward clearly to the House. During the debate on 22 September, on the European Union Select Committee report on Brexit, refugee protection and asylum policy, the Minister said:
“The UK … provides safe and legal routes to bring families together through its … family reunion policy … under the family provisions in Part 8 … of the Immigration Rules.”—[Official Report, 22/9/20; col. GC 500.]
She offered this as protection for when the arrangements that we have through Dublin III fall away at the end of December. What she did not go on to say was that those rules are much tighter, which would mean that what was defined as “family” would be much smaller. It would exclude siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents, who play such a vital role, and it would curtail rights of appeal and other protections that are in place. Although the Minister may say in reply that there is scope in the Immigration Rules to grant leave outside the narrow definition in exceptional scenarios, these applications are very rare.
We know that local authorities have pledged places for unaccompanied child refugees in Europe and that, for the system to work properly, they need safe and legal routes to get here in the first place. That is what the Government must do: they have to organise a system so that we can plan and take these young people and children who have family here. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, this is not because we are taking huge numbers, because we are not. France and Germany, for example, take far more than we do. We are below the European average.
What we ask in this amendment is that the Home Secretary adopts these policies, so that, by the end of the year, the amendment will provide a way forward for unaccompanied children still to get here. From her speech and in the comments the Minister made earlier in the Private Notice Question, it seems that the Home Secretary is intending to make her announcements some time next year. The amendment provides a way forward in the gap between the end of this year and the Home Secretary bringing forward her plans. Indeed, it offers a structure for the Home Secretary to have a fair, safe and good humanitarian policy that defines Britain as a safe haven for those who desperately need our help, in partnership with others across Europe. I sincerely hope that, even at this late stage, the noble Baroness will indicate her willingness to take this amendment as a clear road map for how the Government should behave after the end of December.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on putting it forward in the first place. His personal experience of being part of Kindertransport in 1939 adds real texture to the amendment and makes it perhaps very personal. He is somebody who understands what it is like for these children. He came over legally, but many of these children are coming over illegally. However, the amendment is about family unity. Who can say that family unity is not a good idea? I would have thought it would be a central tenet of any Tory party manifesto, so I am staggered that there is any suggestion that this might not be a good thing.
The Government have recently made some fascinating announcements on asylum. New legal routes will be created; that is interesting. There will be more detention. As has already been pointed out, detention costs a lot of money and is very damaging to the mental health of people who are detained, so all in all more detention might not be the best thing. Our Home Secretary seems to mix up asylum seekers and foreign criminals. I have no idea why she experiences that sort of confusion, but it might be because the Government want us to fear asylum seekers and refugees. They are possibly creating this out of nowhere.
I am curious about how the Government can make announcements of this kind, without anything of substance in them. Lawyers, QCs and judges have looked at them and cannot find much of value, so why bother making such ridiculous statements? This is a question I would like the Minister to answer: are the Government and the Home Secretary completely out of ideas? In which case, accepting this amendment would be a very good idea, because it would ensure some stability in our asylum system and, I hope, would do less damage and make our country less inhumane and more welcoming.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Sub-Committee on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People.
In Committee, my noble friend Minister explained how, early in the pandemic crisis, following talks between her colleague Minister Philp and Greece, three flights of children arrived in the United Kingdom from the Greek islands. All of us will be very grateful to the Government for this. She also referred to the United Kingdom’s humanitarian record in helping vulnerable people, including children.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, does not so much cast doubt on that or on our future good intentions; instead, and in view of Brexit, its new clause seeks the continuation of rights to family reunion under United Kingdom law, currently secured by the Dublin III treaty yet not necessarily guaranteed after the transition period. Equally, and for the same reason, it aims to ensure that unaccompanied child refugees in Europe will have a legal route to safety in the United Kingdom.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister gave a number of reassurances. One is the Government’s present endeavour to pursue new reciprocal arrangements with the European Union for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Can she say what has been achieved so far and whether that level of progress may now stand to be advanced by the European Union’s paper last week on asylum?
Then there is the role of our local authorities. My noble friend has pointed out that 5,000 unaccompanied children are in local authority care. There may well be councils that would take more, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asserts. My noble friend has commented that, if that is the case, she would like to hear from them, also taking into account the extent to which Kent has to bear the brunt. Does she concur that an approach that is proactive without being coercive might work best? Therefore, should the Government perhaps be more in touch with local authorities to develop co-ordinated plans?
On the protection of vulnerable persons, my noble friend mentioned that current initiatives will be consolidated into a new global United Kingdom resettlement scheme. In outline, can she give us the aims and targets of this new scheme?
In promoting good practice, it goes without saying that internationally the United Kingdom ought to strive to take a lead. Post Brexit, let alone globally, does my noble friend consider that not least should the United Kingdom’s humanitarian standards be well demonstrated in Europe itself within the 47-state affiliation of the Council of Europe, where the United Kingdom remains a much-respected and prominent member?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has been unable to be contacted, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment on behalf of these Benches. To be saying at this stage—three months from the end of the transition period and very close to the practicable end date of the negotiations—that our draft agreement is still on the table, as was said at the previous stage, feels like a denial of reality, and I follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in that comment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I will be interested to know the up-to-date position.
Certainly a prudent Government would look for a mechanism to plug the gap, as the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, said, in case the draft slips off the table or is just not picked up—and this is the mechanism. I am very glad to support it, as I did in Committee when I too had an amendment on family reunion. At that stage, the Minister said that the Government had acted in good faith and that she hoped that the EU would do the same. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I cannot say that I regard the draft agreement as adequate. The principal obligations are not obligations—they are discretionary—but, whoever should take the blame for the stalemate, we must not let asylum seekers be the losers by being caught in the middle. They are not illegal, not unless and until their claim is refused.
This is likely not to be the first time that I will be taking a different view from the Minister about pull factors, especially when the push factors are so significant.
Of course we agree on the importance of safe and legal routes. That is the most important thing. Our view is that what is safest is to provide legal routes and deprive criminals of the opportunity to exploit people. It may be that our routes to that differ somewhat—perhaps they are not the means that the Home Secretary is considering—but that is not really for today. As has been said, our current rules are inadequate. The Government refer to that well-known paragraph 319X of the rules as providing the route that allows children to join relatives recognised as refugees, but the scope is very narrow, there are many restrictions and substantial fees are payable. As I understand it, the data does not separate out the categories or the basis of application, and those who take that route are included in the Home Office’s figures with other routes. Including all those routes, there were only 30 successful applications in 2018 and 54 in 2019. It is certainly not an adequate substitute for a successfully negotiated agreement on family reunion or a change in the UK’s rules, at least until an agreement or agreements are negotiated, as the amendment provides.
Working with the UNHCR and resettling people from the Middle East is not something we want to see replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others referred to the numbers in this plight across the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, we cannot take everyone but we can play our part. It seems to us that it is a policy decision for the Government whether to make it an “and” rather than an alternative.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, unless action is taken now, the arrival of 2021 will see child refugees in Europe lose safe and legal routes to the UK since neither a right to family reunion nor access to the Dubs scheme, under which lone children had a legal route to sanctuary in the UK, will then be available. Family reunion under Dublin III regulations is currently the only available legal pathway to reach the UK from the EU for the purposes of claiming asylum. That pathway will no longer exist after the end of the Brexit transition period in three months’ time.
The Government gave assurances to Parliament at the beginning of this year that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children. The Government have since removed any mandatory requirement to facilitate family reunions, making it simply discretionary. Including the terms of Amendment 15 in the Bill will ensure that routes to safety through family reunion and relocation remain, which means that families can reunite and children can reach safety.
Between 2009 and 2014, before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK, for both children and adults, were carried out at an average rate of 11 people annually. Between 2016 and 2018, after mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK were carried out at an average rate of just under 550 people annually, which strongly indicates that families remain separated without mandatory requirements on government to facilitate family reunions. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the figures also suggest that the numbers involved under a mandatory requirement are very small, certainly compared with the hundreds of thousands of people whom this Government, without any free movement requirement to do so, do not have any issues with freely allowing to come to this country each year from outside the EU.
As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said, research has shown that of the 12,000 unaccompanied children granted asylum by the UK over the past decade, some 10,000 came to the UK by dangerous routes on lorries and small boats, probably via people smugglers, because they could not access a legal route. That lack of access to a legal route is going to become absolute from the end of this year for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the consequences, in respect of risks to their safety, for those seeking to join their families and for unaccompanied children, are simply going to get even worse. Action is needed now to address the situation that is imminent. If it is put to a vote, we will support Amendment 15.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling Amendment 15. This Government are equally as concerned as all noble Lords about the well-being of vulnerable children and are committed to support them wherever we can. As the Home Secretary announced yesterday, the Government are intent on reforming our broken asylum system to make it firm but fair, and we will bring forward legislation next year to deliver that commitment. Our reformed system will be fair and compassionate towards those who need our help by welcoming people through safe and legal routes. The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, asked me what those safe and legal routes would look like. I think the Home Secretary will set that out in due course. It will be firm because we will stop the abuse of the system while standing up for the hard-working, law-abiding majority of people who play by the rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said that the Home Secretary said that we would turn away people who arrive here illegally. No; we will absolutely target people who traffick other human beings illegally. We want to help people who are desperate and need our protection so it is quite the opposite, even though they are basically being exploited by criminals. We have a proud record of providing safe haven to those in need and fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny through our asylum system and our world-leading resettlement schemes. I assure noble Lords that this will continue.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received two requests to ask the Minister a short question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I will call them in the order in which they were received, so, first, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said it would not be right to undermine negotiations with the EU by domestic legislation. Would it not be possible to include a provision in the Bill, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—this would be our only opportunity to do so—but not to commence that provision if it is overtaken by the agreement with the EU?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We do not want to pre-empt it with domestic legislation. I recall that, way back when, your Lordships’ House, and in fact Parliament, were pressing us to unilaterally agree the settlement scheme for EU nationals. We made it quite clear then that it was very important that both sides, if you like, played their part, but on this I do not think that domestic rules can ensure it. Therefore, the negotiated agreement is the optimum goal.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I am very grateful to the Minister for her courtesy in responding to my point. I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding between us. I did not challenge the statement in her letter that
“it remains our goal to negotiate”
new arrangements. I said that there is no current negotiation of these new arrangements. I recall the proposal the Government made before the summer; my view of it was similar to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in this debate. However, the important point is that the EU had no mandate to discuss it and it is not being discussed.
I have two questions. First, does the Minister agree that there is now no negotiation of Dublin III successor arrangements for the United Kingdom? Secondly, does that mean that there will be no family reunion arrangements on 1 January unless we pass this amendment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, saying that he did not think it was a priority for the Government. He made a point about there being no mandate. I cannot comment on the minutiae of negotiations; all I can say is that there is a sincere and genuine offer on the table, and we stand ready to progress those negotiations.
The noble Lord asked me to confirm that there will not be a successor to Dublin III. We are not trying to create Dublin; we are trying to create a system in which we can bilaterally—by which I mean between us and the EU—ensure the transfers of people.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I would take rather a long time if I commented in detail, because some important points were made, but I am grateful that they were made.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my understanding has for some time been his understanding: although the Government want to negotiate, the EU is not showing any signs of reciprocating, but the outcome will be a total gap on 1 January.
I shall comment briefly on some of the Minister’s points. She said that the Home Secretary wants to get rid of the broken asylum system. We all do. We all have criticisms of the asylum system—the length of time that it takes to reach decisions and all the other things—but we went to mend it in a different direction from that of the Home Secretary. That is the purpose of this amendment.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that some small numbers of children and others have come under the Dublin III arrangements from Greece. That is a good thing. However, we have only till 1 January and, unless something happens, such as this amendment, there will be no way in which people, and these young people particularly, can come to this country.
Thirdly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not understand why our saying that we will take unaccompanied child refugees through an Act of the British Parliament in any way undermines anything with the EU. This would be a humanitarian move and other EU countries are making humanitarian moves. Various countries—the Germans, French, Portuguese and Irish—have said that they will take people from the Greek islands. They do not undermine anything; they do it in a spirit of international co-operation.
I remind the Minister, before I come on to local authorities, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whom the Minister quoted with approval about helping the process, said recently that he supported Section 67 on taking unaccompanied child refugees and thought it was a good thing. I should have thought that that was an additional argument.
Lastly, on local authorities, let me just say that I have a list. I am not going to quote them all; some of the commitments were made about a year or two ago and we would not want to quote them unless they were willing to stand by those commitments in the new circumstances today. However, I shall mention a few of them. There is West Dunbartonshire Council, an SNP-Independent minority council, Dumfries and Galloway, which is Conservative, and Hammersmith, which is a Labour council. The London borough of Richmond was a supporter of legal routes—and then there are Dorset, Bournemouth and Brighton and Hove councils and, as I mentioned, those in Scotland. There are others. I shall write to the Minister and give her a list of local authorities that are willing and able to take unaccompanied refugee children.
I thank the Minister for her very gracious way of responding and her constant helpfulness in being willing to meet and talk to many of us about some of the issues. I appreciate that. I am afraid that on this occasion we will have to differ. I wish to put the amendment to a vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 16. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division should make that clear in the course of the debate.
Amendment 16
“Report on awareness and exercise of rights to British citizenship
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the rights to British citizenship of relevant persons.(2) The report under subsection (1) must provide—(a) an assessment of the level of awareness among relevant persons of their rights to British citizenship (“the level of awareness”) including the reasons for any lack of awareness among such persons;(b) an assessment of the level of exercise by relevant persons of their rights to British citizenship (“the level of exercise”) including the reasons for any failure to exercise these rights by such persons;(c) an assessment of the impact upon either the level of awareness or the level of exercise of each of the following—(i) any fee imposed by the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of rights to British citizenship;(ii) the requirement of good character under section 41A of the British Nationality Act 1981 for registration as a British citizen;(iii) any guidance or policy of the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of rights to British citizenship;(iv) the practice of the Secretary of State in relation to data held by or accessible to the Secretary of State that may confirm a person’s rights to British citizenship;(v) the availability of legal aid in relation to rights to British citizenship;(vi) the capacity or willingness of parents to assist relevant persons to exercise their rights to British citizenship;(vii) the practice of local authorities in relation to rights to British citizenship; and(viii) the practice of the family courts in relation to rights to British citizenship.(3) The assessments required by subsection (2) must include—(a) consideration of the circumstances of relevant persons who share a relevant protected characteristic for the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; and(b) comparison of the circumstances of relevant persons with other persons having the same rights to British citizenship.(4) In making the assessments required under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, which shall include children and young persons with rights to British citizenship and organisations with expertise and experience in assisting and representing those children and young persons in connection with those rights.(5) The report under subsection (1) shall include specific consideration of each of the following groups of relevant persons—(a) children and young persons who are or have been a looked after child;(b) children and young persons who are or have been in the criminal justice system;(c) children and young people who are or have been the subject of a mental health assessment or mental health order;(d) children who are not living in a household with two parents;(e) children and young persons in poverty; and(f) children and young persons who are victims of domestic abuse.(6) For the purposes of this section—“children and young persons” includes any person under the age of 25 years;“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2020; “in poverty” means living in a household whose income is less than 60 per cent of the median United Kingdom household income;“in the criminal justice system” means having received a conviction or caution for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (whether or not that conviction or caution has been or can be spent);“mental health assessment” means an assessment of the person’s mental health that was required by a court order or under legislation;“mental health order” means an order of a court requiring a person’s admission to a hospital or other institution for the purpose of treatment or care on account of that person’s mental health;“relevant persons” means persons who—(a) immediately before the repeal of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 (exemption from requirement for leave to enter or remain for persons exercising EU rights etc.) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act, were entitled by virtue of that section to enter or remain in the United Kingdom without leave; and(b) have at any time up to the passing of this Act had rights to British citizenship;“rights to British citizenship” means rights of acquisition of British citizenship by birth, adoption or registration under the British Nationality Act 1981.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide a report on factors affecting the awareness of and exercise of rights to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981 by those affected by the repeal of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 (exemption from requirement for leave to enter or remain for persons exercising EU rights etc.).
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I had not originally intended to return to the question of children’s right to citizenship on Report, as I had simply wanted to register our continuing concern in the context of this Bill, which will mean that many more children stand to be affected in future, adding a new urgency to the issue. However, the strength of feeling expressed from all Benches in Committee, combined with the disappointing response of the Minister, made me think again. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have added their name to the amendment, as well as to others who spoke in support in Committee. Once again, I thank the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International UK, for their help with the amendment and the work they do.
Colleagues pursuing this issue have now taken the name of “Terriers United”—united in our determination to achieve justice for a group of children in vulnerable circumstances: a group of children born in this country or who have spent most of their lives here and who have the right to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, but who have to register that right because of their parents’ immigration status. In Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who, as we have heard, cannot be here today, stated that
“the Home Office has no business erecting barriers, financial or otherwise, that prevent people registering as British citizens, particularly children, when those people have been granted that right by this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 857.]
This amendment would require a report from the Home Secretary on these barriers. I shall not go into all the details, as noble Lords can read them; nor do I expect the Minister to do so—she might be relieved to hear—but it covers all the issues addressed in Committee: the role of local authorities, particularly with regard to looked-after children; awareness and information, with reference to which I ask whether the Minister is able to report back to us yet on her welcome commitment in Committee to raise with the Home Secretary our calls to raise awareness of citizenship; and, of course, the level of the fee, which was our main focus.
The amendment also covers other barriers such as the “good character” test, a discretionary test which can be used to prevent children aged 10 and over registering their right to citizenship even where they have had minimal contact with the criminal justice system, such as receiving a caution. The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, raised concerns about this, and in particular the age from which it is applied.
The amendment calls for specific consideration of a number of groups of children and young people who face particularly vulnerable circumstances. Again without going into detail, I note that proposed new subsection (3)(a), which covers those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act, would include Roma children, who, according to the European Children’s Rights Unit, are more likely than other EU children in this country to be entitled to British citizenship and to be economically disadvantaged.
I am aware that the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published a report on fees last year, but this ranged much more widely and did not cover other barriers to citizenship registration. That said, the inspector raised a number of concerns about children’s citizenship fees, reflecting the volume of evidence received from stakeholders. He recommended a new, wider public consultation on charges generally. Although this recommendation was not accepted, the Home Office did accept that
“consultation in specific areas could be useful to inform future policy development.”
I suggest that this is just such an area, and that the serious implications of the end of free movement for the children of EEA/Swiss nationals with a right to register as citizens, detailed in Committee, make it a matter for urgent policy development.
The amendment provides a vehicle for such a consultation. It requires that such consultation includes children and young people affected, and the organisations that assist and represent them—in line with recommendation 8 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review report, which states:
“The Home Office should take steps to understand the groups and communities that its policies affect through improved engagement”
with communities and civil society, and that officials should be expected
“to seek out a diverse range of voices”.
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to such an approach in last week’s Statement and comprehensive improvement plan.
In Committee, I and other noble terrier Lords from all Benches made a principled case relating primarily to the level of the fee and the position of looked-after children. It was premised on the importance of citizenship to belonging, security, identity, inclusion and integration. In support, we quoted from a recent High Court judgment that deemed the level of the fee unlawful because it had been set without regard to the best interests of the child. The judgment underlined why citizenship is important and how the inability of many children to exercise their right to register as citizens because of the fee causes many children born in the UK to
“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK”.
It is a matter of regret that the Home Office is appealing that judgment, to be heard next week. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has described the fee as “prohibitive and regressive”, “indefensible” and “iniquitous”—in short, “simply unacceptable”.
In her response, the Minister brought no arguments of principle to the table. There were instead three planks to her case—rotten planks, I suggest. The first plank was purely technical, concerning drafting points stemming from the requirement that the amendment was confined to EEA/Swiss nationals in order to be in scope, thereby, she argued, creating a two-tier system. Of course, as other noble Lords have pointed out with reference to other amendments, the solution to that lay in the Government’s own hands. In any case, today’s amendment sidesteps that problem by simply requiring a report; moreover, it would require that the report considered this group of children in relation to the circumstances of other children in the same situation so as to avoid any suggestion of a two-tier system.
The central plank was financial: that the fee of £1,012, which is £640 more than the Home Office estimate of the administrative cost, is necessary to provide the resources required to operate the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship System. I have two responses to that: first, a right conferred by Parliament to ensure that children and young people connected to the UK should have the security of citizenship should not be undermined in the interests of the wider finances of the overall BICS; and, secondly, in conflating the cost of registering citizenship with that of the costs of the borders and immigration system, and at an aggregate level, the Minister evaded the key question of the mark-up for citizenship registration at the level of the individual. She glossed over how that money is being used to cross-subsidise borders and immigration operations that have nothing to do with citizenship registration. In doing so, the Home Office is once more committing the fundamental category error of treating the right to British citizenship as being part of the immigration system. It is this category error that lies at the heart of why so many British young people continue to grow up effectively excluded from the citizenship that is theirs by right under the British Nationality Act.
The third plank rests on another category error—that leave to remain represents the equivalence of citizenship. So while it was welcome that the Minister did not try to argue that citizenship is not important, it was in fact implicit in her response to the attempt to exempt looked-after children from the registration fee. Access to limited and indefinite leave to remain is no substitute for the security of citizenship. What this means for children is brought home by a young woman brought up in the UK since the age of two who was quoted by Ian Birrell in a recent article for the i newspaper:
“It puts you in a very bad place with anxiety and depression. Even though I’m a legal resident, it feels like they can take it away any time.”
I finished my speech in Committee by quoting a former Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who described the fee as “huge”. According to a Times report dated 13 August 2019, Priti Patel raised concerns about the level of the fee just two weeks before becoming Home Secretary. She had told Citizens UK that she would contact Home Office Ministers over the issue and that she understood the
“concerns surrounding this sensitive matter”.
Towards the end of Committee, the Minister kindly agreed to relay to the Home Secretary the request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a meeting with Peers who had supported the amendment on this question. I understand that the Home Secretary’s diary did not permit such a meeting now but we can be patient, so I repeat that request now for whenever the Home Secretary’s diary does permit, particularly in light of her known concern.
I hope too that the Minister will be able to accept our amendment, or a version of it, at Third Reading as providing a way forward on this sensitive and vexed issue, as it will not go away. Otherwise, Terriers United gives notice that we will be snapping at the Home Office’s heels until we achieve justice for this vulnerable group of children. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 16, to which I am a signatory. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has become the terrier-in-chief on this issue, and I am grateful to the Minister for making time to discuss this issue with me last Thursday in advance of today’s debate.
Amendment 16, as we have just heard in the noble Baroness’s speech, is modest in its aim, merely requiring the Secretary of State to consult and report to the House upon both awareness of British citizenship and the exercise of the rights that such citizenship confers. I said a lot about citizenship in Committee and why it is a completely separate matter from issues such as immigration and naturalisation. I will not rehearse all those arguments all over again today; suffice it to say that the amendment does nothing to affect those contested issues.
This thoughtful, moderate, reasonable new amendment simply tries to take the debate forward in a constructive and helpful way. It is also in sync and compatible with the rights to British citizenship that were enacted in Part 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981. I shall summarise what the amendment does. Its new clause contains six subsections. Subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to lay a report. The people who report concerns are the people defined as “relevant persons” in subsection (6)—that is, in summary, people with rights to British citizenship who are losing EU free movement rights in the UK.
Subsection (2) sets out what that report must contain. It must contain an assessment by the Secretary of State of two matters: the level of awareness among people of their rights to British citizenship and the level of exercise of these rights. In making those assessments, the Secretary of State must have regard to several factors identified within subsection (2)(c), each of which concerns barriers to people being able to exercise their statutory rights to British citizenship.
Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to pay particular regard to her equalities duties in producing this report and to make some comparison of the situation of two groups of people with rights to British citizenship: the group of people with rights to British citizenship who are losing EU free movement rights in the UK—this group is the focus of the report required by the amendment—and the group of people with rights to British citizenship who do not have EU free movement rights.
Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to undertake consultation in the preparation of her report. Subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to give particular attention to the situation of various groups of particularly marginalised children and young people, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister; Appendix B provides some case studies relating to those groups of children and young people, similar to those outlined by the noble Baroness; and Subsection (6), which contains definitions, defines children and young people as people under the age of 25.
I shall unpack the amendment in a little more detail. Subsection (2)(c)(i) touches on the impact that fees can have on the rights of citizenship. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the court case in which the High Court found against the Home Office. In earlier proceedings, I mentioned that I had given a witness statement. The Royal Courts of Justice will hear the department’s appeal on 5-7 October, and I understand that the case will be livestreamed.
However, what the Minister can comment on is a reply that she gave me to a Written Question on 10 September. I had asked her about the costs of mounting an appeal, and she replied:
“The information that you have requested on legal and administrative costs is not available”,
and added that
“we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of legal costs.”
I will repeat that:
“we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of legal costs.”
This inability to establish what the legal taximeter is clocking up contrasts starkly with the ability of the Home Office to work out how much it costs to operate this system of fee collection, and which, at over £1,000, the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid rightly said is a prohibitively expensive system. Why is it that we are able to work out how much we can generate in fees above the administrative costs, but cannot work out the costs of fighting legal actions which simply compound one mistaken decision with another? What other litigant would embark on a major legal action without any idea of what it could cost? I am sure that the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which keeps a weather eye on how taxpayers’ money is used, will have something to say about that.
Even more serious, however, is the principle of putting a major financial roadblock in the path of those who need to feel that they belong, that they are part of the web and weave of British society, and that they are true citizens of what is a truly great country. The importance of knowing you belong is something that I know is close to the heart of the Minister; we are at one on that. This amendment would seek an examination of such barriers.
Throughout preceding debates, noble Lords have repeatedly pressed the Government about children’s rights, especially those of looked-after children. Surely their vulnerable and special position alone should justify at least an examination of their special circumstances. Let us recall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has done, that the High Court said that fees cause many children caught up in this fee-generating arrangement to feel
“alienated, excluded, isolated, ‘second best’, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK”.
We have a duty to address the implications of those words.
To that group I would add another, which is covered in proposed new subsection 3(a) of the amendment: those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The House will recall that in Committee I raised the position of the Roma—something to which the noble Baroness also referred in her remarks. I would especially draw the Minister’s attention to the position of Roma children, who have been cited by the European Children’s Rights Unit as being especially disadvantaged and at risk.
I truly hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment. I am sure that even if, in the first instance, it was confined to the most at-risk categories, it would represent a good start. Seeking a consultation and a review is not an unreasonable ask. I commend this amendment to the House.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on her persistence and dedication to this issue. Her passionate advocacy, particularly for vulnerable children, has always been impressive. I share her concerns.
I must admit that I truly cannot understand why the Government are resisting this extremely modest amendment. Indeed, the problem has been going on for so long, and this amendment is so reasonable in wanting to encourage the Government to agree at least to look at this issue carefully, seriously and thoroughly, that it would seem almost impossible to reject it. Perhaps we will hear from my noble friend the Minister that the Government are indeed minded to look at this more seriously and accept it after all.
The wording could clearly have been much stronger. The strength of feeling across the House at previous stages of the Bill has been clear. Children who have been born here and have the right to citizenship but then have to register to obtain this right, perhaps having to pay significant amounts that they cannot afford, seems to undermine some of the principles on which we base our country and citizenship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have described the details of this lengthy amendment. I will not repeat them, but the principles referred to are so important to many individuals in this country, and to their rights as granted to them by Parliament. I find it puzzling, as well as disappointing, to see the Government so far refusing to agree to this.
Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, in its report laid last month entitled Immigration Enforcement, has criticised the inadequacy of information available to my noble friend’s department and called for an urgent report to be carried out. Accepting this amendment could indeed assist the Government in that regard. For example, in one of its recommendations, the Public Accounts Committee says:
“Building on its response to the Windrush lessons learned review, the department should mobilise its evidence base and evaluations to challenge its own assumptions and beliefs about the user experience within the immigration system.”
That is part of what this amendment is attempting to do.
If my noble friend the Minister could accept the thrust of this amendment, and announce this at Third Reading, I believe that many of us on these Benches would be delighted and that there would be support from every side of the House.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Home Office funded a project in 2019 which led to findings that many migrant children from the European Union who were eligible to apply for settlement status were also eligible to register as British. It was found especially that Roma children are both more likely to be eligible than many other EEA or Swiss migrants and more disadvantaged by Brexit; for instance, in supplying the correct documentary evidence, and given that the information on the need to register before the age of 18 is not effectively transmitted. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to this report. The disadvantage that it exposes needs to be redressed. Is the Minister aware of the University of Liverpool study which sets out the problems in detail?
As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said in her powerful speech, an important point is that the scale of the fees has deterred many eligible applicants. As she and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, indicated, the High Court agreed that these costs were so disproportionate and prohibitive as to constitute a breach by the Secretary of State of her duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and undermined the objective of the British Nationality Act. I agree with my noble friend that it is really unfortunate that the Government are appealing this decision. The hearing is set for 6 October to 7 October, so a precipitate provision should not be put forward by the Government.
Finally, in addition, there are Roma people who were granted asylum and ILR status before their countries joined the European Union but who do not have documentary evidence of this. Importantly, neither do their children, so the children are also at risk of deportation. This amendment would go far to rectify the injustice.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, citizenship is something to be treasured—and something, of course, that all those entitled to it should be able to have. If there are people who, for one reason or another, have not understood their rights and not taken the necessary steps to secure them, we ought to be proactive in society in bringing those people on board. There are, as we have heard already in this debate, a considerable number of people in this predicament.
We also have other long-standing communities in our midst for whom there is a real issue about understanding citizenship. I think of the Roma, Travellers and Gypsies, for whom we do not take proper responsibility. Too many people have emotional attitudes towards them. We do not see them as fellow citizens and bring them, through citizenship, into communication on an equal footing with us. This is a very important, decent and humane amendment, which I hope has widespread support.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat any of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She knows that I greatly respect her analysis on most things, and on this occasion it is substantial and well worth listening to. My noble friend Lord Alton, who I have respected over many years, has also done a great job.
As I said the other evening, it was my privilege to sit on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years and I was the senior spokesman for my party for four of those. Its reports are not done on a whim. They arise from the Auditor-General when there is clearly a problem. That committee does not waste its time; it asks questions in depth. The reports that come out do not necessarily agree with the Auditor-General. On occasions, they completely disagree. I have only had a quick read of this report, but it would seem that the committee believes that there is a real problem. That is, in itself, substantial.
I have two granddaughters; their mother is a widow. As I read the papers on the train coming down, I wondered what would happen if they were in this difficult situation. One is taking A-levels and the other doing GCSEs. They are intelligent young women, as young people today are. They take a great interest in public affairs. It would be deeply upsetting if they found themselves having to think about their ownership when they are supposed to be studying. The same must apply to those at university. They are going to university at 18 and a fair number of courses are now four years, so they would be getting close to the cut-off point of 25. This is a problem area. Finally, costing over £1,000 is a bit rich. I have to help my family a bit, understandably, but £1,000 a child—£2,000—is quite a lot of money for any household.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can give some encouraging words. I understand the challenges that are faced—I am in the middle, in a sense—but this amendment needs serious consideration.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will add a couple of comments to this very important debate. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister. She has pursued this vital subject with great tenacity and ensured with great clarity that the main arguments are put again on the Floor of the House. I know that the Minister will be listening carefully to all the points that have been made.
As my noble friend said, this is a modest amendment, which seeks action from the Government to ensure that the rights that were conveyed by the British Nationality Act 1981 are open and accessible to those who are entitled to them. When reading some of the comments that Ministers made during the passage of the British Nationality Bill, it is fascinating to see the clarity with which they saw the entitlement to citizenship which has now been so clouded and had so many barriers put in its way, as my noble friend Lady Lister said. For example, the Minister of State for the Home Office who took that Bill through said that
“as I think the House knows by now, what we are looking for in the creation of our new scheme of British citizenship is real connection. We are looking for citizens who have a real connection with the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/1981; cols. 979-980.]
He went on to say that it is “extremely important that those who grow up in this country should have as strong a sense of security as possible”. Conveying the entitlement to citizenship was central to that.
It was not Parliament’s intention at the time that anyone, least of all children, entitled to British citizenship, should be content, as a substitute, with either limited or indefinite leave to remain. That could leave them liable to immigration control and powers from which it was intended they should be free and would not fulfil the clear intention that Parliament wanted to establish in providing for the entitlement—the right—to British citizenship. It is time to make sure that we have a clear route through to delivering that entitlement, that right, to those in this country who currently cannot get access to it.
The requirements of this amendment, modest as they are, seek to remove a two-tier system, the prohibitive fees and the lack of information which leaves people unable to access their rights. It is time that this House addresses this and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give a clear indication today about how we are going to honour the word given to these children in the British Nationality Act 1981 and to deliver access to that right, instead of preventing them achieving it.
I will support the amendment if it goes to a vote, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to explain to the House how the Government will deliver.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my membership of the Roma, Gypsy and Traveller APPG which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, represents some of the children who may be particularly affected by our current discriminatory system, which is effectively impossible to navigate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a hugely powerful introduction, so I will be brief in offering the Green group’s support for this amendment. I add my hope to that of many noble Lords that the Government will the see the sense of it and agree to adopt it. We are talking about rights that people are entitled to. We cannot allow people to be excluded from them by lack of knowledge, lack of funds to access them or lack of access to the systems needed to exercise them. Keeping that exclusion would be a profound injustice.
I think I have to declare a personal stake in this issue. I chose to become British, as I chose, before that, to live as an immigrant in Thailand for a number of years. But I was able to make both moves very easily, reflecting my relatively privileged background. In Thailand, the Australian state, through Australian volunteers abroad, sorted out my paperwork, then my employer did. It was then through grandparent rights that I was able to come to Britain. The family story is that my grandmother came back to the UK to have a baby. Then, after a period of residence, I was easily able to secure citizenship, back when the price of a British passport was close to the actual cost of administering it, in the early 1990s, which was not really that long ago.
It was only recently, when I read the excellent book, Bordering Britain: Law, Race and Empire, by Nadine El-Enany, that I was educated about the racism behind that arrangement, the grandparent right. There is much that should be tackled in our law to clear the taint of racism, colonialism and expropriation that remains central. But after Windrush, surely we can do something to clean up the structure of our systems—modest changes, as noble Lord after noble Lord, including from the Minister’s side of the House, has said before me—particularly systems that deny children and young people their right to security and a stable place in the world. Equality before the law is a foundational principle, but the letter of the law is not enough, as Windrush has demonstrated. The practice of government has to be fair and non-discriminatory.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I declare my interest as a governor of the children’s charity, Coram. I rise to speak strongly in support of this amendment.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and her supporters were praised for their “terrier-like” characteristics. My initial research into terriers slightly alarmed me, because the original animal, which, in 1815, inspired the creation of the canine family of terriers, was called, believe it or not, Trump. You heard it here. I became less alarmed when I read Johannes Caius’s 1576 description of dogs with similar characteristics, which he praised for their
“insane dedication to chasing creatures bigger and stronger than themselves.”
The Minister knows what she is up against.
The Minister may recall that at Second Reading I spoke about the paramount importance of accurate, reliable and timely data in making any key policy and process decisions. I think she agrees with this.
I am supporting this amendment because I am persuaded by several key pieces of evidence. As a terrier, I doggedly follow the scent—or, in this case, the evidence. The first piece of evidence comes from the PRCBC, of which the noble Baroness is a patron, and which repeatedly encounters children who fall into two particular categories. The first category is that of those born in the UK, but not born British citizens because their parent, also born in the UK, had been unaware of, or was unable to exercise, their own right to register as a British citizen. The second category is that of children who are British citizens by birth, who were taken into care or adopted, for whom nobody has acted to confirm their right to citizenship, leaving them unable to establish that they are already legally entitled to British citizenship. These two categories of children are being treated as though they are not British but mere guests in this country, as a result of which they run the risk of effective loss of their citizenship rights. This is both morally and legally wrong and is certainly not what Parliament intended, as several noble Lords have said.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is also to this amendment on behalf of these Benches, and I am glad to have the opportunity again to support our head terrier and add my yap to the debate.
Rights are significant, but they are of no use if you do not know you have them and do not appreciate that because nobody has told you about them. It is the state, of course, that should. Something less than citizenship is not the same as citizenship. An immigration status is not as good as citizenship for all sorts of reasons, some of which we rehearsed in Committee, and some of which have been mentioned today. I am glad so many noble Lords have talked to the position of the Roma people.
Those with rights should be encouraged to exercise them, not discouraged. It would be a reassurance to those waiting to see the hard evidence of the lessons learned from the Windrush inquiry if the Minister could report progress. Like the noble Lord, I was impressed by listening to Wendy Williams. I heard that event some months ago, when I had a little more energy to log on to online events. I was impressed by her observations about cultural issues.
I also agree with the committee, which stressed the importance of curiosity. It is necessary to stand in other people’s shoes to be able to respond properly to a problem.
However, given how much we have to get through today, I will not say more than this: what Parliament intended to put into law in 1981 should be observed. The report, as proposed by the noble Baroness, would be an important step towards this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and others, and endorse her comments on the rights of children to register as British citizens and exercise their rights.
I find it shocking that the Government have not given way on the level of the fee and the particular problem of looked-after children. Frankly, it beggars belief that we have not made progress on this during consideration of the Bill. The fact that the previous and present Home Secretaries have raised concerns about the level of the fee should mean that we have some progress. The Home Secretary is the one person who can do something about this, but it appears she will not.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I am persuaded by the evidence and the contributions of many noble Lords in this debate. Let us be clear: these children are entitled to British citizenship. I always thought that British values were those of decency, fair play and justice, but I am afraid none of these is on display here today. What is on display is meanness, unfairness and a failure to act justly. It is an unjust position which has no place in modern Britain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, having rights is no good if no one tells you that you have them and you are not encouraged to take them up.
Points were made previously about why the amendment could not be accepted, such as the technical point that this is only about EEA and Swiss nationals. Unfortunately, it is; that is because of the scope of the Bill. On the question of finances, how the Government need a fee to cover the costs of the process and ensure the effective running of the department in this area, they cannot have it both ways; for many years, like many other noble Lords, I have been arguing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that all we want is fees to cover the costs of planning. We were repeatedly told that we could not have it and that planning has to be subsidised by the council tax payer. I am afraid you just cannot have that. We do this either everywhere or nowhere at all. On settled status as opposed to citizenship, there is no question which is the better status. If you are entitled to citizenship, you should be able to get it.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, set out the wholly reasonable nature of this amendment. It is asking only for the Home Secretary to lay before this House and the other place a report—nothing else, just a report—which must address the issues as set out in the amendment. I really do not understand why the Government are resisting this. As the noble Lord said, surely with the vulnerable position of these children, particularly looked-after and Roma children, no one could suggest that they are not disadvantaged people who need our help and consideration.
The Government’s reaction to this amendment is more than just disappointing; it is very worrying. We can discuss the hostile environment and Windrush, we can hear the apologies and the assurances they will not happen again, but having heard the Home Secretary’s speech yesterday, I for one fear that no lessons have been learned and that, instead, we are prepared to let these children be at risk. That is unacceptable.
I implore the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for whom I have huge respect—I have worked with her closely many times—at least to give a commitment to the House that she will go away and explain to the Home Secretary the strength of feeling across the House and hopefully, on this one issue, be able to come back on Third Reading having accepted what people are asking for.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling her amendment. I note that it takes a slightly different approach to those previously discussed in Committee, this time concentrating on an initial assessment of how aware the affected groups are of their citizenship rights and, equally, their ability to exercise them. It specifically seeks to highlight those aged under 25 with potential vulnerabilities as warranting particular attention.
Several noble Lords have referred to the Roma community as particularly vulnerable in terms of ensuring their status, certainly throughout the transition period and going into the future. I am very mindful of that. Noble Lords will recall the various voluntary sector organisations I have spoken about which are there specifically and precisely to provide tailored help to those who might slip through the net in terms of their status going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about Wendy Williams; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me where we were up to in taking forward some of the recommendations. She may or may not know that last week the Home Secretary set out a comprehensive plan to take forward the recommendations and reaffirmed her plan for cultural shift in the Home Office.
I know that the amendment does not fit the Bill, if you like, but that does not mean we cannot discuss the various things that noble Lords have raised. I gave an assurance last time that I would write to the Home Secretary to consider what might be required in this area and ensure that she is aware of this House’s feelings. I am taking this forward, but it will take some time to consider; the level of detail in this amendment will be a clear guide to the areas and individuals which the noble Baroness feels require the most support. I am very happy to meet her to discuss these matters. I have already confirmed that I would like to meet the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
A number of noble Lords mentioned things such as “belonging”, which we talked about the other day, and people falling through the gaps and feeling that they really do not belong in society. I completely acknowledge the points that the noble Baroness makes about citizenship costs; I will not tell her that you do not need citizenship to live here, because your Lordships will not accept that sort of answer. I would like and intend to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness to take forward some of these broader issues around societal cohesion, in a way, and integration.
I hope that there can be some reassurance that part of the same commitment made by the Home Secretary was to ensure that nationality laws are fit for the modern day. This is an ongoing process. We have made sure that the process is easier and simpler by moving application forms online, but I know that that is not the point that the noble Baroness is getting at. In terms of accessibility, it is easier, but we are talking about a wider point than just the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, challenges me on the costs of mounting appeals; obviously, I will not talk about the one in hand. I think that, in asylum, immigration and all sorts of areas, the lawyers are making an awful lot of money in these processes.
I will welcome the discussion that we are going to have. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and, with that, I will sit down.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment, from right across the House, and who very much strengthened the case. Some important points were made and I pick out just two. One is that, over and over, people emphasised the modesty and reasonableness of the amendment and pointed out how carrying out a review like this would be very much in the spirit of both the lessons learned review and the recent Public Accounts Committee report, helping to provide the evidence that it said was lacking. Here—just thinking about the Trump terrier—we are not talking about fake evidence; we are talking about real evidence, based on people’s experiences. There is a sort of incomprehension that the Government cannot accept this modest, reasonable amendment.
That said, I welcome the Minister’s tone and her acknowledgment that there is absolutely no point in trotting out the arguments that have been trotted out up to now, because we simply will not accept them in this House. I feel that we have made progress on that score. I welcome her willingness to talk about it further and I welcome the fact that she has committed to take it back to the Home Secretary. The point about the review that we have asked for is that it requires a report to come back to Parliament. We do not have a clear channel that will ensure that we have an opportunity to come back to this, to say, “Okay, the Minister has agreed to look at this further and to discuss it with the Home Secretary”—I would be very happy to give way if the Minister could say in what way we can then hold her to account in this House on that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Noble Lords never fall short in holding me to account. I would quite like to do a sort of task-and-finish activity, but one of the ways I can take this forward is to think about how we can then bring that back to the House, if that is sufficient for the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Thank you. That is very welcome. While obviously I am disappointed that the amendment has not been accepted, I feel that we have made progress this evening. That is partly because of the strength of support from noble Lords across this House. I am very grateful to them, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the lead amendment or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 17
The Earl of Clancarty
“Duty to report on the arrangements for visitors for business purposes
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report evaluating the effects of this Act on the arrangements for temporary entry and stay of EEA and Swiss nationals for business purposes.(2) That report must include consideration of—(a) the qualification requirements for a short-term business visitor;(b) the activities that can be undertaken by a short-term business visitor; and (c) for purposes of comparison, the reciprocal arrangements for UK nationals travelling to the EEA and Switzerland for business purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to consider the requirements of short-term EEA and Swiss national visitors for business purposes.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 17, I will also speak to Amendment 25 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull, on Amendment 25. The amendments ask that impact assessments be carried out on the effect of the loss of free movement on areas of work, research and artistic and cultural activities in both the UK and Europe.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 17. Many of the problems and threats to livelihoods faced by the creative services—I will come on to them—are also faced by other services, which is the main reason why I tabled this amendment. I realise in retrospect that I should perhaps have been more to the point and included “services” in the amendment’s wording, but I do not see why, when one thinks of business trips abroad, the provision of services that depend on mobility should not also come directly to mind—as much as sales, for example. However, it is services—our major industrial sector—that are being forgotten by not only the Government but the media.
Last week, I attended an online meeting of a group that has been set up to address the problems facing a number of British workers, some of whom are based in the UK, some of whom are based in Europe and all of whom are self-employed and work for European clients in differing professional areas, such as IT and translation. Some of their concerns are certainly outside the scope of this Bill and will be better addressed tomorrow in the debate on the Trade Bill, but others relate directly to the loss of free movement and parallel the concerns of those in the arts, including on the need to move at short notice between the UK and the EU and between EU countries without red tape. A major worry relates to the lack of information and guidance, as well as uncertainty about what they should be doing to protect their livelihoods.
The credit for the composite Amendment 25 must go to the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones, for their Committee stage templates, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for eloquently moving the research and innovation amendment in Committee. I was minded to press Amendment 25 to a vote, but I will not do so, although I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.
Amendment 25 concerns matters of considerable importance to many outside this House and for the country as a whole, with regard to research, as leading scientists pointed out in a letter to the Prime Minister in June. The amendment is important because it is about the future of science and the arts. It is about the future of research and creativity. As much as it is about people’s livelihoods, it is also about the co-operation and the building of relationships that we have seen over decades between ourselves and the rest of Europe and which so many people working in universities, research bodies, the arts and the media do not want to see endangered more than they already have been.
This is not scaremongering. The Royal Society observes that
“the UK is now a less attractive destination for top international science talent—with 35% fewer scientists coming to the UK through key schemes”.
Yet we benefit from such expertise from Europe as much as Europe benefits from the expertise that we can offer it. The loss of free movement puts a significant part of this exchange of ideas and exchange of culture on our continent at tremendous risk. Ultimately, there will be an economic effect and an effect on our standing in the world.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, concentrated his remarks on the life sciences and medical research. He said:
“It is this mixture of domestic and international talent that supports our thriving research environment.”—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 872.]
This is also the experience of the arts: of the visual arts, the area I most know, of music, dance, theatre and many of the other creative industries, including video games. The people we need who will enrich these industries and innovate are those who are as yet unknown. The salaries of many working in the creative industries, a large number of whom are freelancers, do not reflect the enormous contribution that the creative industries make financially to this country, which the DCMS estimated in June at £112 billion a year. These artists are the ones who make it happen. Many of them will not be earning anything like £25,600 a year—certainly not near the beginning of their careers.
There is also the huge concern about short-term work-related visits to this country for artists, which we discussed in Committee and, importantly, for UK artists visiting Europe, with the music industry in particular having an especially large number of concerns about the loss of free movement, including over touring. I will not repeat the detail of what I said on this in Committee, but I want to make one additional point. Free movement for the arts has come to something of a halt as a result of Covid, but it is instructive that interested organisations, despite the big hit that the arts are taking over Covid, in no way minimise the effects of Brexit as they understand it, even in the current crisis of the pandemic. We should not lose sight of that. In last year’s survey of 2,000 members, the Incorporated Society of Musicians found that 35% of respondents spent at least one month per year working in the EU. Europe is a significant source of work in the arts, and that loss will not be compensated for elsewhere.
We have got to the stage when concerns expressed urgently need to be addressed by the Government. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, which liberally references the reporting of the Migration Advisory Committee, but I say to the noble Baroness that the concerns raised in these debates are hardly touched on in that document. My question to her is: how will the Government monitor the impact of the Bill on these areas and publish findings? It is clear that there is already a significant effect—and that in anticipation of the loss of free movement—in terms of both the loss of opportunity and of our confidence for the future. We need to know not just whether things are going right or wrong but how the system needs to be improved to everyone’s advantage. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. In Committee, an amendment in my name was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am grateful to him, for he did so with great skill and persuasion—as far as the House was concerned, but not the Minister. Hence my second go at it, but with the added privilege of joining the amendment of my noble friend Lord Clancarty.
The Prime Minister has the ambition to make the UK a science superpower. Really? Yes, really, and why not? We can, and the sciences are up for it. Our science and research universities are world leaders. We are innovative. Our scientists in all areas of life sciences, clinical sciences, physical sciences, animal and plant sciences and other sciences are world-class, as are our universities, which excel in technological innovations. But any country that wants to be a science superpower needs to be open, welcoming and supportive. We have been and are such a country, hence our success in attracting thousands of young scientists who currently work in our country.
However, we now want to go away from this, and the messages we are giving out are all negative. We want talent, but we want it to pay lots of money for visas, health charges, and an uncertain future. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, one of our respected past Ministers of Science, said in a debate on research funding of universities on 9 September this year, a post-doc wishing to come to this country for a period of three years, with three family members, would end up paying 10% of his salary in visas and health charges. How much of an incentive is that?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is to Amendment 25, and it should also have been to Amendment 17, but I think I sent the email before I had typed “and 17”. I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Rose Theatre, Kingston.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that
“we are determined to get this right and ensure that these talented people”—
he was referring especially to the creative industries—
“choose to work and base themselves in the UK.”—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 892.]
Amendment 17 is not about being based in the UK but coming to the UK and, necessarily, going from it, and about reciprocity, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just mentioned. That has to be the basis. Amendment 25 is about creativity, because research and innovation are inherently creative, as are the other industries mentioned, and are very often collaborative internationally. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned the issue of vaccines, which is of course very topical. By no means are all those who are the subject of the amendment higher earners—or, in government terms, highly skilled—and that is sometimes because they are quite early on in their careers. In research areas, they are not all wild-haired individuals working alone, shouting “Eureka!”—I have to say I have no idea what Archimedes’s hairstyle was like. I should not have mixed those two up.
The arts and entertainment need a lot of technical support—the “others” mentioned in the amendment—and it is important that there are not administrative and financial hurdles in the way of all that. I understand that about two-thirds of the certificates of sponsorship for new visa applications for tier 5 are estimated to be for the arts, entertainment and recreational sectors, and noble Lords will understand the administrative impact of all that.
Such hurdles can quickly lead to a reduction in the pooling of experience and ideas. At the Rose Theatre, the board has for some years had wide-ranging discussions with representatives of other theatres, many of them from outside the UK. They have come over to talk to us and exchange experiences and ideas for the future—and very valuable that has all been. Of course, by no means at all is this the extent of my concern about the future of theatre and other parts of the creative industries.
I mentioned reciprocity and I have yet to hear anyone say that online meetings and conferences, as we are experiencing now, are a complete substitute for being face to face. They are very helpful in the current situation—but only so far. Short visits, particularly in the services sector, which is so important to the UK, are really important too. When I say “services sector”, I do not want to forget all the supporting activities that there are. Services have their supply chain just as much as manufacturing does. That is important in the world that I used to be in—the law—for finalising a deal or settling a conflict, and it is important that entry is easy and can happen speedily.
I am very glad that the noble Earl brought these amendments back to the House. He said that they would be to everyone’s advantage. We are all advantaged, both by the arts and by the sciences.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my name to Amendment 25, which brings together in one place my former professional life in the cultural sector and my current life within higher education. In noting that, I also note my interests as recorded in the register. In both those sectors, international mobility is crucial to success. Ideas and innovations, be they scientific or artistic, are no respecters of international borders. Indeed, it is well evidenced that international mobility enhances the quality of ideas and the impact of outcomes, with researchers and artists reporting that visiting and working in other countries helps them form collaborations, develop new ideas and gain new technical skills and expertise.
Universities are one of the best examples that we have of global Britain. According to the Higher Education Staff Statistics, nearly 30% of the academic staff in the UK are from overseas. The Government’s global talent visa is a very welcome recognition of the importance of international collaboration to research and innovation. Nevertheless, there are already a number of problems regarding the immigration status of academics, and, as we have heard, UK visas are among the most expensive in the world. The global talent visa costs 15 times more than a similar visa in Germany, and my noble friend Lord Patel has painted a very real picture of the costs for a young academic who wants to move their family here. Unless overall costs associated with visas are reduced to levels that are reasonable, proportionate and internationally competitive when compared to those of other research-intensive nations, “global Britain” risks becoming “little Britain”.
The concerns of the cultural sector about the loss of mobility beyond 2020 have been well rehearsed in this Chamber, and they have been laid out again today with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Clancarty. The continuation of short-term mobility between the UK and the EU emerged in an Arts Council survey of 1,000 stakeholders as a top priority post Brexit. It was more important even than the loss of EU funding, which has been worth approximately £40 million per year. The UK’s creative success has been shaped by the opportunities that mobility offers for UK creatives to develop their skills abroad and for UK-based companies to easily access talent from our nearest geographical neighbours. In the most economically productive parts of the sector, domestic skills gaps mean that up to 30% of staff have been recruited from the EU, and it is hard to see, even before Covid, how the creative industries will thrive in the new immigration regime that is in front of us today.
It is a regime that promises access to the brightest and the best, but which defines those qualities on the basis of salary and a points-based system that is ill matched to the characteristics of the sector, in which low pay does not equal low skills and where the training routes—I speak to this personally—do not lead to postgraduate qualifications that are points-scoring. It is also a regime that yet again ignores the importance of freelancers, who offer vital flexibility to a sector that is made up almost entirely of businesses that employ fewer than 10 people. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, those organisations will be hard pushed to meet the financial and administrative burdens associated with the employment of freelancers.
The UK’s creative sector is often pointed to as a major agent of soft power, but its contributions extend beyond global reputation to the economy and to employment right across the UK. The Centre for Cities reports a disconnect between the Government’s levelling-up agenda and the new immigration system, with cities in the greater south-east expected to gain the most from the new rules for so-called high-skilled migrants. Understanding the impact of this immigration regime on a sector that, unlike most, is delivering growth in almost every region of the UK, becomes even more important in the light of this.
I am afraid that I have seen little to reassure me that, across either research and innovation or the arts and culture, there is genuine understanding within government of the nature and specificities of these sectors, their workforce and the structures and systems on which success has been built. This amendment seeks to ensure that proper focus is given to the impact of reduced mobility on two sectors that we can truly claim are world leading, and will help to ensure that they remain so into the future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to support this amendment and Amendment 25. Although my main interest is in the life sciences sector, as a patron of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, I want to say something about the need for musicians and other artists from the EU to come to the UK, and vice versa. Despite the welcome support of the UK Government through their Culture Recovery Fund, the orchestral sector in particular is under severe threat. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, suggested, we should never underestimate the power of the UK’s world-class orchestras and other artistic ventures to contribute to renewal and innovation in our society.
So far as this immigration Bill is concerned, out of the CBSO’s 75 musicians, three come from Germany, and one each from France, Ireland, Romania, the Netherlands, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic and Denmark. I understand from the Association of British Orchestras that that is on a par with most other orchestras. Surely it is essential that, in future, musicians from the EU can continue to come and play in our orchestras and join in other artistic ventures, just as we want British artists to be able to go and work in the EU.
The Association of British Orchestras reports that a major issue for most of its members is how non-UK musicians can come to live and work in the UK as freelancers, given that the majority of orchestral musicians in the UK are self-employed. Under the points-based system there is currently no such route, even if their combined earnings from freelance engagements are above the salary threshold, because they do not have an employer who can sponsor them. There is tier 1, but the bar has been set at an exceptionally high level where a musician has to satisfy an “exceptional talent” test. The Government have talked about introducing an unsponsored route, but for only two years. Practically, orchestras need this to be up to five years, as with employed musicians, and we have no timetable for its introduction.
I turn now to the life sciences sector. Again, it is world beating and I want to echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It is vital that any changes that are made to the immigration system protect our excellent life sciences and the UK medical research establishment. This is contingent, as Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and others have said, on the maintenance of the UK’s world-leading research environment and our continuing ability to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent at all levels.
As I said in Committee, 31% of the UK’s Nobel Prize winners in science were born outside the UK. That is an absolute indication of the power of life science in this country and of our historic ability to attract the brightest and best from abroad. It is vital at not just that level but the technical level as well that we continue to do so.
In Committee, the Minister said that we should really depend on the impact assessment prepared by the Home Office and the Migration Advisory Committee —but I think we need to go further. Both these sectors are the sort of sectors that any Government would want to support, and they both need reassurance. The amendments before us are very mild. The noble Earl has said that he will not press his amendment to a vote, and I understand that, but the Government need to reciprocate and at the very least show that they understand that these sectors need to be protected.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support for both the amendments, but particularly Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, with broad cross-party support. Given the time and extensive exploration of these amendments by the movers, I shall not speak at length, but I want briefly to reflect particularly on the issues of inequality that the end of freedom of movement will bring to the science and research communities and the artistic and entertainment industries.
The Government like to talk about attracting the great and the good—another way of saying the established and mainstream, those backed by multinational companies and large funders. But this is very rarely where the big creative ideas come from: the truly original thinking and breakthrough artistic creations, the ideas and knowledge that will help us move away from the disastrous “business as usual” approaches that have trashed our planet and given us a poverty-stricken and unhealthy society.
When we look at the arts and entertainment, there is often a temptation to refer to the economic importance of those industries, and they are of course of great and increasing importance. But I also want to speak about the quality and enjoyment of life. There is little doubt that the top-charting artists, those with massive commercial backing, will be little affected by this Bill. But the small French band visiting from a town with which a rural settlement is twinned, or the experimental and innovative new artist appearing at a fringe festival, are the people who will be stopped—and we will all be the poorer.
Finally, I refer to the arguments that I made in moving Amendment 2—and I put on record my thanks to all noble Lords who supported it—about the impact on UK citizens’ residence. As I said, how we treat people across Europe will be largely mirrored by how our people will be treated in Europe. I am sure that I am not the only Member to be contacted by desperate musicians and other performers who fear, with good cause, that the restrictions that they may face in response to our restrictions will end their career. I shall not seek to steal words from the Lords spiritual, but the phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” comes irresistibly to mind.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl is a very civilised man, and it is always very refreshing to hear him. We have become a highly regarded and enviable centre of the arts in the world. The first thing that any of us who are involved at all know—and I have a son-in-law who is a professional singer and other members of the family who are involved in the arts—is that that by definition the arts and creative activities that they involve know no national frontiers. They are international. My goodness, how we flock to hear the music of foreign composers and singers from other countries. In drama, the same story is true. This is a creative element which helps to build a positive profile of Britain in the world.
I find it very sad indeed that people wanting to participate here and make a contribution to the world by participating here, and certainly to our enjoyment in this country, should encounter these physical barriers and the rest. It is important that if we take any pride at all in the reputation of the UK and of the place of respect and envy that we have reached in the world, this amendment needs to be addressed very seriously. I know the Minister is a highly civilised person and I am sure she will take the point that we should be encouraging people to come and participate in that activity.
The other point I shall make is that I am involved, marginally, in several universities in Britain. It may be argued that the number of overseas students wanting to come here defies the predictions of those who have had anxieties, but in this amendment we are talking not about undergraduate students but about the quality of research. The quality of research and of higher education depends upon international input. It is inseparable. It is not just something with which we may or may not make some money. It is integral to the real quality of higher education research.
Again, we should be welcoming people from abroad and encouraging them to come and participate in that activity. There is too much evidence that, whatever may be happening at undergraduate level with numbers of students, there are now too many people of real quality who are thinking twice about settling with their family in this country. That is a tragedy, and we should do anything we can do to make them welcome. We should have a most welcoming reception at immigration points in this country, at ports of entry and the rest, so that people understand how much we value and appreciate them. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I am sure that many of them and the Minister share a sense of richness, enjoyment and fulfilment at the quality of our arts and our research. This is an important amendment and I am delighted that the noble Earl has put it forward.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 25 and thank the noble Lords who tabled it. In these difficult times we need to recruit international research and innovation staff more than ever. It is important that we welcome them and make the UK an attractive place for them to do their research. If it is too difficult to attract them, they will go elsewhere. I speak from personal experience as I have a cousin who was not given enough time to do his clinical research in microbiology. He emigrated to Australia and is now a professor.
A group of noble Lords were invited to visit the Crick Institute—this was before coronavirus. The director told us that he had had a difficult time getting a bright Japanese research student in to do his work. Also, a highly intelligent German researcher, doing research on cancer, had to return to Germany because she did not know if she would get a grant when her EU one ran out.
I ask the Minister if she can tell your Lordships that visa costs will not form a barrier to attracting talented researchers from across the world and that visas will be easy to access, with their benefits effectively communicated, to ensure access from all levels of the research ecosystem. I also hope that people from the arts and entertainment industry will be able to travel easily. It will be a sad disaster if they are restricted by a bureaucratic nightmare.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is right in what he said about life sciences. However, this is for young people from all over the world, not specifically the EEA, although the Bill is specific to the EEA. Whatever system comes in, we must ensure that the life sciences economy is encouraged and developed, and maintains our position as a world leader.
On artists, as rightly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I suspect all noble Lords enjoy opera, theatre or music—whatever our particular interests are. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right that anybody in an orchestra should expect a five-year assignment. In my experience—and I do not have particular experience of the Birmingham orchestra—the norm is two to three years, when there is a review, but I may be wrong. This is certainly a different problem from that of life sciences. It needs that flexibility because some operas or plays run for a long time, but some do not. My wife was deeply involved in saving the Almeida Theatre in Islington. That does short-term runs, but other theatres have long-term runs. I will listen to my noble friend.
I will make one suggestion though, as I am deeply involved in south Asia. We have two sorts of visas for Sri Lanka and I think the same for India. Short-term business visas are given a priority by our high commissions, because they are to do with trade and we want to trade internationally, backwards and forwards. They function well, frankly, because the people on the ground, in our high commissions, are well briefed. There is a huge challenge, and it is not far off, for every one of our embassies in the EU to have people who are fully briefed, in depth, on exactly how the system works, however it may end up.
We are not good at communicating as government. We have seen too many examples of that recently. We do not have much time and, if it can work in this part of the world, which I know a lot about, I do not see why it should not work in the parts of the European community to which this applies. I will listen to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. I will finish how I finished the other night. I think we are addressing this for the temporary workers bringing in the harvest, root crops, et cetera, and this is not that dissimilar.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Naseby, who is always full of inventiveness and good sense. I also support Amendment 25, although I would like it to be in a different form, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his energy and perceptiveness.
The arts, especially music, is a people business, and I am concerned about the movement of musicians, actors and entertainers across Europe after Brexit. It is not only La Scala and Covent Garden, or the aged Rolling Stones on tour, that I am worried about. I remember one of my sons touring the Netherlands with his school choir and what he learned in poise and culture, and we have much enjoyed the visits of German choirs to Salisbury Cathedral. This amendment is about culture as much as economics, although individual artists and musicians are facing huge economic difficulties with Covid.
Others have spoken of their concerns about the flow of researchers and innovators, although I think that they will fit into the new points-based system better than arts and entertainment will. I know that DCMS has been giving a lot of attention to this whole area, since our creative record in this country makes us one of the world leaders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has already said. It is a claim made much too often for many things where world leadership is merely an impossible aspiration. Creators are by their very nature clever and inventive, so we may find that things are better than we expected after Brexit. However, asking for a report to Parliament is a modest and sensible request.
Nevertheless, it does not make sense to call for it a month after Royal Assent, so I would not vote for an amendment in exactly that form, although that is now academic. However, I hope that the Minister can respond to the feeling in the House on this matter, and with something broader than a reference to the Migration Advisory Committee—I am not sure of its expertise in the arts or in culture. We may also find that it does not have the capacity or resource to appraise and remedy the damage to our interests within the EU and the EEA territories, that is, outside the United Kingdom. Amendment 17 calls for a report after six months, which makes much more sense, but it is too broad to be really useful.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has made clear, on these Benches we support Amendments 17 and 25. I am particularly pleased to see my Committee stage amendment enhanced in this way, and to see the noble Lord, Lord Patel, adding his powerful voice at this stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, emphasised the importance of those from the EEA who work in our creative industries and those who work in international research and innovation. As he said, the creative industries are a hugely successful sector generating over £112 billion for the UK economy, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, emphasised, it is vital that changes being made in the immigration system protect the excellent UK medical research environment, which drives vital progress for our patients. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, our research and innovation sector is world-class. I can testify to that as the chair of a university council.
All noble Lords have emphasised the importance of freedom of movement and international mobility to both these groups. I am not going to repeat what I said in Committee about the music industry. I will not rehearse those arguments, but that still does not diminish their power, particularly regarding freelance creatives, who have been mentioned today.
In respect of part of the predecessor to Amendment 25, which I moved in Committee, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—said on 9 September,
“I appreciate the passion which many noble Lords have expressed for the UK’s creative sector and its unquestionable success—it is a passion I share—particularly in the current challenging climate.”
Then in a passage which could be taken both ways, depending on whether your temperament makes you an optimist or a pessimist, he said:
“In addition to keeping labour market data under careful scrutiny to monitor pressures, Home Office analysts will lead a comprehensive evaluation of the new immigration system.”
I am not sure whether that should chill my blood, in the circumstances, but he will find precious little passion in the Home Office. He then said:
“I part company with some of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening, as I do not believe we need to create a new mechanism for this. We are very fortunate that we have the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been mentioned many times already and which is widely recognised for its expertise and independence”.—[Official Report, 9/9/20; cols. 892-93.]
However, the expertise of the MAC is very narrowly focused. I looked through the list and I think there are three professors of economics, a doctor of economics and somebody who is a migration specialist. I suspect—it is not clear—that she has an economics background, so that is a full house of economists. The Minister tried to reassure us that the MAC has the ability to comment on any aspect of immigration policy as it sees fit and that it will produce an expanded annual report. What reassurance is that, if it is the wrong body? It may be good at producing reports on skills shortages in the wider economy, but where is the sectoral expertise?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, this is about culture not economics. I thought that was a bullseye. Where is the committee’s understanding of the issues, particularly in respect of the creative industries and research science? Its track record on salary thresholds as they apply to the creative sector is not reassuring at all. Where is the ability to consider costs and reciprocity, as mentioned by my noble friend and other noble Lords? I do not believe the Minister has persuaded us that the MAC is the right body to carry out a review of the recruitment of international research and innovation staff, and creatives, into the country. We heard all around the House about this: from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about artists; from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about orchestras; from my noble friend Lady Hamwee and, eloquently, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, about creatives. Where is that understanding in the MAC?
In contrast, Amendment 25 would have a proper focus—I think that was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—on these sectors. On these Benches, we fully understand that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, intends not to put his amendment to a vote. But I assure him that we will give him every support in prosecuting his case in every other way possible.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 17 and 25, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others are ones that I fully support. To deal first with science and research, in this instance I agree with the Prime Minister: I want Britain to be a science superpower. That is a wonderful idea and aim, and if we delivered it we would ensure that the wonderful work of our innovation continued. My problem is that we seem to be doing everything possible to ensure that it does not happen. I bet that our competitors in the United States, France and Germany cannot believe their luck given how Britain is acting, as we are doing everything possible to drive people away—the innovators and scientists, the people who want to come to develop new drugs. Look at all areas of work and business; they are being driven away by the attitude of the Government. I find it frankly astonishing that we have to have this debate. It is of course one of the many benefits of Brexit. It keeps on giving, and I find it astonishing that we are here.
I also remembered the words of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Committee, when he told us that we should not forget that:
“What we do to others will be done to us”.—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 876.]
We are going to find ourselves in all sorts of difficulties, and I will miss what we had. It gives me no pleasure at all to see what Britain is doing.
With regard to the arts, again, it is hard to overestimate the amount of money the arts bring in, and many noble Lords spoke passionately about them. I wanted to mention somebody who changed my life. Franz Busuttil was my music teacher at school; I met him when I was 11, and he taught me how to read music and play musical instruments. I did my Associated Board exams and he opened up my life to the world of the arts and music. Franz was Maltese, of course; he probably would not be allowed in under the present regime, but he changed my life and, when I go to the Globe or a concert, I always think about how Franz did that for me and his contribution to this country as an immigrant.
When you sit in a theatre, such as the Globe, and look around, people from all over the world are sitting there, watching Shakespeare being performed in a theatre very close to where it was performed originally. People often come to Britain—and we want tourists to come here—but they do not often come for the weather; they come for the art, the culture and the fantastic experience they can have. Look at the Edinburgh Festival, the greatest arts festival in the world. That is what this country is all about.
Again, with the decisions we will take here today on this Bill, we are just cutting our nose off to spite our face; it is absolute madness. I fully support these amendments and hope that the noble Baroness can see the passion of many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and give a positive reply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that people do not come to this country for the weather. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who has engendered a very thoughtful debate, and I am glad to say that I agree with most of the points that noble Lords have made tonight about migrants working in the research, creative arts and entertainment sectors, whose presence in the UK is often facilitated through short visits and who are crucial for this country; it is important to protect them. I also agree that international collaboration and movement of people are very important for these sectors to really thrive.
When noble Lords were making their speeches, I was thinking about the discovery of graphene by two Russian scientists in Manchester. What a difference it has made, not only to Manchester but to the future of innovation in this country and internationally. Our immigration system recognises this fact. I believe that the two sectors that have featured in tonight’s debate already receive what might be considered preferential treatment in the system.
Currently, visiting artists, entertainers and musicians can perform at events, take part in competitions and auditions, make personal appearances and take part in promotional activities for up to six months without the need for formal sponsorship or a work visa. They can also receive payment for appearances at permit-free festivals for up to six months—or for up to one month for a specified engagement—under the visitor route.
Artists wishing to come to the UK for longer-term work will need to do so under the points-based system. However, we will maintain a dedicated immigration route for creative workers under tier 5 of the immigration system. This route will continue to cater for the sector as it does now, permitting a broad range of creative workers to live and work in the UK for up to 12 months at a time. Noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, about musicians who want to come for two years, I understand that they can stay for up to two years if the sponsor signs for it.
As non-visa nationals, EU citizens will benefit from the concession for temporary creative workers looking to remain in the UK for up to three months, without the need to apply for a visa in advance, provided they first secure a certificate of sponsorship. We will also keep the global talent immigration route, which I will say a bit more about when I talk about the research sector, but I mention it here to demonstrate to noble Lords the breadth and range of immigration routes available.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. There are a couple of themes that have run through this debate like a thread: one of them is mobility, which some noble Lords have mentioned, and the other is individual workers. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned skilled technicians in research, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned individual members of orchestras, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about earning power, or lack of earning power, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about the cost of the global talent vision. So there is real concern about people being able to come to this country.
Since I first started taking part in all these Brexit debates, the phrase I have become most afraid of is “the brightest and the best”, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, there is no relationship, particularly in the arts, between salary and talent. People are often here for many years developing their practice, and still may not reach even £20,000 a year, yet they still make extraordinary contributions to this country in the arts and indeed in research.
There is an increasing case—and it comes out of this debate—that these are areas that need to be considered not preferentially but as exceptional. One of the things that has come out of this debate is that it is plain that the discussion we have had has been far from the arguments about jobs in these areas being taken by others from other countries. Others are welcome, because they contribute to the innovation and creativity that have the potential to lead to new jobs and even new industries. We may be an island, but we should not be an island research-wise or creatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested.
I want to finish by repeating my question. I think the Minister is trying to give a bit of a concession by saying that they are going to keep an eye on these sectors, but I repeat the question I asked in my opening speech: how will the Government monitor the loss of free movement in these significant areas? A month may be too short a time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, pointed out. There remains an urgent need for such an assessment to be made, and it should be made taking into account everything the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about MAC in his speech. But I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 18. I remind noble Lords that they may speak only once and that short questions for elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division should make that clear during the course of the debate.
Amendment 18
Lord Oates
“EU Settlement Scheme: physical documented proof
(1) The Secretary of State must issue physical proof confirming pre-settled status or settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status under the EU Settlement Scheme and who request such proof.(2) No fee may be charged for issuing physical proof under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to provide physical proof of settled and pre-settled status to those who make a successful application through the scheme, providing physical evidence of their migration status.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 18 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride. In doing so, I give notice of my intention to test the opinion of the House unless the Government are willing to move on this issue. I also thank all noble Lords who are speaking in the debate and all those who have spoken in previous debates over the years; they have shown consistent support on this issue.
It seems that we have been over this ground on numerous occasions over the past few years. In that time, the Government have failed to put forward any convincing arguments to deny EEA nationals, alone among all of the people residing in the United Kingdom, physical proof of their right to do so. This amendment would right that wrong and in doing so it would alleviate anxiety for millions of people, in particular the elderly and the most vulnerable.
The amendment has no partisan or ideological flavour and it is backed by Peers from all sides of the House, from all parties and from none. It is simply a practical measure to make life easier for a large number of people and to deliver a consistent system of proof of residents’ rights which does not discriminate between nationalities. It is deliberately modest in its ambitions. It does not require that physical proof is issued to every EEA national who is granted settled status, only that EEA nationals must be provided with physical proof of their status if they request it.
The Government’s arguments against this very modest proposal seem to be as follows. The first is that offering both digital and physical proof of status would be confusing. That argument is hard to understand because this is exactly the system that operates for all other permanent residents in our country. Far from avoiding confusion, a digital-only system will sow it in abundance. Landlords, employers and others required to check immigration status will now be confronted by two systems, one for EEA nationals and one for non-EEA nationals. They may wonder at this discrimination between nationalities and, given that they face crippling fines and the possibility of imprisonment if they get things wrong, they may decide that in the absence of physical proof, it is safer to replicate the Government’s discrimination and not to employ, rent a property to or provide a service to an EEA national.
Secondly, the Government claim that a digital proof is better than a physical proof because a digital proof cannot be lost. The answer to this is simple. We are not suggesting the removal of digital proof or digital records; we are simply arguing that physical proof should complement digital status. None the less, it is worth questioning the Government’s repeated claims in Committee about the resilience and robustness of the digital system. These arguments come to us in a month in which the Tokyo stock exchange lost a full day of trading due to a technological failure not only of its main system but also of its back-up, the Conservative Party virtual conference was rendered inaccessible to many of its delegates, denying them what is doubtless, for Conservatives at least, the unrivalled pleasure of a speech by Michael Gove, and of course the failure of our own House of Lords voting system when we were discussing this very Bill on Wednesday last and the failure of our hybrid proceedings this afternoon.
Let us be clear: systems failures are not a matter for the history books but happen every day. Technical faults occurred on the EU settled status scheme website in August this year, a nationwide failure of the US Customs and Border Protection system happened in August last year, and we all know of the scandalous injustice visited on sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses as a result of the supposedly infallible Horizon IT system. In each case, those responsible made extravagant and categorical claims about the robustness and resilience of their system.
Even temporary failures may give rise to permanent effects. If an employer or a landlord is unable to access the system at the point they have to decide between potential employees or tenants, the likelihood is they will give the job or rent the home to someone who can provide physical proof of their right to work or rent accommodation.
Thirdly, the Government argue that they intend to move to a wholly digital system in future and that it therefore makes sense for this new settled status scheme to adopt a digital-only model from the outset. It makes no sense at all. If a digital-only system is to be adopted, it should be extensively trialled in advance with widespread pilot schemes conducted with citizens who are confident in their status and who have the security of physical documentation as well. Australia, one of the few countries to have moved to a digital-only system, trialled it over a period of more than a decade.
As I said in Committee, we should not conduct an experiment with the lives of millions of people who are in receipt of an entirely new status, whose rights are not even underpinned in primary legislation and who are understandably nervous about their status, given the Government’s declared intention to violate the very treaty on which that status is based. We should especially not conduct an experiment with the lives of millions of people when the one trial the Government have undertaken, which involved non-EU citizens who had the back-up of a physical residence card, found the following:
“There is a clearly identified user need for the physical card at present, and without strong evidence that this need can be mitigated for vulnerable, low-digital skill users, it should be retained.”
I asked the Minister in Committee to explain to the House what has changed since the Government made that assessment in 2018. She either could not or would not answer that question. Neither could she tell us when the policy equality statement related to this policy, which the Government have confirmed exists, will be published. It is unacceptable that we are being asked to decide on legislation that will affect millions of lives when the Government are withholding from us such vital information, so I ask the Minister to address these issues in her response.
On every occasion we have discussed this matter, I have asked the Minister and other members of the Government, just as my noble friend Lady Hamwee did on an earlier amendment this afternoon, to try to walk in the shoes of others and to understand the huge anxiety which the Government’s refusal to listen and make this minor change is causing to EEA nationals, particularly to the elderly, vulnerable and those who lack IT literacy. At the end of the day, this argument is not about technology, documents or computer systems—it is about people’s lives, whether EEA nationals can feel secure in the status on which their whole lives are based, and whether the elderly and vulnerable can operate the system without dependency on others. It is about whether victims of domestic abuse will face further misery as an abusive partner exercises control over their lives through control of the email address on which their status is based, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, raised in Committee. It is about whether those seeking employment, accommodation or access to services will be discriminated against by employers, landlords or service providers who are confused that EEA nationals alone cannot produce physical documentation.
The case for this modest amendment is overwhelming. The practical arguments demand it, the principle of non-discrimination requires it, and the most basic level of consideration for the EEA nationals who have made their home with us compels it. I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his tenacity. We sat together on the Justice Committee some years ago, discussing these exact issues. As I stated at Second Reading, I am pleased to add my name to the amendment. I also thank my noble friends Lord Parkinson and the Minister for the time they gave me last week.
Like other noble Lords, I have received many messages from individuals supporting the amendment, from people whom I have never met to a number of colleagues from all sides of the Chamber—and I am grateful for that. As I have stated, the amendment is not political in nature but practical and sensible, and it should not prove onerous, as it mandates the Government to provide physical proof only if requested by an individual. Rather than giving my own opinion, I quote from a letter that I received from Maria:
“I am an EU national who has been based in the UK for over 26 years. As of 1 July 2021, I will be faced with proving my right to live and work here on a continual basis, hindered by the fact that I have no physical document with which to do so. Instead, for every different employer I work for, I will need to go through a lengthy, contorted, multi-step process involving my passport, my birth date, a unique one-off code sent to my phone, the employer’s email address, their business details and us both accessing the government website separately. I also must count on having all the necessary correct information to hand, the wi-fi connection being strong enough, the website not being down and there being no access errors with the database. In addition, I must hope that the other party is willing enough to go through the entire complex and time-consuming process with me. This is also the process I will need to go through to access the NHS, to rent a flat or, indeed, convince a sceptical airline employee abroad that I have the right to return to the UK without a visa in my passport or a physical document.”
Lord Kerslake (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to this amendment, and again thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his diligent pursuit of this issue. Unfortunately, I was not able to join the debate in Committee on 14 September, but I have read the record of the debate. The case for providing access to physical records has been so compellingly made by the noble Lord and other Peers across the Chamber that I do not feel the need to repeat it tonight.
The question I have reflected on is why on earth the Government would not be willing to agree to this. It does not cut across a manifesto commitment, set an unwelcome precedent, or involve major cost or administrative difficulty. As other noble Lords have pointed out, we already have such physical proof available for non-EEA citizens. Having read through the records, I think that the only arguments put forward by the Government are that they are committed to the path of digital, and that it is not necessary.
On the first of these arguments, nothing in this amendment implies that the Government should divert from the path of increasing the use of digital technology —this is really important. It simply says that in the particular circumstances we are dealing with here, the opportunity to also have physical proof is a very important, indeed vital, reassurance. On the second argument, the3million group and the individual representations have provided very good evidence that it is seen as necessary by those affected. However, if it is not necessary, we can expect the take-up to be very small, and there would be an opportunity in the future for the Government to revisit the issue. This is a straightforward and deliverable change to the Bill that would be widely welcomed by a group of people caught up in this process through no fault of their own. It is a small bit of humanity and common sense.
If the Minister is so sure of her ground—of the certainty that the systems will work exactly as intended, without error—she may hold on to her position and I hope that it goes to a vote. But I ask her to think again, because none of us can give that level of certainty to something that is so vital to people’s lives.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has, in his opening contribution, clearly outlined many of the arguments why this simple, short amendment on physical documentation should be accepted by Her Majesty’s Government. It is only five lines long, but within those five lines, so much future heartache and pain could be averted—averted for the most vulnerable in society.
As we have heard, this amendment is tempered and moderate. The words
“and who request such proof”
in subsection (1) show how measured this cross-party amendment, proposed by a grouping of the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and me, is an attempt to be. I hope that the Minister can be as accommodating as we have been.
There have been calls under previous amendments for physical documentation to be automatically provided for all. I have sympathy with that call but, in the hope that we can get to a position where our amendment could be accepted by the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government, the words
“and who request such proof”
have been added. It would be a very sad day if the Minister cannot accept this short and sensible amendment.
In rereading the Commons Committee debate and previous debates on this amendment in your Lordships’ House, like others, I am still at a loss to understand why the Minister feels she cannot accept or support it. The arguments against have been, at best, vague. When responding on 14 September, the Minister said, when referring to the Home Office letter:
“I must say, it is not proof; it is confirmation. This should reassure individuals about their status when dealing with the Home Office in the future”—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1094.]
Well, no. It is the issuing of the physical proof that is vital and will give those individuals the reassurance they need. We all heard the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his contribution on Amendment 16 talking about the issues surrounding the Home Office. It is vital for so many reasons—for work, for housing, for the feeling of belonging.
Like many others who spoke earlier, I fully support the digitisation and the move to online processing and ordering, but there are issues and concerns with the only form of access to proof being digital and online. We have heard some of those. What happens if the online systems fail—like our voting system last Wednesday, when it was critically and crucially needed? Only this weekend, we have seen the failures in relation to Covid testing and the errors that have occurred with the digitisation there. But it is not just the errors: there are also those who are not digitally literate. What support will the Government offer to them, if they will not accept the amendment?
I hope that, with the cross-party support of this simple, short amendment, it can be accepted and introduced.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I fully support all the points so eloquently argued, once again, by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I will speak briefly only to reiterate the points I raised in Committee, which were not fully addressed by the Minister in her response.
My first point relates to people in abusive and coercive relationships. I pointed out then, and remind the House now, that a common strategy in coercive control cases is to deprive the victim of access to phone and internet use. This raises the question of how someone who escapes a relationship with a coercive partner will be able to prove their status in future if, as is likely, it was the abusive partner who managed the process of claiming settled status in the first place. In seeking to rent a safe place to live, or to get a job in order to pay the rent, they would be obliged to contact the partner they are likely to have struggled so hard to leave. This is not a sidebar issue. Coercive control is now, quite rightly, a criminal offence in the UK. In the year to March last year, there were 17,616 offences recorded by the police in England and Wales. Can the Minister explain what protection there will be for victims of coercive control or abuse, so that they are not forced back into contact with their abuser in order to prove their immigration status?
My second concern is for people with impaired mental capacity, who are unlikely to have been able to navigate the application system alone, or to have been able to enter into mobile and internet accounts in their own names. Given the fluidity of the social care workforce, there is no guarantee that, at a later point in life when they are applying for a job or to rent a home, they will still be connected with the carer or caseworker who provided assistance. Mental capacity changes over time. Someone who has mental capacity when they apply may lack it at a later date, without the moment at which this change takes place being immediately clear. Can the Minister explain how people who lack mental capacity, now or in the future, are to be protected?
In response to these concerns, which I articulated in Committee, the Minister reiterated the Government’s commitment to
“delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users.”—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1094.]
Given everything that noble Lords have argued on this question, this evening and previously, does she not agree that delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users will include, first, an assessment of which members of society would be disadvantaged by the lack of a physical document; and, secondly, an assessment of the impact of accessibility issues on all potential service users?
I know that the Minister will agree that equality of access should be at the heart of every government policy. This tiny amendment—a simple slip of paper and only if requested—does nothing more than ensure that this is the case. For this reason, it has my support.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his rather brilliant introduction of this amendment, which I strongly support. The case for it would be made very succinctly were John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham with us. The task of government is to engender the greatest happiness for the greatest number. People want physical proof and, as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, our inboxes demonstrate how unhappy so many are at the prospect of being denied it. I can understand why.
We are talking about people—some are vulnerable, some short of digital skills—who are now all already facing a period of unexpected but inevitable uncertainty. Every time they want to apply for a job, rent a place to live, seek medical help, or board a plane home, they, and the potential employer, landlord, healthcare provider or foreign airport employee, will have to go through a multistep process involving passport, date of birth, a unique, one-off, code sent to a phone, and the email address and business details of the employer, landlord, doctor or airport employee. They will both, separately, have to access the Government’s website, relying on having all the relevant information to hand, the wi-fi signal being good and the website not going down. It is hardly surprising that some of these people worry that the employer or the landlord would prefer to skip the hassle and instead take on someone who has physical proof of their status.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on the manner in which they introduced this important Amendment 18. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, grew up in what was my Liverpool constituency; on a day when Liverpool has been licking its wounds, it is especially good to hear a Liverpool voice speaking such common sense, particularly from the Government Benches.
I spoke in Committee in support of the principles outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which underpin Amendment 18. This evening, he has again eloquently reminded us of some of those who will be disadvantaged and worse—as my noble friend Lady Bull has reminded us—should they not be able to access physical documentation. The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Polak, also reminded us that digital systems are far from being infallible. What of those who simply do not have access to the technology, or have never been given access to the skills required to be able to use it? The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, made some telling points, especially about the reasonableness of this very moderate amendment.
In Committee, I specifically referred to the difficulties being faced by Roma travelling people with the digital requirements to which they will be subjected. I was disappointed at earlier stages that more was not said in response. I once again urge the Minister to address the Equality Act requirements to counter the discriminatory disadvantage that Roma will inevitably experience if this option of physical documentation is not made available. However, it is not only Roma. As other noble Lords have said, all of us have received correspondence from people anxious to retain physical documentation.
That brings to my mind a personal experience. My late mother was from a Gaeltacht area, or Irish-speaking area, in the west of Ireland, where, until their early deaths, her parents had worked a small hill farm. When they died, their children were scattered, and my mother emigrated. Her first language was Irish, she had little schooling and no documentation, and she was doing domestic jobs to make a living. Years later, my late father, a Desert Rat, wanted to take her on her first foreign holiday. Obtaining physical documentation was a challenge, although not insuperable. In the course of it, I was surprised by a revealing comment she made: that despite the specific freedoms enjoyed by the English and the Irish in those days to travel freely between both jurisdictions, she had always been worried about having no physical documentation. Happily, that was resolved, and her documents provided me, my children, and now my grandchildren, with the right to Irish as well as British passports—both of which I am proud to have.
I tell this story to illustrate the importance of physical documents to establish who you are and affirm your identity. The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Polak, as well as other noble Lords, are right to have persisted with their amendment. I hope that, if we have to divide, we will support this amendment. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government will give it further thought and perhaps come back with their own amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I support the amendment, which was so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and ably supported by those following him, particularly my noble friend Lord Polak.
I would like to tell the story of somebody who would not be affected by this measure, because she is not an EEA citizen. However, she was a victim of modern slavery and got indefinite leave to remain. She applied for British nationality and sent off her passport. That was two years ago, and the Home Office is still trying to make a decision about her case. I am not sure what the problem is, but she was not told about the need for a biometric card, so she does not have one. She cannot get one at the moment because her passport and all her other details are with the Home Office. Despite her status, she is finding it impossible to get a job because employers want to see that biometric card.
As others have said, we have talked about systems being down and about people not having the technology. The technology could be just an iPhone, but not everybody has a mobile phone—I know that pretty much all of us do but not everybody does. If a number is sent by text to a telephone, there are still far too many places in this country where the signal is not strong enough for the message to come through. As a Member of this House, from time to time when I log in, a number is sent to my phone with which I can verify that I am exactly who I say I am, and I can then get on to the Outlook system. Quite recently, I have been in situations in this country where I cannot do that because the telephone signal is not strong enough. Those are all things that we have to bear in mind.
Of course, the human angle is very important. One thing that has not been mentioned, but which I read about, is that one reason the Government do not want to accede to this modest requirement is that it is not secure. I can understand that there is always concern about counterfeiting and so forth, but there are so many things that we issue with physical proof that it should not be beyond the wit of a Government to produce something that is pretty difficult to counterfeit.
If there are concerns about the cost, although this amendment precludes charging, I suggest that a modest charge of £10 or £20 might go towards that. I think that the people who have contacted us would be happy to pay that sort of amount and maybe even a bit more. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are being so resolute—I could say “obstinate”—on this point, and I am afraid that I have to say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that if, as I hope, the amendment is taken to a Division, I will support it, and I think that it will pass with a very large majority.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I too wish to speak in favour of the amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, together with the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, to whom I express gratitude for their skilful drafting.
I am still asked to provide evidence of my identity by means of a driving licence or a passport, or, upon entering the parliamentary estate, a parliamentary pass. The stated aim of the Government to confer settled and pre-settled status solely by digital means as a prelude to all immigration status being signified in this way is as curious as it is alarming. I say “curious” because it demonstrates a capacity for technological solutions from a department whose record in achieving them is mixed at best, and because it is being delivered to a House unable until today to vote by electronic means on its last slew of amendments. I hope that the Minister will take note of how heavily the Government have been defeated on each and every vote today. They are likely to be defeated again if the amendment comes to a vote, as it is another amendment that is not at all political and commends itself to common sense and human decency.
The Home Office was due to implement an electronic border system by 2011 for monitoring passenger data. This was put back to 2019, and I understand that the contract was terminated at one point. The Minister might advise us on how the system is going.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee, reporting on matters to do with the Windrush scandal, picked up on its own prior concerns about the handling of electronic data at the department. It further mentioned that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that the department had wrongly identified some people as disqualified from having a driving licence or a bank account, but the department rejected the recommendation to cleanse its disqualified persons list of people who should not be on it, which is again curious.
I cannot be the only Member of your Lordships’ House whose email inbox has been inundated with the pleas of EU citizens and their spouses on this amendment—in fact, I know from this debate that I am not. We have to ask why this is the case. Why this particular amendment? As has been noted, Australia took 19 years to migrate one category to a digital status only. What of the inevitable inaccuracies of such a screen? What of when the system goes down, as it most assuredly will? What of those who do not remember the email address with which they registered? What of those, especially the elderly and perhaps more vulnerable, who might have relied on a neighbour or a charity who used an email address unknown to them? Such a person is trusted with a library card but not with something tangible—something that fits into a wallet or purse and identifies them more easily than the frailty of any app is yet able to do. Indeed, it is curious—my favourite word this evening—that we should go out of our way to make the lives of others so difficult. There is simply no need to do this and we should not do it.
In designing a system for administrative convenience rather than accommodating the realities of daily human life, we risk visiting unnecessary and avoidable difficulties on many of our fellow citizens. That is why I support the amendment and hope that the Minister will accept it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I fully commend and support the amendment for EU settled status, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride. This is a very moderate amendment, as the noble Lords who spoke before me clearly stated, and it makes a very simple request to which I hope the Minister will be able to accede.
By way of explanation, I will quote from a letter I have received. As noble Lords have stated, we have all received letters and emails from people throughout the UK who are EEA citizens and deeply concerned about this. It states:
“For some reason the Home Office is only giving EU nationals a digital status, which is a source of great anxiety to EU citizens that I know. Given how important it will become to prove your right to reside in the UK after Brexit, it is puzzling why the Home Office is only giving EU nationals a digital status rather than being able to present a plastic residence card with their photo and biometrics in it. They have to request employers and landlords to access a Home Office database by providing a code.”
As we have seen in your Lordships’ House, digitisation can work very well the majority of times, but there are times when it does not work at a satisfactory level. If that happens in this case, with people applying for settled status, it could cause anxiety if they cannot gain access. It will cause them considerable levels of worry. I therefore urge the Minister to give careful consideration to this well thought-out amendment and to remember that such a biometric card should be made available if it is so required.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and the powerful, eloquent arguments he put forward, honed by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and supported by every other speaker so far in this debate.
I hate to bore the House by repeating what I have said before about those entering the United Kingdom to visit, without a visa, who want to rent a property for the six months they will be here. The Government say that these people—and from 1 January they will be EEA and Swiss nationals—have to produce to the landlord physical proof of their nationality and the fact that they entered the United Kingdom within the last six months.
It has been confirmed to me by the Minister that there are no plans to have any digital proof of the status of those EEA and Swiss nationals visiting for six months that a landlord would be able to access to confirm that they can rent the property. So, we have a situation where, if an EEA or Swiss national, after 1 January, wants to rent a property for more than six months, they need a digital-only proof that it is possible, but if the EEA national has entered the United Kingdom within the last six months, it is solely physical proof that the landlord needs. There are no plans to change that process in the future. So, any argument that the Government are moving to a wholly digital system in the future is not true, certainly in relation to the circumstances I have outlined, which, therefore, knocks away a major argument of the Government’s against this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, over the years, I have often received pleas for help to support various campaigns. But over the last few days, like other noble Lords, I have been inundated with a multitude of emails—over 80—asking for support with changing a digital-only immigration status to one that has hard copies as well. I support Amendment 18. A digital-only immigration status will create new barriers for EU citizens, especially the elderly and the most vulnerable, who may not have the necessary skills and equipment. They need alternative ways of accessing services. This is not a fair way to treat our friends and neighbours.
EU citizens can prove their new immigration status only through the Home Office website. What happens when the website fails? Websites do fail. There should always be a back-up. Does the Minister agree? What happened on Wednesday and today are an example. Is that not a sign that this amendment should be accepted? In addition, if any one part of the digital checking process fails, people without a physical form of back-up will be vulnerable.
There should not be a two-tier system for proving the right to stay in the UK. There should be an acceptable system for all citizens in the UK and in the EU. I have a god-daughter living in France who is married to a Frenchman. This Bill is inhuman. Many EU citizens living in the UK own property, having paid their taxes. They have acquired settled status, but without physical proof of their identity they are really concerned. The letter they received states clearly that it is not proof of their identity. If they do not have hard proof, they feel very vulnerable. They need physical proof of who they are and of what rights they have earned. I congratulate and thank the noble Lords who have tabled Amendment 18, which I support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who spoke so eloquently to this amendment and will show a little solidarity with him as we approach our fifth anniversary: we were introduced to this place on the same day. I congratulate all those who have had the courage to sign this amendment. I declare my interest as chairman of the national Proof of Age Standards Scheme board and as a previous chair of the ad hoc committee of this place on the Licensing Act 2003. I should also declare that my mother became a naturalised Brit in 1948 when she met and married my father and moved to Britain in that year.
I welcome the digital age but, as the recently concluded consultation on developing UK standards for the physical presentation of digital proof of age that the PASS board undertook showed, while there is a future role for digital, physical checks provide important safeguards, as witnessed by the many emails that I, like other noble Lords, have received in preparation for this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to the two recent technical failures in this Chamber which highlighted the current limitations of digital technology. I also refer to my experience, which was shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, when in 2014 or 2015 Defra decided it would go to digital-only applications for farm payments. In the teeth of fierce opposition from the EFRA Committee, which I had the honour to chair at that time, and from across the House in the other place, we persuaded the Government to move from digital-only applications to paper applications as well for many of the reasons that my noble friend Lord Randall gave. In North Yorkshire, there are many pockets, particularly in the Vale of Pickering and the Vale of York, where the mobile signal is woeful and broadband is very poor. You have farmers trying to log on to apply for their farm payments while their school-age children are trying to do their homework, and there is simply not the bandwidth for that.
For these reasons, I urge my noble friend, who is held in respect and affection in this place, to set aside digital only when she sums up the debate this evening. I can find no reason in my heart or my conscience to vote against this amendment, and if it is pressed to a vote I shall certainly support it.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was absolutely right to remind us of what has just happened in the Lords last week and this week. Modern technology is not perfect, and the trouble is that it has so much authority—in the sense that it has become so indispensable—now in the handling of affairs that, when it fails, there are very serious consequences. There is nothing more serious to think about than someone who is not altogether secure, who is in a situation where identity and status proof are being demanded, finding that the system fails. It is extraordinary that, in the light of what we have just been through, there should be any continued resistance whatever to the proposition in this House.
With all his front-line experience, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke very convincingly about the real situations in which people find themselves, where the inability to produce physical evidence plays into the hands of ruthless landlords or whatever. It seems to me that we must also recognise that the elderly and frail are not comfortable with modern technology—if they have it. They really want and need something in their hand that establishes their authority and status.
In the EU Justice Sub-Committee, on which I was glad to serve for my allotted time, we wrestled—as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, will remember because he was a fellow member—with this very issue on quite a number of occasions. We could not get a rational or reasonable explanation for why it was impossible to contemplate producing this document. I try not to be a cynic or sceptic, but I cannot have been alone in beginning to wonder about what it is that is behind all this. What is the real reason that there is so much determination to resist?
This is because, as the situation stands, all the power is in the hands of the Government and the Home Office; the individual has no equal standing available in a physical document to produce, for whatever reason or need, the evidence of how the situation really is. One thing that—over many years in this House and quite a number of years as a Minister—I have always worried about is that we may have reasonable Ministers in the present age, but what happens when they move? What happens if we get a ruthless Home Secretary who seems to see the opportunities here for being able to undermine the status, stability and well-being of people in this predicament?
I keep saying—it may be a little irritating, but it is true—that I have enormous personal respect for the Minister handling this debate. She is a decent person. Of that, I am totally convinced. I ask her to try to produce this evening some determination to take the seriousness of this point on board and produce the necessary document. I am glad to support the amendment.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who invariably speaks with eloquence and passion. I was also delighted to hear the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Alton, especially in view of the misery they are feeling about the Liverpool result over the weekend. I speak as a Manchester United supporter and I share their misery.
This debate reminds me of the time, some years ago, when the Government of the day asked pensioners to sacrifice their pension books, which they took to the post office, for payment directly into their bank accounts. At the time I was the MP for Orpington, trying to defend a majority of 269. A Labour Government perpetrated this change and it was manna from heaven, frankly. I remember waxing on about the heartlessness of a Government who took away from old-age pensioners the comfort of the book that they took to the post office every week. It was hard-hearted but, in retrospect, the direction of travel was entirely right. The issue is always how it is handled and the time you allow people to make the adjustment necessary in the circumstances. This is happening here.
It has been pointed out that the Australian Government now have an entirely digital system. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, I have been a supporter of the Australian system that they have partly converted to, but not wholly—not enough. The truth, as pointed out in the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is that although the Australian Government have gone to an entirely digital system, for eight years they allowed people to have a paper system for no cost, and for a further three years they could pay to have a paper system alongside the digital system. For a total of 11 years, they allowed this change to take place. The Government are expecting this to happen by next July. The reality is that it will not. Can anyone imagine this sort of digital change taking place by next July, with all the uncertainty we have heard about with digital behaviour of this kind? I think not.
I wish the Minister not only to think about the greatest happiness for the greatest number—as said by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—and to look at things from the point of view of ordinary people, as all Governments should, but to avoid a U-turn, which they will probably have to later if they do not listen to what we are saying tonight.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I take some comfort from that, because this Government have shown themselves to be fairly good at U-turns. I hope we see one this evening. In 50 years in Parliament, I have never been more perplexed by any debate and the obduracy of a Government without a cause that is defensible.
What we are doing here is willingly inflicting pain and worry on people who have often served our country, who love our country, who wish to continue to make their life in our country and who make enormous contributions to our country. We are saying to them—I speak as a digital agnostic—“You do this, or else.” It is an indefensible position. I joke about my own position because, until we went into lockdown, I had never possessed a computer, never used a computer and never had any desire to use a computer. I do it now and, with the aid of the wonderful digital support service we have in the House, I have been able to make many speeches on the screen and have attended numerous meetings through Zoom and Microsoft Teams—and I have hated every one of them.
We should be a tolerant House. Tolerance is one of the defining characteristics of the British people, yet we have seen it crack in several places over the past few years. Many of the letters that your Lordships have received, as I have, from truly worried people speak about the creeping xenophobia in our country following Brexit. As everyone in your Lordships’ House knows, I deeply regret that decision, but I have always accepted it. I argued passionately for Mrs May’s deal—Lady May, as she is now. Many of those people feel less wanted. That is extremely sad.
There are one or two things that we should all bear in mind. In his splendid introduction to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to whom we are all grateful, referred to the Horizon scandal. It is reaching the end almost as we speak, but not the end for those who suffered—not the end for those who were told that here was a perfect digital system that could not conceivably be wrong; no, that was wrong. We should also remember Windrush—people put into a position of terrible distress because their bona fides were not accepted. Surely we can learn from these things. Surely we can learn from the experiences to which many of your Lordships have referred last Wednesday and this very day. We are not dealing with perfection; we are dealing with clever systems that can frequently let people down. My noble colleague talked about the farm payments scheme. I had many in my former constituency who lived in parts of Staffordshire where there was not good reception. Some of them were driven almost demented by it and the Government saw sense.
Many of your Lordships have paid deserved tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench. She has shown herself to be a colleague who understands this House and who tries to give time to people who have worries about various aspects of government policy—she will have been very busy recently. I want to say to her directly: please do not let yourself down. Go and see the Home Secretary tomorrow and tell her that you tore up your brief, because it is not worth having. There is no logical, sensible answer to this extremely modest proposal. My noble friend would earn more than an accolade—she would deserve a halo—if she said, “You have been talking sense; I have been talking rubbish, and we are now going to put it right.”
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack. I certainly support this amendment, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and its proposed new clause requiring the Secretary of State to issue physical evidence of migration status.
To start with, as has been said, we might well be disposed to approve of a system which is entirely digital, dispenses with cards or paper, and is quick, slick and nicely up to date. In this case, however, although well-meaning, such a system is flawed. That is even so in general, thus for numerous purposes and types of daily use, regardless of the particular and sensitive context of migration status at all. Consider driving licences, student ID cards, pensioners’ bus passes, national insurance cards, and so on. Suppose we could not use these and had to go online instead; at best, this would be frustrating and, most of the time, extremely annoying. It is so much easier to have a card or piece of paper immediately there in your pocket or in the file which you keep at home.
All the more so would it therefore be unsatisfactory—something which this amendment corrects—if evidence of settled status could be provided only digitally. As so many of your Lordships have already emphasised, digital-only immigration status will create new barriers for EU citizens, especially the elderly and most vulnerable, who may not have the necessary digital skills. That apart, if and when some aspect of the digital process fails—which is quite a frequent occurrence—people without a physical form of back-up will obviously be disadvantaged.
Conversely, even when the process may go as smoothly as it can, many still fear lengthy, contorted, multistep sequences involving presentations of passports, birth dates and unique one-off codes sent to mobiles, followed by both parties having to access the Government’s website separately. Worse still, a recent study has shown that the majority of landlords do not want to accept a digital-only proof, stating that they do not trust it.
For these reasons, I am sure that my noble friend would accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, or produce a government one corresponding to it.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, only today we have seen another example of centralised government technology failing: namely, the PHE Excel spreadsheet not counting all the coronavirus statistics. We know what happened to some Windrush immigrants whose proof was destroyed.
I am happy to admit that when I began to enter the House of Lords, I had to establish my British nationality. That involved finding proof of my father’s naturalisation as a British citizen in the late 1940s. To my amazement and pleasure, there was the document in the small pile he had left me when he died. We should not forget future generations who may need a piece of paper. I shall never forget the comfort of having that piece of paper.
Employers and landlords will look for it. I surmise that, if they are told to check online, this could be an obstacle to the offer of housing or employment when time is of the essence. Older people may not be familiar with the technology—another demographic that the Government sometimes forget: for example, in relation to the NHS track and trace app, where the considerable numbers of older people who do not have smartphones are simply ignored. Moreover, hard copy of proof may be a requirement when an entitled person travels abroad or when there is an emergency and no access to a phone or the internet is possible.
Failure or hacking of the digital system will be catastrophic and are by no means unforeseeable. Of course there could be both digital and paper evidence as a back-up. For those reasons, I support this amendment and urge the Government to do the sensible thing and provide a paper proof of settled status.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I always enjoy the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and her own story is compelling. Those who tabled this amendment have put their case very well. I sit on the European Union Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and we quite often make similar-sounding points. My noble friend Lord Polak has done much for the Conservative Friends of Israel.
We are debating a legislative requirement to provide physical documentary proof as well as digital proof under the EU settlement scheme. It is a very important debate and I wish to highlight three further issues which need to be given some weight. First, if there are two sources of the truth, the digital database and a physical document, what happens when they differ? This can cause difficulties for the individual, as I know from a family member settled in France but with a misspelled name on his French papers. A discrepancy between the two may also be grounds for appeal. We really do not want to create yet another pretext for expensive appeals, creating cost and delay, encouraging people to abuse the system and making it harder for those in genuine difficulty.
We have heard from the Minister that those in the settlement scheme will get a letter, or a PDF sent by email, setting out their status. This can be kept if it is physical, run off if it is an email, and/or stored electronically. Most of us here probably visit the US in a private capacity, and so will be familiar with ESTAs, where the permission to travel is online. We need one simple, single, consistent and reliable system of identity. We also need one that is not prey to fraud. As time passes, the permission to settle will become a valuable right. Physical documents, even when backed up by high tech, are too easy to fake.
Secondly, I would like to know the cost of this proposal. Is it a minor change, as has been argued, or a major one? I appreciate that the physical document will be provided only on request—a clever detail from the movers of the amendment—but in practice almost everyone will ask for a physical document. You would be mad not to, given that it is free under the terms of this amendment —so I fear that this will be costly. We know that some 3.9 million EU and EEA citizens have already applied to the settlement scheme. What is the cost of providing, delivering and policing over 3 million fraud-resistant documents? This question of cost and price is important; an estimate was also asked for by my noble friend Lord Polak. Perhaps the Minister could kindly give us an estimate before this is voted on—but, in my view, providing such documents for free is, in principle, wrong.
Finally, as noble Lords know, the future of ID is digital. As many have said, the direction of travel is right. I pressed the Minister on digital rather than physical ID when debating the legislation on coronavirus and the need for secure ID, for example for the enforcement of licensing laws and other age-restricted activities. Attitudes to digital have much improved during the crisis and we should take advantage of that in this Bill, but clearly the Minister needs to answer concerns about the failure of any new system. The US system is normally very robust indeed, and quite simple once you have answered their questions. Many businesses and financial institutions have digital systems that are extremely reliable, as I know from personal experience.
Any problems with vulnerable groups and internet blackspots can and should be dealt with as part of the forthcoming implementation plan for this huge change. The communication campaign, which we heard about earlier on Report, on the new immigration arrangements, provides a huge opportunity to chart the way ahead. I mention in passing that a good model in the pre-digital age was the 1992 campaign by the DTI, ironically on the creation of the single market. Careful planning and considerable investment in advertising, and in assistance for individuals and businesses, all led to a favourable outcome. The Home Office, under great pressure today I fear, may be interested to know that this also had a favourable effect on people’s perception of the department and indeed on its ability to recruit top talent.
Returning to the main issue, for all these reasons I am uneasy about this superficially compelling, simple amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, endorse all the kind words that have been said about her talent and hope that she can find a way through this evening, and that colleagues will listen to her, think again and support the Government.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling this amendment and give him my support. It is with a heavy heart that I do so, against my Government—my party.
I sat on the European Union Justice Sub-Committee with the noble Lord when we took hard evidence. We invited the ambassadors for all the EEC countries to come and talk to us and share their concerns, which were twofold. The first was that the applicants were made to feel unwelcome when they were asked to apply. They had to go through the Herculean task of proving something in circumstances where many of them had been super-contributors to our country—where we should have welcomed them with open arms. It looked as if we were doing them a favour in accepting them if they wanted to stay with us, not treating them as our equals. This was simply inhumane and there was no explanation for that.
Secondly, when they got to the very bottom of the task and were eventually accepted, they asked whether they could have some physical proof. They were denied it without any rational explanation whatever. I happened to chair the meeting to which we invited every single ambassador—it was in a large room, as we could convene in large rooms in those days. I asked them to share with us the single most upsetting feature of applying. To a man or woman, they responded that the lack of physical proof was the highest, the most frequent and the most troubling.
I not going to repeat the many speeches that have been made tonight because the night is getting long, but I want to add one other feature: cybersecurity. The reason I stand here tonight and am not being hooked up from home is because I am, as I have advised Black Rod, a victim of being hacked through my telephone. My parliamentary email, my own email, my WhatsApp messages, my pictures and my texts are all visible to somebody else. The future of crime is not only the nuclear problem; it is the cyber problem. With one swipe of a button, it affects the system. We have talked a lot about general accidents, not being able to connect and the mistakes that prevent us voting. We have law courts which sit virtually but crash in the middle of a hearing. But if we are under attack and somebody wants to cause serious grief to us as a country, this is what could be done in the absence of any back-up.
If this happens to the people who we are so lucky to have—I share the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Southwark’s view on this—we are simply not acting in a humane way. We are not treating our fellow citizens in the same way as we would like to be treated. The reciprocal arrangements in embassies across Europe are that British people are entitled to get proof there—they give it out free. We should take notice of that and reciprocate with similar willingness.
Finally, I want to close by saying this: it is never too late to right a wrong. I have enormous respect for my noble friend the Minister. I hope that she will listen to and take to heart the compliments paid to her personally. I hope that she will look into the abyss and feel that, tonight, we have done something useful to help the very many people who have written to ask for our support in what, for them, are extremely troubling circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this debate would not be complete without thanking the very many individuals who have been in touch with noble Lords to express their strong views and very real concerns, nor would it be complete without thanking the 3million—although perhaps that organisation should be called “the almost 4 million”, as we now know. We have to thank every voluntary organisation, the many people affected and those making their views heard, as well as the few who work so hard on their behalf and have been so effective in passing those views on to us.
The Minister in Committee made a long, careful speech which, on rereading, did not seem to address the amendments but rather was a speech responding to what she expected to hear, not to the individual points that were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has again spoken about people in abusive and coercive relationships, as she did then, and about people with impaired capacity, but there was no answer about the latter. With regard to the former, the Minister said:
“We are committed to delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users.”—[Official Report, 14/9/2020; col. 1094.]
How does that answer the point? Coercive control could cause—I was going to say “just”; it is not “just”, but noble Lords will understand what I mean—not just a difficulty in renting or a lack of getting the job that one wants; it could actually mean trapping the individual in that relationship.
I mentioned Australia at the last stage, as some noble Lords have done today, and the length of time it had taken to make everyone comfortable with purely digital arrangements. The Minister commented that, in Australia, the physical documents are issued in the form of biometric cards. Again, how did that answer the point? This amendment is not opposing the digital system; it is about having additional physical proof for those who ask for it.
From time to time, a proposition in this House takes off because there is something about it that feels very real; noble Lords support it intuitively—and sometimes rationalise that intuition after they have come to the view. The intuition tells them that they have got their fingers on the pulse of opinion. It also, in this case, resonates with our appreciation of citizens who have been a part of our community and who we want to see remaining as part of our community.
I congratulate the speakers who I know do not want to go against their own Front Bench but who are prepared to speak out—I do not suppose that they enjoy doing so. The debate has been impassioned and almost unanimous. I cannot offer the Minister a halo, but she will have an opportunity after the vote, which I expect to be overwhelming, to pass on noble Lords’ arguments and the strength of feeling. She can do that behind the scenes. She is so respected in this House, and I hope that knowing that will buoy her in the task in front of her, because we must achieve this change.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has given us an authoritative, commanding, clear, direct and confident explanation. The noble Lord can do that because of the power of the case he presented: it is simple, clear, and it is just the right thing to do. We on the Labour Benches will support the noble Lord when he divides the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, EU citizens need to be treated fairly, properly and with respect. The Government have provided nothing to justify what they are proposing to do. I also note that there has been only one speaker tonight in support of the Government, and that is out of not only the Members of the Opposition but the eight speakers from the Government Benches tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, reminded the House of the problems you can get yourself into if you are a landlord. There are serious penalties if you have not checked documents to ensure the person you are renting your property to is somebody who is entitled to rent the property. If you are an employer, you have to check documents to ensure that the person you are employing has the right to be employed. If you get those wrong, you face serious penalties.
I know that if I was in the position of these individuals, I would want a physical document, physical evidence or physical proof that I could put away and, if there was a problem, some years later get out and then justify that I actually had the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. I think we should not underestimate the stress and the worry—we have all seen from the emails we have received how concerned people are about the position of the Government. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, gave a very powerful case on the question of domestic abusers and how abuse is often about control. Here we are, potentially putting people at risk again, having to go back to their abuser to give them that control over their lives again. We need to be very careful here.
Noble Lords who were at the debate in Committee will recall me explaining that I live in Lewisham, and I have done very many citizenship ceremonies where somebody becomes a British citizen. They get a letter from the Home Office and they are told to contact their local authority, and they ring up Lewisham Council—where I live—and they book a place at the next available ceremony. They come along, they bring their letter from the Home Office and they have it checked. I am there as one of the people who officiates at the ceremony, and the registrar—the person who normally does births, marriages and deaths—explains to people how important what they have done is and how proud they should be to be a British citizen. We sing the national anthem, the members swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, and in the final part of the ceremony the individuals come up one by one and I hand them a paper certificate. These are signed by the Home Secretary; I have handed them out from Theresa May, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd. I am absolutely confident that today in the Home Office there are people running off certificates signed by Priti Patel. That is the ludicrous situation we are in.
The Minister did not answer this point when she replied in Committee, but I hope she can address this point tonight. Can she please explain, for me and the House, the logic of and justification for the Home Office refusing individuals who have been granted EU settled status a physical document but, exactly at the same time, requiring those individuals to be granted British citizenship, to attend a ceremony, and at that ceremony be handed a certificate and be told by the official at the ceremony how important this document is? They are told, “You must check it before you leave, it is a really valuable document and you need this”, and how important it is. I cannot see the logic of that argument—it is nonsensical and ludicrous—and I do hope the Minister can address that point. At exactly the same time, not only the same Government but the same government department—talk about facing two different ways at once—are creating this ridiculous position.
I hope that the noble Baroness can step back and look at this farcical situation that the Government are seeking to justify here tonight. As many other noble Lords have said, she is highly respected. I like her very much. As a Minister, she has always been willing to engage with me outside the House and I have been able to raise things with her. I have appreciated that very much. However, I hope that she can go back to the Home Office, speak to the Home Secretary and explain how ridiculous this situation is. These certificates have been handed out with the present Home Secretary’s name on them.
In conclusion, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. We risk appearing to go out of our way to make the lives of our fellow citizens as difficult as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we should be a tolerant House and not seek to do that. There is no justification for behaving or acting like this. The Government are not being reasonable. I hope that they can accept the amendment but, if they do not, I have no doubt that it will be carried overwhelmingly tonight in a Division.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think that there is one thing on which we can all agree this evening—that it is not a great week to be promoting the benefits of technology, and the difficulties have arisen on the immigration Bill as well, which is very irritating.
It is also true to say that, when speaking, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for example, absolutely relied on her iPad, and rightly so. It has been great to see noble Lords trusting the technology. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the past six months have seen us very reliant on technology, and for the most part it has not let us down. In addition, it has staved off loneliness for many people. I congratulate the the3million group on engendering concern on this matter but I hope—in fact, I know—that in the same way as noble Lords have thoughtfully addressed that concern, they will also listen to the points that I will be making this evening.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Horam who talked about when the post office book was abolished. In fact, I remember when the children’s allowance book was abolished. I really did not trust that the money would be put into my bank account. More recently, the tax disc has been abolished. There is no paper record of you having paid the tax, but somehow the police know that you have because of the technology.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for so thoroughly outlining his case and for providing the House with the chance to discuss the issue of physical documents for EEA citizens who apply under the EU settlement scheme. He knows that I will not agree with him and will try to argue that it is a hindrance to modernising our immigration system. He asked me about the policy equality statement. I understand that it will be published shortly.
Some noble Lords—in fact, I would say almost all, other than my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—expressed concern about the move to providing access to immigration status online to EEA citizens granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. Like many other government departments, we are moving our services online and there are noble Lords who support digital systems, albeit maybe not in the context of this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, attested that those protected by the withdrawal agreement do not have their rights underpinned by legislation, but of course they do, through the withdrawal agreement Act. Moving to online services is part of our declared aim of moving to a system which is digital by default, whereby all migrants, not just EEA citizens, will have online access to their immigration status, rather than having physical proof. They will be able to access their immigration status online at any time and from anywhere via the view-and-prove service on GOV.UK, which is available through a variety of devices ranging from smartphones to desktop computers. I am very impressed to hear that my noble friend Lord Cormack has availed of the last few months to use computer software. I never thought I would hear him say that.
All this represents a major change. We have recently seen a real shift in how people behave; in the culture and habits of how the Home Office issues proof of immigration status, and the way in which migrants and others will be able to use this. Of course, we want a robust and secure system that is both efficient and convenient. My noble friend Lady Shackleton pointed out the horrors of having anything hacked. We are at the beginning of this important journey and we recognise that some people may not see it this way, but I urge noble Lords to persevere and let us see this journey unfold properly in a systematic and focused way. We have to commence change somewhere, and the EU settlement scheme has provided the right opportunity.
Noble Lords may remember that, not too long ago, we introduced a new application process for the settlement scheme based on a smartphone app. There was an absolute outcry against it, with press stories and complaints about people not being able to use it or adjust to this new way of making an application. However, this process has proved to be a success and over 3.9 million—almost 4 million—people have used it since its launch in August 2018. I challenge any noble Lord who has not seen the process work to take the time to do so. I will arrange for them to have a look; it is very simple. Change obviously brings complexity and resistance, but we have to embrace it and ensure the right mitigation and support for those who need it most. We have done that through the measures I have outlined previously.
As I said earlier, recent events with Covid have highlighted how vital it is that government systems and services are accessed digitally. As a result of the restrictions placed on the public by the pandemic, we have seen a sharp uptake in providers of services moving online and people have shown their ability to adapt. Digital services have enabled this country to cope during the pandemic, enabling many people—not us, obviously—to work from home, shop and obtain government services remotely.
Our online service has enabled many employers to conduct remote right-to-work checks on foreign national employees since January last year—nearly two years. This has removed the need for physical documents to be handed over, enabling social distancing rules to be followed and reducing contagion risks. This service is available to non-EEA holders of biometric residence cards, or biometric residence permits, and to those granted status under the EU settlement scheme. It represented the first step in our journey to make evidence of immigration status accessible online.
Making this status information available via secure online services has also meant that we can simplify and standardise the system of checks for employers, by providing information about an individual’s status in a format that is easy to understand and accessible to all users, removing the need for employers, and others, to authenticate the myriad different physical documents and interpret complex legal terminology or confusing abbreviations. This service provides employers with a secure, auditable record that they have conducted a check on the employee, which they can store electronically. There is no need for them to check whether a document is genuine, or to go through the process of photocopying it, signing and dating it and then filing it away in a folder or cabinet, all of which they have to do when relying on a physical document.
For those individuals, including employers, landlords and other third-party checkers, who have not already made use of the online service, we are developing an extensive package of communications to ensure that everyone is fully aware of the move to digital and how online immigration status can be accessed and used. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, again brought up the issue of the physical document to enable renting. It does enable people to rent, but it is not a proof of status.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received one request so far to ask a short question after the Minister; that is from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am aware of the time so I will be very brief. For the record, the Green group is offering our support for this amendment. I have identified three questions from the debate which I do not think the Minister has answered. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, asked about people who lack or lose mental capacity. To answer ID-confirming questions from a call centre—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but the Standing Orders make clear that she may ask one question on a point of elucidation, so perhaps she would choose her favourite of the three.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
That is really difficult. I will go to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about being in an airport or train station and the fact that you have to have two pieces of technology working. The Minister said that the Government’s systems will be wonderful but, of course, this relies on other people’s systems. As the Minister said, our systems are great, but the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said that she has had a problem; all of us have encountered those problems. Imagine that situation at the airport or train station: the clock is ticking, the queue is moving and the plane is about to go—and the systems are not working. What are people going to do and what situations will they be stuck in as a result?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I will say just two things to the noble Baroness. The first is that I hope I have explained in quite a lot of detail the level of security back-up inherent in this system. I also hope that she will acknowledge something that I have had experience of before: walking through an airport, I suddenly could not find my passport.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular, my fellow signatories to the amendment, my noble friends and—above all—those Members on the government Benches who have supported this. I know it is hard to do that when your party takes a different view, so I am very grateful to everybody for that. In view of the hour, I will not go through everybody’s contributions; I hope noble Lords will understand that. I give my commiserations to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, over the trials and tribulations of Liverpool, and I am sure I will not endear myself to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, by telling him that I am a Spurs fan.
We heard compelling testimony from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and a number of noble Lords across the House from people actually affected by this system. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, spoke about the future heartache and pain that will be caused if the Government will not move, and noble Lords across the House raised a whole series of points that I will not repeat.
In her reply, the Minister made a number of statements. She said that the system was very robust. We said at the beginning—as did other Peers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—that this is what is said about every system that goes wrong. She said that our data is all backed up. The Tokyo stock exchange had a back-up system; it failed as well. The noble Baroness spoke about systems such as the tax disc system, which is entirely electronic, and she is right to say that. However, we are not talking about the tax disc on your car; we are talking about your absolute status of having the right to stay in the country in which you have made your home. From the Windrush examples et cetera, we know how that can be threatened; we have very recent examples of this.
The Minister seemed to try to make out that some of us were against a digital system. I think everybody who spoke said that they understood and agreed with the need to move to a digital system. The noble Baroness said that we were on a journey, but do not start it with the more than 3 million people who feel most vulnerable about their status in this country. Start it with people who do not feel that way; trial it properly, as other systems have been trialled. The Minister talked about the letter that people are sent, but it sets out specifically that it is not proof of status, and the Minister acknowledged that.
I shall finish by raising two questions that have not been answered. There was a trial in 2018. It said that we should not bring forward a system without biometric residence permits unless there was strong evidence to show that they were no longer needed. The Minister did not share that with us.
The Minister told us that the Home Office had a comprehensive plan to address the cultural failings that led to Windrush, which included the finding that the Home Office was often thoughtless about the consequences for people affected by its policies. If the department really wants to demonstrate that, it would act in a way that shows that it cares about the consequences for people. In view of the Minister’s unwillingness to move on this issue, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 19. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 19
Baroness Prashar
“Entry of EEA and Swiss minors using national identity cards
(1) After 31 December 2020 the Secretary of State must allow minors who are nationals of any EEA State or Switzerland lacking settled or pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme to enter the United Kingdom for a period not exceeding 30 days if they produce a valid national identity card issued by the relevant authority in their home country.(2) No minors entering the United Kingdom under subsection (1) may do so on more than one occasion in any calendar year.(3) After 31 December 2025 entry under subsection (1) may only be allowed on production by the minor of a valid national identity card which complies with the specifications and minimum security standards for machine readable travel documents as set out in Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organization.(4) Nothing in this section prevents minors from entering the United Kingdom under another provision or scheme which is not subject to the restrictions set out in this section.(5) In this section—“minors” means persons who are under the age of 18 on the date of their arrival in the United Kingdom; “relevant authority” means the body within each EEA State or Switzerland designated as responsible for issuing valid national identity cards to the citizens of that country.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for persons under the age of 18 who are EEA citizens or Swiss nationals (specifically those who lack settled or pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme) to enter the UK for a stay not exceeding 30 days in any calendar year.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, this proposed new clause as resubmitted enjoys cross-party support. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Garden and Lady Morris of Yardley, for putting their names to the amendment and thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their help. I am grateful to all those who have expressed their support for this amendment, which has been overwhelming.
If the proposed new clause is accepted, minors from the EU, EEA and Switzerland will continue to be allowed to travel on ID cards after 31 December 2020. Junior students on English language and other seasonal programmes will continue to be allowed to travel here, as well as those on school exchange visits. If passed, the amendment would be transformational.
Almost one-third, or 150,000, of the annual number of English language students who come to the UK are juniors on short-stay courses. Research shows that more than 90% of them travel using ID cards, and only 10% travel on passports. The Government want these potential 135,000 European students to be treated like those from elsewhere in the world.
European juniors are unlikely to invest in passports given that they can in 2021 still travel to other English-speaking countries without one; namely, Ireland, Malta or Cyprus. I am still unclear whether the Government believe that our European neighbours would reciprocate by offering school exchanges and the like. Indeed, the weather may well prove to be better in at least two of those destinations, while our Irish friends, who like citizens in Denmark, Iceland and Norway may not have identity cards, still allow others to enter their country on them.
Yes, the amendment would treat European juniors more generously than certain others. However, we are talking about children, who surely present no realistic risk to border security and whose capacity to visit the UK will be seriously impacted by having to travel on passports. Those coming are overwhelmingly Europeans. The top two markets are Spain and Italy, with 95% and 83% of students respectively currently arriving on ID cards rather than passports. It is estimated that the sector is likely to suffer an 80% drop in students in 2020. We should act now to preserve this market, particularly when Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on the English language teaching sector. If not supported, the sector will not survive this double blow. A respondent to a recent survey said:
“If students cannot travel using their ID cards, our groups have told us that they will not come to the UK. They will go to Ireland or Malta. This school will not be … viable without those groups and after 53 years will be forced to close.”
Due to Covid, almost 84% of staff in this sector have been either released or furloughed since March and the sector has suffered a direct loss of at least £510 million for 2020. The British language school sector brings in more than £1.4 billion annually and supports 35,000 jobs. It is larger than the fisheries industry. We should do everything to protect it by encouraging students to return in 2021 and not put additional barriers in their way.
One special category of EU/EEA citizen—those with EU settlement status—is already allowed to travel in the UK with ID cards from the start of 2021. This amendment merely extends their right to a very specific set of juniors, not holding the special status and on a much more strictly limited basis. The idea that this will lead to a free-for-all and create border security issues in the process feels somewhat far-fetched. We are talking not about students of potentially postgraduate age, but about children as young as eight. If only one or two children in an English school language exchange group cannot travel here because they do not possess a passport, the trip for the rest may not happen.
The revised amendment takes account of what the Minister said in Committee was inappropriate drafting by acknowledging that those enjoying settled or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme will still be able to travel on ID cards after 31 December 2020, although this clearly benefits only a small proportion of minors, many of whom may already be fluent in English, one suspects, having been resident here for some time. The Minister also said in Committee that the Government
“fully recognise the concerns of English language schools”,—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 577.]
which, I should add, extend well beyond the current impact of coronavirus. If that is the case, the Government should support the adoption of this proposed new clause in the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give a positive response. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this identity card-related amendment is a risk-free, concrete and straightforward solution to one of the problems thrown up by the end of free movement.
Junior groups travel all around the country, but many travel to seaside and rural locations where they have a positive and very welcome effect on the local economy, helping shore up jobs in language schools, accommodation, leisure and hospitality, from homestay providers to coach companies, visitor attractions and local retail. All these businesses have been disproportionately affected by the Covid pandemic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, set out so persuasively, removing the right to ID card travel would have a profoundly negative effect on this business at a time when we need to support its recovery wholesale.
Moreover, many European juniors come to the UK in successive years to take part in English language programmes, and these in turn serve as a feeder for our £20 billion higher education industry. We do not want these students to go to competitor nations and never acquire the positive impression of life and study in the UK that would lead them to choose a British university. Allowing ID card travel to continue after the end of 2020 will ensure that no one is deterred from coming to the UK in the first place.
A swift resolution to this issue is vital, as many language schools, exchanges and other groups of EU juniors are starting to book their visits for 2021. Many will not have travelled this year for obvious reasons and will need to feel confident that post-Brexit Britain remains as welcoming a destination as it has traditionally been, particularly in respect of children. The continuing uncertainty around ID card travel will undercut the messages of recovery and business as usual that the UK will want to promote in 2021. A swift resolution on the ID card issue will go far to create good will and confidence with our European partners and allow the soft-power benefits of exchange visits to continue into the distant future. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief as it is late. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Garden of Frognal, and my noble friend Lady Fookes, who also put her name to the amendment, that we need to facilitate visits to the UK by schoolchildren to attend, for example, a holiday language course. This could be the foundation of a love of Britain reflected in trade, investment, tourism and cross-cultural links. I think my noble friend the Minister said in Committee that this is not a big issue because ID cards will continue to be usable, in some cases, until 2025 under the withdrawal agreement. Could my noble friend Lord Parkinson confirm that when he replies?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, the three previous speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, set out the situation extremely well and comprehensively, but I would like to add a few words.
This is a narrow, specific amendment targeted at young people who probably do not yet have their own passport. It seems that if we allow them to continue using their ID card, they will be less disinclined to come to Britain, and we all know that when young people come to another country, their views are formed, probably permanently, about that country, and if they have a good time, they will always come back and spend money and help our economy.
It is also a fact that these children do not pose a threat to national security; it is not as if they are going to be dangerous once they are here. These are people we very much want to come, and it seems illogical not to allow them to travel on ID cards. I want to ask the Minister a few questions about this. Group passports could actually be less secure and might be more difficult to obtain and, therefore, another deterrent to people coming here. Other noble Baronesses pointed out that this is an economic issue; they spend quite a lot of money and support a lot of the local economy.
What thoughts has the Minister had about planning for facilitating young people to come to visit from the EU? There has to be an incentive; if it becomes more difficult, we have to put something in its place, another incentive. Secondly, what will be the regime for young people going from the UK to the EU? How will that differ from the present arrangements? And, thirdly, this seems utterly unfair, when so many of your Lordships have benefited from travelling abroad so freely, as I have. It truly does broaden the mind, and it is a pity to not offer young people the same opportunities we had when we were young.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Government do not want to put these visits, exchanges and language schools in jeopardy, which clearly is the fate that will befall them unless the Government are prepared to give this further consideration. I hope the Minister will agree to take this back to give it one further look.
On the question of security—I know he commented on this in Committee—he should note that this amendment allows juniors to travel for single short-stay visits of less than 30 days. We know many of these juniors will receive new ID cards in the coming years, with added security features such as biometric information. The aspiration of the EU countries is for all new ID cards of this kind to be made available by 2021. Most of these young people will be travelling in groups co-ordinated by one or more passport-carrying teachers or group leaders and will remain part of this group for the duration of their time here.
On the other point raised in Committee, which was the Minister’s suggestion that collective passports be used, I understand, from those who travel from the UK using collective passports, that this can be a very bureaucratic and cumbersome procedure. Collective passports have not been used in many EU countries in recent years, so this is not a practical solution.
At the end of the day, this is a very valuable business in the UK, with so many language schools, and we have huge benefits from young people going from the UK to EU countries and vice versa. Surely the Home Office would want to do what it could to help this. I hope the Minister will just agree to give this some further consideration.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I too will be very brief, given the hour. This is a very modest amendment, admirably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. What she proposes is cost free and risk free. Children coming in in school parties and on exchange visits for no more than 30 days and no more than once a year are not a substantial threat to the sceptred isle. The amendment will also do a lot of good. Free movement, Schengen and identity cards mean that large numbers of continental children do not have passports. If schools considering bringing them here face the prospect of insisting that they first get passports or go to the considerable trouble of getting a group passport, a significant proportion of schools will prefer to take the class somewhere else. The amendment would prevent that happening.
More generally, losing free movement inevitably means a diminution of personal contacts. We and our continental friends will be further apart. That is a great pity. Any cost-free, risk-free measure to limit this continental drift should be welcomed, so I welcome the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Blunkett, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support this amendment. As other noble Lords said, this will have a damaging impact on the English-language teaching sector and associated businesses such as coach operators and accommodation providers, as my noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal said. That is because these students will be going to Ireland, Malta and Cyprus—other English-speaking countries—rather than coming here, because they can still use their ID cards in those other countries.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, 90% of those on short language trips to the UK travel on ID cards, and it will disadvantage young people from poorer backgrounds who cannot afford a passport. Much English language teaching is based in coastal and rural communities, so the Government’s levelling-up agenda will be damaged, as will exchange trips, disadvantaging UK students, because the foreign students will not be able to come here, therefore the UK students will not be able to go on exchange visits to European countries. For those reasons, we support the amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 19 provides that from the beginning of next year, the Secretary of State must permit children from EEA states and Switzerland to continue to use their national ID card to enter the UK, rather than needing a passport. They would be permitted to do this once a year, for a short-term stay of up to 30 days. The amendment appears, from what has been said, to be intended to address important issues about accessing and retaining educational opportunities and exchanges for what should be both UK and EU young people, and ensuring that those existing opportunities are not compromised, made more difficult or significantly more costly to access at the end of the transition period.
What conversations has the Home Secretary already had with the Education Secretary on the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about the impact on educational opportunities for children, following the end of the transition period, as a result of changes in the immigration arrangements? What changes will need to be made for school travel in both directions to ensure that arrangements no less comparable in terms of cost, speed of process and efficiency continue after the end of this year as regards schools, the children involved and our border personnel?
It has been made clear in this debate that the English language learning sector has concerns about the impact on English language education of changes to the immigration rules. What dialogue have the Government had with this sector on these concerns, which it clearly regards as striking at the very heart of its existence?
The amendment is not specifically linked to travel for educational purposes, but would give a blanket right for all minors from EEA states and Switzerland to enter the UK using an ID card once a year. It is thus considerably wider in its terms than its stated purpose and we would not be able to give it our support if it were taken to a vote; it is not clear whether the mover intends to do that. However, I hope that the Government can give assurances that, if it has not already been done, work is being undertaken to ensure that UK and EU children, and indeed older learners such as those who may access university or further education courses, will at the very least continue to have access, on terms that are no less favourable overall, to the educational opportunities they currently have, after the end of the transition period.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for her amendment and all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate—particularly for their brevity and focus at this hour. This amendment is similar to the one which the noble Baroness tabled in Committee. It seeks to allow EEA minors to continue to travel to and enter the UK using their national identity card, in the context of the Government’s intention to phase out the use of national identity cards for travel to the UK in 2021.
The changes made since the previous iteration of the amendment acknowledge our commitments in the withdrawal agreements to allow particular categories of EEA citizens to use their identity cards without restriction until at least 2025, and thereafter if those cards include a chip that complies with the applicable International Civil Aviation Organization standards related to biometric identification. The wording of the amendment differs slightly from the withdrawal agreement on the latter. In response to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, EEA citizens who have applied under the EU settlement scheme will be able to use their national ID cards to enter the UK until at least 31 December 2025. The amendment would hinder changes that may be made after the end of the transition period to a unified position on the acceptance of identity cards to visitors to the UK who do not fall within scope of the withdrawal agreements.
I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ efforts by way of this amendment to ensure that cultural and educational exchanges between the UK and other nations endure. Those important and enriching experiences will still happen. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, various short-term study activities will be permitted under the standard visitor rules, for which entry clearance will not be required in advance—this covers study at accredited institutions for up to six months. However, EEA nationals will require a passport, just like everybody else. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, referred to her experience as an exchange student in America as an example of such good will between countries; such opportunities are not hindered by the requirement to have a passport.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned collective passports, issued under a 1961 Council of Europe treaty, which can be used by an organised group of between five and 50 young people to make a trip to certain European countries. Nineteen European countries have ratified that treaty—we would certainly like to see more do so—and the UK uses them.
The points made in Committee about the use of passports and the practical complexities of this amendment still stand. Given the hour, I do not intend to repeat them here, except to reiterate that the noble Baroness’s amendment would, as she acknowledged, oblige us to treat a particular group of EEA citizens whose rights are not enshrined in the withdrawal agreements more generously than other EEA citizens— and more generously than students from non-EEA countries. It would give EEA students a right of entry at a time when we are ending free movement from the EU and aligning the immigration of EEA and non-EEA citizens. It would simply therefore not be appropriate for EEA students to be treated in that preferential way. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I also thank the Minister for his response, which I find rather disappointing. The points were made quite positively by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about collective passports and the advantages of such an exchange. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, this is a very modest amendment, which would benefit long-term cultural relations and save the English language teaching sector. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this, because I was hoping not to actually divide the House. However, given the response that I have had, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in the group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 20
Baroness Hamwee
“Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals
(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was— (a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1052);(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA), to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.(2) The Secretary of State may not detain P under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—(a) the Secretary of State must release P forthwith; and(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section (Initial detention: criteria and duration) are met.(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a limit on the length of time EEA or Swiss nationals may be held in immigration detention of 28 days.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 20 is in a package with Amendments 21, 22 and 31. I will be seeking to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 20, and I understand the Government accept that the other amendments would be treated as consequential. I have had to edit these remarks very heavily because of the time, and I apologise to all those who have made such good points to me that I will not be able to include them in what I suspect will be a somewhat disjointed speech.
The use of detention for immigration purposes, in part because of the Windrush scandal, is attracting increasing concern across civil society. These amendments address one particular aspect: that it is indefinite. The amendment would impose a time limit of 28 days; there could not be re-detention—cat and mouse—without a material change in circumstances; and there is an exclusion where detention is in the interests of national security.
Amendment 21 sets out the criteria for detention, including that the detainee can shortly be removed from the UK. Noble Lords will be aware that places of detention, apart from when a prisoner remains locked up after serving his sentence, are actually immigration removal centres. The detention must be proportionate and strictly necessary. Amendment 22 provides for bail hearings.
It is no answer to say that most detainees are released within 28 days. That does not make detention for a longer period defensible in the case of those who are held for longer, and for all detainees it is the uncertainty —not knowing when the end might come—that is the issue.
It may seem rather trivial, but we have all recently experienced being, and are currently, confined to our own homes. That is nothing in comparison: in our own homes, speaking the language of those around us and with means of communication. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in an earlier debate talked about having no hope—that no hope for the future feels like no future. That applies to detainees in this situation. The very great majority of detainees are not foreign national offenders. Dealing with them really is, or should be, something for the criminal justice system, including probation.
The impact of detention, and the prospect of re-detention, is an extraordinary burden. People are picked up from living in the community in what seems quite a random fashion, and people are taken straight from their regular and proper reporting into detention. It takes its toll on people who are, by definition, almost to some extent vulnerable; some are highly vulnerable and traumatised by their experiences.
The Minister in Committee said that a time limit would reward abuse. There must be many detainees who, not having sought to go underground and having conducted themselves as required—I have mentioned reporting—must feel that detention is a reward for compliance. They continue to show their compliance when they are released; they do not disappear.
The right to apply for bail, as currently, is not an adequate safeguard. Most detainees cannot advocate for themselves. The amendment provides for automatic hearings by the tribunal, which is experienced in immigration matters.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights when it produced a report supporting the 28-day time limit. To answer another point made in Committee, the evidence that we had then was that the gatekeeping function, relatively recently introduced and intended to assess suitability for detention, was generally perfunctory and inadequate.
I must tell noble Lords that the majority of people detained—almost two-thirds according to the last figures—are ultimately released into the community. That prompts the question: if they are suitable to be released into the community eventually, why do they need to be detained for any longer than 28 days?
I know that noble Lords want to see a humane asylum system that they can defend and asylum claims dealt with in a reasonable time, and I do not accept the argument that delays are due to lawyers gaming the system. I hope that noble Lords, with that short explanation and with many of them no doubt having previously encountered descriptions and concerns about the issue, will wish to support these amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I wish to speak in favour of Amendment 20, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—he regrets that he is unable to be with your Lordships today—has put his name to, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has just spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
The process of detention is an intensely dispiriting one. It is often accompanied by a physical denial of hope and attendant mental distress. We have heard of extensive periods of internment, just as we have heard from the Minister of expeditious dealing with detainees. We have heard, too, from her that detention cannot be indefinite because the Secretary of State’s power is constrained by common law. That is undeniably correct. However, for an individual who is affected by this and who might be unaware of how and when a caseworker will weigh the different elements of Hardial Singh, that is no comfort.
The Government are right in saying that detention is subject to the courts. However, although the application of common law brings many benefits—and there will be those in your Lordships’ House who will think it little enough used—those who are subject to sudden detention are not the sort of people who can summon the resources to apply to a court for redress. That is a key failing of any attempt to justify the present arrangements. The problem with the immigration and asylum system is not, as some allege, overtly complex legal safeguards for unworthy individuals; it is less contentious and more straightforward than that—it is simply that too few individuals have the resources to access the legal help necessary to ensure them fair consideration. The number of cases which the Home Offices loses and which go to tribunal demonstrates the human cost of that. It is an indictment that this inhibits the operation of justice for all.
The Government have had ample opportunity to bring forward their own amendment to put the terms of detention on a statutory footing. In the absence of that, I trust that the House will take the opportunity to give this amendment a generous consideration. I shall vote for it.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in support of these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and so well supported, not only across all parts of this House and the other place, but by legal and medical experts, civil society organisations and religious leaders, and by the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
These amendments respond to the moral imperative to treat people fairly according to principles of non-discrimination. Having a system that departs from the principles of the UK’s criminal justice system, in which judicial oversight is required after days and individuals are released from detention after 96 hours without charge, is antithetical to the principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that:
“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”
Setting no time limit on immigration detention impacts on some of the weakest members of society, who already have fewer rights and have likely been under extraordinary physical, mental and economic duress. It effectively pushes people into limbo, taking away their agency and capacity to ensure the well-being of themselves and the people they love.
The negative impact of immigration detention on mental health is well documented in research, with the duration of detention associated with severity of symptoms. A systematic review of the literature found that asylum seekers are likely to have a pre-existing vulnerability to mental health problems, which will be further exacerbated by detention.
As we have heard, the Minister said in Committee that setting a detention time would “encourage and reward abuse” of the immigration system. This proposition tears at the presumption of innocence, replacing it with suspicion and an assumption of guilt. It risks lawmaking being in the service of punishing the many for the crimes of the few. We are not talking here about offenders who should rightly be dealt with by the criminal justice system; we are talking about people who have suffered unimaginable hardships and have come to the UK to escape violence and persecution, in the hope of a better life. Detaining them with no prospect of when they might be released is not the behaviour of a democracy. We are better than this, and it is surely not how we want British citizens to be treated elsewhere.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who spoke very eloquently. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was also very eloquent, in spite of her brevity. This Government are famous for their hostile environment. This is really the most inhumane immigration system, and Britain deserves better. We do not even have parliamentary oversight of this system, which is an appalling lack of democracy. I have signed three amendments in this group, all of which are valid and should be taken seriously by the Government and put into the Bill. Amendment 20 is particularly valuable, and my noble friend Lady Bennett and I will be voting for it.
Moving on from the concept of parliamentary oversight, we need a few things in the Bill. We need time limits on detention and a test of necessity and proportionality. People should be detained only when necessary. As we have clearly heard, detention is often unnecessary. We need a right to bail, with a process in place to facilitate it, and a ban on solitary confinement unless absolutely necessary—and I do mean absolutely necessary. These measures should be applied to all immigration detention, and I call on the Government to bring a Bill to reform the whole system. They have already said that they will do that, but I think the reform I have in mind is not what the Government have in mind. I just repeat that the system we have is inhumane; we need one we can feel proud of.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 23, which I described in Committee, and in support of Amendment 20—so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—and Amendments 21, 22 and 31. When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, with responsibility for inspecting what were then called immigration detention centres, because the Prison Service at that time was still part of the Home Office, I found that the majority of the management of the immigration system came from there. Most worrying was that there appeared no difference between immigration centre and prison rules, which my inspectorate corrected by rewriting them to better reflect UN and European immigration rules.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 23, to which I have added my name, and the others in the group. Since Committee, the Public Accounts Committee’s report has come out —we have heard about it—and it was highly critical of the lack of evidence informing immigration enforcement policy. That has to raise a big question mark over the Minister’s claim, in her letter to Peers, that:
“Detention plays a key role in maintaining effective immigration controls and securing the UK’s borders”.
We have to ask: what is the evidence supporting that claim?
PAC also expressed disappointment that the Home Office is still not sufficiently curious about the impact of its actions, and that little evidence exists that the department actively seeks to identify or evaluate that impact. This is highly pertinent to the impact of segregation and the indefinite detention of detainees, while not knowing how long that detention will last. We have already heard about the lack of hope that means. In both cases, as I documented in Committee and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has done tonight, the impact on mental health is a particular concern. This lack of curiosity around impact might account for the parallel universe that I identified in Committee, in which the Minister’s picture of detention and its effects is light years away from that documented by organisations on the ground.
Another example is the Minister’s claim in Committee —to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has already referred—that
“Removal from association is only ever used as a last resort when other options have been tried … but failed, and only as an effective response to the safety and security risk presented by an individual in detention”.—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1020.]
However, as Medical Justice—which I thank for its support—points out, over 900 incidents of segregation in 2019 alone does not seem indicative of a “last resort”. Medical Justice maintains that it is simply not true that segregation is used only in response to security and safety risks. It has experience of it being used as punishment or to manage detainees with mental health problems, of whom far too many are still being detained. In doing so, segregation is aggravating these mental health problems, which could also have been aggravated by the lack of a time limit, and it is diverting attention and energy from addressing underlying systemic problems that contribute to the behaviour that prompts segregation.
I will ask a couple of data-related questions. I thank the Minister for the management information she gave me on the use of association between January and March 2020. However, I also asked why the Home Office does not routinely publish these data once they can be treated as official. I would be grateful if she could look into this, perhaps, in the interests of transparency. I also thank her for the information on female detainees in her letter to Peers, but those data go up to only 30 June—they are the latest published quarterly statistics—which is three months ago. Is management information available on the current situation; namely, on how many women are currently detained in Dungavel House, Colnbrook, IRCs or prison?
In conclusion, I will argue that nothing in the Minister’s response in Committee or her subsequent letter makes me rethink my support for the amendment, and I hope that others will join me in voting for it in the name of fairness, humanity and the compassion that is supposed to be the future hallmark of Home Office culture.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I add my strong support to this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, argued cogently—as she always does—in support of these changes to the Bill.
In her helpful letter, the Minister suggests that
“Detention is used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary.”
Detention Action tells a very different story. One of the most important elements of these amendments is that they would end indefinite detention. As someone who worked in mental health services for many years, I am acutely conscious of the appalling consequences of detaining people without any indication of the length of time involved. Many detained indefinitely and for long periods—and, indeed, re-detained—have already suffered severe mental health problems due to their appalling experiences. Even with professional treatment, these problems may take many years to resolve. In my view, it is unforgivable for us, as a nation, to disregard this suffering.
As Detention Action has told us, in a recent case, the High Court found three separate periods of unlawful detention in respect of a vulnerable autistic person, in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. This is a shocking example of what can happen under the current law. The importance of these amendments is that they would prevent that from happening in the future.
I want to put on record that our Minister was wrongly briefed when she suggested that detention of more than 28 days was limited to those who have committed serious offences. In reality, people with no offending history are regularly detained for periods exceeding 28 days—and even re-detained. These amendments would put an end to these unacceptable practices. The right to apply for bail is no solution for these vulnerable people; they do not all have access to professional legal representation, and many do not speak English. Of course, the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems—are the least able to advocate for themselves.
Another crucial element of the amendments is the commitment to ensuring that re-detention cannot happen unless there is a material change in the detained person’s circumstances. The case of Oliver—quoted in Committee —underlines the cruelty of re-detention. Oliver, as noble Lords will remember, suffered with PTSD, having been imprisoned and tortured in his home country and trafficked twice, yet he was re-detained a year after his release from initial detention. How can we do this to such a vulnerable person?
Of course, not all immigrants have a history as bad as Oliver’s but many detainees have experience of torture or ill treatment and have significant and chronic health problems. Noble Lords know that attempted suicides are commonplace in detention centres and actual suicides have been on the increase in recent years. Some 68% of detained immigrants are not removed from the UK. Surely their detention has been pointless and therefore unjustified. As Detention Action argues, the current system is ineffective, inefficient, harmful and costly. We spend £100 million a year on detention. As we emerge from Covid we can ill afford to be throwing money away. This amendment is a gift to the Chancellor. I was pleased to read that the Home Office is considering alternatives to detention. If the Government also want to avoid detention except when it is absolutely necessary, I hope that the Minister will be able to table amendments at Third Reading to achieve the objectives that I believe we all want to achieve.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
What a privilege it is to share these arguments with people some of whom have been here for many years. I must say how much I appreciate the work that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has done over the years in leading the Liberal Democrat camp.
What sort of world are we aiming for? When we look at what the present Home Secretary proposes, it is even more harsh. She does not propose any end to detention—it is indefinite. Instead she is leading a discussion—I hope it does not come to more than that—on transporting or deporting people to distant islands. The whole thing breaks the spirit of all those people who for some reason or another have found themselves in this detainee situation. The UK should be the leader in building a humanitarian approach to what will be an increasingly difficult situation as climate change and other things affect the areas of Africa that grow the grain and feed the people. The people will move. They will want a new home. Should the UK not join other nations in leading to try to find an honourable way, not one that is so heart-breaking to so many people? I ask the Government to take another look. Let it be a humanitarian look and let us go on to be rather proud not of what we have done in hostility but of what we have done in caring and hospitality.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I support Amendment 20 and will address the asylum angle. Ms Patel is quite right that the asylum system is broken, but the repairs that are required need not—must not—mean recourse to water cannons or wave machines, disused oil rigs or ferries, Ascension Island or Papua New Guinea, all of which would mean further breaches of international law, this time the refugee convention.
The problem is not the one that Ms Patel addressed yesterday. The realm is not at risk from the summer surge in small boat arrivals. Although as a proportion more are coming that way, overall numbers of asylum applications are sharply down—by 40% compared to one year ago. No doubt that is partly related to Covid-19, but it shows how absurd is talk of invasion. The real problem is how to make the system more efficient and more humane. Ms Patel does not need to think outside the box. The tools are in her hands now. Making it more efficient means putting more resources into tackling the backlog and reducing the queue and providing better guidance to those who have to take the decisions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to take up just two themes that wove through the debate in Committee. The first was about UK practice compared to that of other European countries. The Minister said in her response to the debate in Committee that
“no other European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that which is proposed in these amendments. Acknowledging the complexity of securing arrangements for the return of people with no legal right to remain, the European Commission itself recently proposed that a new minimum detention period of three months be put in place.”—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1019.]
I fear that the Minister might have got tripped up by the Brussels phenomenon known as “minimum maximum”, whereby the formulation “maximum of not less than” is part of a directive—or maybe a word got lost from the Minister’s speech, because the Commission’s proposal for the recast of the returns directive—a directive to which the UK of course has not opted in—actually reads:
“Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six months.”
In other words, member states should set a maximum period of detention in their national laws. That maximum period can be between three months and six months. There is no requirement in existing or proposed EU law for individuals to be detained for a minimum of three months, which the Minister’s words might have implied, no doubt inadvertently.
The second theme I will mention is the Government’s contention that detention is a necessary part of efficient and effective immigration enforcement. The report on immigration enforcement from the National Audit Office in June, to which reference was made in Committee, said:
“Immigration Enforcement … cites an increase in individuals making late or spurious claims for asylum … It believes many of these claims are used to delay removal but noted in 2019 that it did not have a strategy across the work of Immigration Enforcement and the rest of the Department to mitigate the abuse or to tackle the backlogs being caused by associated delaying tactics. We have not seen any systematic analysis designed to help the Department understand why claims are increasing, or to rule out if Immigration Enforcement’s own actions might have contributed to the increase.”
So my conclusion is that the Government have a lot of work to do across the whole field of immigration enforcement and removals. While they can rely on indefinite detention, they are not doing the work necessary to improve their systems to avoid unnecessary detention. To that end, a limit of 28 days would focus their mind on the other tools they need to have at their disposal and return detention centres to the genuine immigration removal centres that they should be.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I intend to be brief, as this has been a long debate and the time is getting on. Amendment 20, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, along with her other amendments in this group, are ones that I support. My Benches will support the noble Baroness when she divides the House. The amendment would limit detention to a maximum of 28 days. As we have heard, people are often released into the community anyway. As the noble Baroness said, that begs the question of why they need to be detained in the first place.
Huge strain, stress and anguish are placed on those who find themselves detained with no clear idea of when that will end. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the Government have had ample opportunity to bring forward an amendment of their own to deal with this issue. I will point out that there is not a single government amendment at this Report stage, and I do not think—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—that there were any government amendments in Committee either. Sadly, that says to me that the Government have learned nothing, and that the hostile environment is alive and well. Despite the lateness of the night, I hope that the amendment is carried by a large majority.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I too shall try to be as brief as possible. We must have an immigration system which encourages compliance and provides opportunity for people to leave voluntarily, but, where they refuse, we must have the ability to enact that removal. We do not detain indefinitely: there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and this is a complex process which requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person whose detention is considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, argued that we were the only European country without a time limit on detention. It is of course more complex than that. I note that no European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that which is proposed in these amendments, as she outlined. I did not get her maximum/minimum point—maybe because it is just too late in the evening—but the EU seems to be very opaque in that regard. Of course, jurisdictions comparable to ours such as Australia and Canada have not gone down this route.
We have a duty to those in the immigration system, but we also have a duty to protect public safety. The introduction of a detention time limit would severely limit our ability to remove those who refuse to leave voluntarily and would encourage and reward abuse, in some cases from individuals who present a genuine threat to the public. It would also allow those who wish to frustrate the removal process to run down the clock until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed, regardless of the circumstances of that person’s case, potentially placing the public at higher risk through the release of more foreign national offenders into the community.
Immigration detention is a limited but necessary aspect of the removal process. We agree that it should be used only where necessary, for the minimum number of people and the shortest possible time. The detention estate is now almost 40% smaller than it was five years ago, with 8,000 fewer people entering detention in the year ending December 2019 than in 2015.
Safeguards are central to our commitment to ensure that decisions to detain, and to maintain detention, are properly scrutinised. When a person is referred for detention, an independent detention gatekeeper assesses their suitability for it. Since 2016, this gatekeeper has rejected more than 2,300 referrals for detention.
Case progression panels provide important guidance on the appropriateness of anyone detained under immigration provisions at three-month intervals. We have responded to Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in 2018 and piloted the participation of independent members in these panels, increasing their diversity of professional and cultural expertise, and demonstrably raising the quality of their insight. We are now moving to make this independent element a permanent feature.
Automatic referrals for bail occur at the four-month detention stage for non-foreign national offenders, providing additional external oversight of detention decision-making. It is worth noting that automatic bail referrals are an additional safeguard and do not affect the rights of all detainees to apply for bail at any time, regardless of the timeframe for automatic referrals. Due to the pandemic, bail hearings previously held in court are temporarily being dealt with by remote means, using videolink et cetera. Our response to these unique circumstances has ensured that there is no resulting backlog in bail applications.
The adults at risk in immigration detention policy has strengthened the presumption against detention for vulnerable people, ensuring that people are detained only when evidence of their vulnerability is outweighed by the immigration considerations. Everyone in detention has access to round-the-clock healthcare of the standard that can be expected in the community. Over the last few years, we have increased the ratio of staff to detained individuals in immigration removal centres to ensure that people can access support and advice should they need them. We constantly review and amend staff training materials on the care of vulnerable people.
Detention is already used sparingly and, as noble Lords have said, we continue to pursue alternatives wherever possible; 95% of people who are liable to removal from the UK are managed in the community while their cases are progressed. We are piloting a scheme for vulnerable women who would otherwise be detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre to be housed and supported in the community prior to their removal.
I need to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. In the current immigration system, it is only in the most complex cases—most frequently, though not always, foreign national offenders where serious criminality is involved—that detention exceeds 29 days. In the year ending December 2019, 74% of people were detained for less than 29 days; only 2% were detained for more than six months.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, talked about the number of cases that we lose on appeal; they are absolutely correct. Many people lodge claims right at the last minute and this makes it very difficult, but there are ways in which we are trying to limit that, for example by dip sampling cases after the two-month point to see if we can expedite them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I share his concerns about segregation; my heavily edited speech was almost illegible by the time I made it, so I crossed out one of the wrong bits.
I thank noble Lords who have supported these amendments and packed so much into what they have said. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, packed in a lot of criticisms of the whole system, and I agree with every word he said. I hope I anticipated a number of the Minister’s arguments, because they were made in Committee—although I was probably pretty telegraphic in the way I did so.
The Minister said the amendment encourages compliance; the very fact that individuals are plucked out of the community, and do not disappear underground, shows that they comply. The amendment includes in its criteria that detention should be proportionate, which meets the point. It also meets the point about the need to protect public safety. Frankly, it is adding insult to injury—and it really is injury—to the majority of asylum seekers, who are not violent criminals. They are not criminals at all.
However, all this misses the point. It is about detention being indefinite. The Minister says that it is not indefinite; it always has an end and that is not the same as being indefinite. The individuals do not know when it must end. It is that uncertainty and loss of hope which are so inhumane and damaging. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I apologise, but the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, wished to have a word after the Minister. I ask him to be brief.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
I was dropped accidentally—I was due to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I shall be extremely brief.
We have now had a very full and effective response from the Minister. We should be in no doubt: these amendments sound humanitarian and are no doubt well-intentioned, but in practice they would be wrecking amendments. It is surely obvious that anyone subject to removal would only have to prevaricate for 28 days, perhaps with the help of a lawyer, and he or she would then be released and free to join the very large number of illegal immigrants already in this country.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but there is capacity for him to ask a short question of elucidation at this point, and that is all. If the noble Lord has a question, he is welcome to ask it, but I am afraid that that is all that is possible after the Minister.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
I will just say that I will vote against this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Initial detention: criteria and duration
(1) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) to whom section (Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals) applies under a relevant detention power, other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that—(a) P can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;(b) detention is strictly necessary to effect P’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and(c) the detention of P is in all circumstances proportionate.(2) The Secretary of State may not detain P under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—(a) P has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section (Bail hearings); or(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section (Bail hearings) and that hearing has not yet taken place.(3) Nothing in subsection (2) authorises the Secretary of State to detain P under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” has the meaning given in section (Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is linked to new Clause “Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals” by specifying certain criteria that must be met during the initial detention and that the initial detention period should be no longer than 96 hours.
“Bail hearings
(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section (Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals) applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—(a) release P; (b) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P.(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—(a) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to P.(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to P at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection (1) of section (Initial detention: criteria and duration) are met and that, in addition—(a) directions have been given for P’s removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of P’s removal or deportation; and(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection (1) of section (Initial detention: criteria and duration) above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.(8) In subsection (6), “a bail hearing” includes—(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2); and(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016.(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to P or P’s legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to P or P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—(a) P consents to the documents being considered; or(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).(12) In the Immigration Act 2016, after paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 10 insert—“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply to the refusal of bail within the meaning of section (Bail hearings) of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is linked to new Clauses “Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals” and “Initial detention: criteria and duration” by providing for bail hearings during the initial detention period of 96 hours.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We shall not be moving Amendment 23 tonight.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
17:25 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 27 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches, or before the noble Lord sits down, are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. As this is Report, other than the mover of the amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once in each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup any amendment for a separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should already have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw an amendment. When putting the question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
During the debate on Amendment 20, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, indicated that he intended to press Amendment 23, which was grouped with it, to a Division. I will therefore begin by inviting the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to move this amendment formally. No further speeches will be heard on this amendment. I will now put the question. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, wish to move Amendment 23 formally?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 24. Once again, I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover or the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make this clear in the debate.
Amendment 24
“Recourse to public funds
(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052);(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments repealed by Schedule 1; or(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that P can access social security benefits, where P is habitually resident, including repealing or amending the following provisions insofar as they relate to P—(a) section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;(c) any provision in subordinate legislation, which imposes a “no recourse to public funds” condition on grants of limited leave to enter or remain; and(d) any other enactment or power exercised under any other enactment, which makes immigration status a condition to access social security benefits.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to restrict measures prohibiting access to public funds.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 24, which appears under my name, is one of a suite of amendments that I moved in Committee. I continue to stand by all of them, but in achieving a disappointing response from the Minister then, I have restricted myself to just one. I record now, as I did then, the role of Liberty in working on all of them. When I saw that no one else had brought forward a similar amendment, I felt that this issue had to be raised in any immigration Bill.
This amendment is about “no recourse to public funds”. It is something I find myself talking about so often that the phrase rolls off my tongue like poetry, but of course this is the stuff of nightmare, of personal desperation and great suffering. It is the situation of the victim of domestic violence facing the choice between homelessness and penury for herself and her children and the very real danger of being maimed or killed if she stays. It is the situation of the child going hungry, suffering the miserable, desperate pangs that prevent concentration or hope, when his peers get free school meals.
I assume there is no Member of your Lordships’ House who would deny the human right to life, but “no recourse to public funds” denies access to the most basic essentials. People are forced to rely on the fragile, overstretched resources of specialist charities, and people fall through the cracks of that hopelessly underresourced, fragile net of support.
I fear that in this Bill, the Minister and I are trapped on a merry-go-round. I believe I can foresee the response I am likely to receive: that this is discriminatory if applied only to people newly covered by immigration law, EU and EEA citizens, and not to everybody. At the risk of sounding like a recording, I want this to apply to everybody. The Government could and should end any application of the “no recourse to public funds” rule. In this amendment, I have tried to save as many as the rules of the Table Office will allow me. Saving some people from being penniless and homeless, from hunger and abuse, and perhaps from death, is better than saving none. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling Amendment 24. In supporting it, I will not repeat the evidence I rehearsed in Committee showing the damaging impact of the “no recourse to public funds” condition on children denied free school meals, in particular—she mentioned that particular group. But I will draw attention to a national survey published since then by the Children’s Food Campaign and Food Active, which found that nine out of 10 parents agreed that eligibility for free school meals should apply regardless of immigration status.
I also want to return to some specific points I raised in Committee. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for responding to my question about data in her letter. I hope the department will follow this up with the Children’s Society, to see how it might improve the data so as to provide a better indicator of the levels of hardship created and the demographics of the groups worst affected.
In Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister referred to what I said about the temporary extension of eligibility for free school meals to support families with NRPF. But she did not acknowledge the point I made that this was a partial concession covering only some NRPF families, nor that the concession has now been withdrawn. I asked what possible justification there could be for this, and I quoted from a letter from 60 organisations to the Education Secretary, which among other things noted that these children will face having to make up half a year of lost learning on empty stomachs. Could the noble Lord the Minister who is speaking today respond to that point now and, at the very least, commit to taking it up with colleagues in the Department for Education?
According to a briefing from the Children’s Society and others, the Government have indicated that there will be a full review of the free school meals system and that that is needed before the extension to NRPF families can be made permanent. But why? Why does it need a full review? Hunger cannot wait for a review. What is the scope and timetable of this review? If the Minister cannot answer that now, please could it be covered in a subsequent letter?
The Minister did not respond either in Committee or in her letter to a specific question that I posed, echoing the Work and Pensions Select Committee. I asked for a definitive clarification as to whether local welfare assistance funds counted as public funds for these purposes. They act as a kind of safety net below the safety net—a rather ragged safety net below the safety net—but if even those are not available, it makes life that much harder for this group. Again, if the Minister does not have the answer, could it please be covered in a subsequent letter?
The comprehensive improvement plan, published last week in response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, identified the NRPF as one of six primary streams in the compliant—aka hostile—environment. It is interesting that the Home Secretary, as far as I can see, did not refer to this rather important plan of the Home Office in her speech on Sunday at the Conservative Party conference. But in contrast to the plan’s emollient tone, while talking about compassion and so forth, we have learned in the media—and I know that the Minister will say that he cannot respond to leaks, but it did not seem like a leak; it seemed like it had been deliberately placed—that there is a push by Downing Street to
“radically beef up the hostile environment in 2021.”
If this is true, it makes a mockery of the review of the hostile/compliant environment detailed in the Home Office’s plan. Can the Minister provide a categorical denial that the intention is not to radically beef up the compliant/hostile environment, because that certainly was not what Wendy Williams was calling for?
I refer back to the exchange that I had in Committee with the Minister on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review—and I thank her for the offer of the meeting. It seems to me from the comprehensive improvement plan that the review of the hostile/compliant environment will not include questioning its legislative underpinnings. For instance, it will not question the right-to-rent legislation itself, but simply how it is being implemented. What if the review concludes that the legislation itself is not proportionate in meeting the Government’s stated aims, which is part of what Wendy Williams’s recommendations said it should be looking at? I would be very happy if the Minister responds to say that I have misinterpreted what the plan says, and that the terms of reference are that it is open to those reviewing the hostile/compliant environment to question the legislation, if that is where the evidence takes them. Surely—going back to my first point—the denial of free school meals to hungry children is not proportionate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The concept of no recourse to public funds is one that causes significant difficulties to a small number of people, but for those individuals it can be very significant. Quite how many people fall under this provision is perhaps a little bit unclear. I cite a paper on no recourse to public funds written by Professor Catherine Barnard, a colleague at Cambridge University—and I declare it as an interest that she is a colleague. She quotes Stephen Timms at the Liaison Committee in May raising with the Prime Minister the issue of destitution as a result of no recourse to public funds. The Prime Minister is reported to have said:
“You have raised a very, very important point if a condition of their leave to remain is that they should have no recourse to public funds. I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help.”
Does the Minister know whether the Prime Minister has yet been able to answer that question of how many people fall into this category? Will he tell us what plans the Prime Minister has to help individuals who have no recourse to public funds? I suspect that his briefing does not include answers to those questions, so I confine myself to reiterating the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister of Burtersett. That is really to say that, while ideally the provision for no recourse to public funds should be looked at in its entirety, in the confines of this Bill we understand that it can only be the case for EU nationals. However, in the context of the Covid crisis, it has become clear that individuals can face very significant difficulties that are not covered by the normal provisions for seeking benefits precisely because they fall under this condition of no recourse to public funds. Will the Government think again on this issue? It relates not to people who are coming to seek benefits, who simply say that the United Kingdom is a country where they think they are going to be able to benefit from the system. It rather relates to individuals who are already here, exercising their rights as EU nationals. It is a finite number of people, and surely they deserve our help and a degree of generosity.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express concern about Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She has highlighted some hard cases in the cause of her apparently wide-ranging proposed new law. That is an approach that I always discourage. I think legislation of this kind has to be carefully thought about, assessed for cost and consulted on.
In Committee, the main focus of amendments on this issue was to seek greater support from public funds during coronavirus. The Minister explained that some of the Government’s coronavirus measures—quite generously, one might say—applied to those with no recourse to public funds, who are the subject of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
I believe that migrants coming into the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without posing a burden on our hard-pressed benefit system. I do not know much about the detail of the arrangements for prohibiting access to public funds, but I know that taxpayers already foot large bills for lawyers to prioritise immigrants’ needs and to block the deportation of those who do not have the right to remain.
We cannot introduce an immigration system, as posited here, that has the effect of attracting migrants—whether from the EU, which is today’s subject, or elsewhere—for welfare benefits and not for work. This will not win the support of UK citizens who are struggling to make ends meet and are facing job losses and fiscal deficits as a result of the coronavirus crisis. In short, those who are, in reality, economic migrants should be contributors to the public purse, as I think many are. I hope that the House will reject this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, in replying to this and the other amendment on no recourse to public funds in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, according to Hansard, that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be “reduced”. I would like to think that that might have been about reducing the numbers of people with no recourse, but I suspect that it was a misprint for “produced”. The noble Baroness is nodding.
Almost all the speakers have lit on the issue of lack of data. It occurs to me that a lack of data indicates something of a shortfall in interest among the policy makers on the impact of the policy that they are making. Like much that relates to the immigration system, this amendment is about humanity and common sense: common sense because of the important public health argument about ensuring that people are not prone to disease that can be prevented and that children are fed well enough to be educated and to grow into good citizens, and humanity for obvious reasons.
Hard cases are not to be excluded when we think about policy; they have to be considered to bring attention to bad law. I do not think that the taxpayer is a single cohesive figure. Taxpayers have a wide range of views and there are quite a lot among us who would like to see our taxes spent differently and better. If that means more tax being raised, that is a price that we understand we have to pay.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would prevent regulations being made under Clause 4 until the Secretary of State had provided legislative measures to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK are not subject to no recourse to public funds. This includes repealing or amending relevant no recourse to public funds provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I assume this means any regulations under Clause 4 and not just regulations relating to no recourse to public funds.
We had an amendment in Committee that would have had the effect of not applying the no recourse to public funds rules during the current Covid-19 pandemic, and then until such time as Parliament decides. To keep the amendment within the scope of the Bill it applied only to EEA and Swiss nationals. We have been calling since April for no recourse to public funds to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. We asked the Government to lift no recourse to public funds as a condition on a person’s migration status to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken in the fight against the coronavirus. In June, the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees recommended that the Government should “immediately suspend NRPF” for the duration of the pandemic on public health grounds. The Work and Pensions Committee said:
“As a result of the no recourse to public funds condition, many hardworking and law-abiding people are being left without a social safety net and at risk of destitution and homelessness.”
Our amendment found no favour with the Government —as, indeed, may prove to be the case with every amendment on this Bill, with the exception of perhaps just one. As set out in Hansard, I asked—as did my noble friend Lady Lister—for some numbers in relation to no recourse to public funds. The Minister said they were not part of published statistics, but that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be produced. As has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it said “reduced” in Hansard, but it has now been confirmed that it should have said “produced”. Whatever the situation, it would be very helpful if the Minister could say exactly when the Home Office analysts expect to complete the exercise that they are undertaking in relation to figures, information and data available.
This amendment goes further than our amendment in Committee on no longer applying NRPF, in that it does not relate only to the period of the pandemic and does not leave it for Parliament to decide if and when its terms are no longer to apply. Like the noble Baroness, I await the Government’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and all other noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. I completely understand the concern that they have expressed for the welfare of people with no recourse to public funds, especially during the current pandemic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says, it is a matter, first and foremost, of humanity, but the Government cannot accept this amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government’s general expectation is that people immigrating to the United Kingdom should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That reflects the importance of maintaining the confidence of the public in general that immigration overall brings benefits to our country, as it certainly does, rather than costs to the public purse. Those restrictions, which have been in place under Governments of all political hues for many years, are an important plank of immigration policy designed to assure people that public funds are being protected for those who are normally or habitually resident in the UK, reflecting the strength of their connection to the United Kingdom. This includes those with indefinite leave to remain, refugees, protected persons and people granted discretionary leave.
I acknowledge the level of concern that has been expressed today, and, indeed, in Committee, particularly regarding the deprivation of children. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, asked a number of questions about children. She generously suggested that I could write to her on the timetable for the review and other points, and I am very happy to commit to do that so she can have the fullest possible answer. I will certainly ensure that the point she raises about free school meals has been heard by the Department for Education. I am sure it has been but I will take that forward and make sure it is reinforced. On free school meals generally, they are not listed as public funds under immigration legislation; they are available to the most disadvantaged pupils, including asylum-seeking children whose parents or guardians receive support under Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act. I hope that that gives her some reassurance in the meantime, but I will certainly take the point forward, as she asks.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised that I cannot comment on leaks, so I shall not, whatever their suspected provenance. I can point her to the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, both in her speech to the Conservative Party conference over this weekend—which I am glad the noble Baroness noted was marked by its compassion—and also in a number of Statements she has made in another place about the Wendy Williams review, committing herself and the Home Office to taking on board all the recommendations that Wendy Williams had made and shifting the culture of the Home Office. I would direct the noble Baroness to those words for the view of the Home Office.
Regarding children more generally, where a child is in need, local authorities are already required to provide support through Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Recognising the potential financial impact on local authorities at the moment, the Government have allocated more than £4.3 billion to those in England, and additional funding under the Barnett formula to the devolved Administrations, to help them respond to the pressures of Covid-19 across all the services they deliver, including services helping the most vulnerable people. The funding will mean that councils can continue to provide vital services, including adult social care and children’s services. To ensure that children who have been affected by the no recourse to public funds condition are protected from destitution, as we pointed out in Committee, people with leave under the family and human rights routes can apply to have this condition lifted through a change of conditions application. Change of condition decisions are being prioritised, at this difficult time, and dealt with compassionately. The change of conditions team in UK Visas and Immigration is working through applications as quickly as possible and is exercising flexibility when seeking additional evidence, which is often needed, to help reduce unnecessary delays. Additional staff have also been trained to work on these cases in response to the increased demand and urgency during the pandemic.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the statistics that would be produced—not “reduced”—on this. The Home Office chief statistician recently replied to a letter from the UK Statistics Authority on the subject. He made clear in that letter why it is not practical for the Home Office to produce an estimate of the total population subject to no recourse to public funds at any one time. However, the Home Office has acknowledged that there is a clear public interest in publishing the number of applications to have the restriction lifted by making a change of conditions application. I am pleased to say that these data have now been published, and will be released as part of the regular migration transparency data henceforth.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response, although I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the direction of his comments. I apologise for the misidentification of the respondent. I think other noble Lords will join me in being pleased that the Home Office will produce these figures, as raised by multiple noble Lords. We will all look forward to seeing and scrutinising those.
I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her powerful and detailed analysis of the Government’s current position and their review plans, and I note her overview, “Hunger cannot wait for a review”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to, we are talking about destitution. Everything is in the context of Covid-19 now, and it seems that at the Tory party conference today the Prime Minister suggested that is going to be the case for the next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the cost of this amendment. I would say, some things are priceless: ensuring that we do not see Victorian conditions of destitution in the UK in 2020 is something we should seek to deliver with every sinew, as human beings. She referred to the bills for immigration matters—for people exercising their legal rights, that means getting what the law entitles them to. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, cited figures showing that the British public overwhelmingly do not want children to go hungry. That is what we are talking about here; as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this is about humanity.
I note the amendment in Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to, which is something we could go back to in the context of Covid-19. Noble Lords will have had heard me refer in other cases to universal basic income as the best solution of all—we could then ensure that nobody was left stranded or left with nothing.
I understand that the restrictions on scope have not allowed me today to make this the amendment I would like it to be on no recourse to public funds. On this occasion I will not be pushing it to a Division, but I fully expect to take a different approach in future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 27
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“Grant of leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals
(1) Immigration rules must make provision for leave to remain in the United Kingdom to be granted to a person aged 18 years or over when—(a) the person is either a Swiss national or an EEA national who is not also an Irish citizen; and(b) there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking; and(c) subsection (2) applies and subsection (8) does not.(2) This subsection applies if the person meets one or more of the following criteria—(a) leave is necessary due to the person’s circumstances, including but not restricted to—(i) the needs of that person for safety and protection from harm including protection from re-trafficking;(ii) the needs of that person for medical and psychological treatment;(b) the person is participating as a witness in criminal proceedings; (c) the person is bringing any civil proceedings including pursuing compensation.(3) Where the person is receiving assistance from a support worker, the recommendations of the support worker must be considered in assessing that person’s circumstances under subsection (2)(a).(4) Immigration rules must provide for persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section to have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.(5) Immigration rules must provide for leave to remain to be granted from the day on which the conclusive determination is communicated to a person for at least 12 months.(6) Immigration rules must allow a grant of leave to remain under subsection (5) to be extended subject to the requirements of subsection (7).(7) In determining whether to extend a grant of leave to remain under subsection (6), and the period of time for which such extended leave should be provided, the person’s individual circumstances must be considered, and whether that person meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (2).(8) A person may be refused leave to remain if—(a) the person is a sexual or violent offender; and(b) the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a genuine, present and serious risk to members of the public.(9) If subsection (8) applies, the Secretary State must ensure the person affected is given reasons for the refusal in writing.(10) In this section—“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings;“conclusive determination” means a determination that a person is, or is not, a victim of slavery or human trafficking when the identification process conducted by a competent authority concludes that the person is, or is not, such a victim;“EEA national” means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2 May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time);“immigration rules” in this section has the meaning given by section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971;“sexual or violent offender” means a person falling within the definition of a “sexual or violent offender” in section 327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (section 325: interpretation) or who has been convicted of an offence under the law of another country which would have constituted an offence falling within those subsections if it had been done in England and Wales;“victim of slavery” and “victim of human trafficking” mean a person falling within the definition of a “victim of slavery” or “victim of human trafficking” in section 56 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (section 56: interpretation).”
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to Amendment 27 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would like to thank my co-signatories for their support, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who would have been here to speak in support of my amendment had it been reached yesterday, but is unable to join us today. I would also like to thank the former Conservative Party leader, the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith, for his support for my amendment, expressed in our joint PoliticsHome article yesterday. I should say at the outset that I very much hope that the Government will accept it, but if they do not it is my intention to test the opinion of the House.
I make no apology for raising once again the difficult situation that confirmed victims of modern slavery will face as a consequence of the current drafting of the Bill before us. By “confirmed victims”, of course, I mean those who have been through the national referral mechanism and received a positive conclusive grounds decision that they are indeed victims of modern slavery.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who responded to my Amendment 7, and to my noble friend Lady Williams, who responded to Amendment 81. The Government have made all the right noises about protecting trafficking victims, but it is clear, as I shall explain, that in future victims of modern slavery who come from EU countries will be significantly worse off than they are currently.
As a firm supporter of Brexit and advocate for victims of modern slavery, I know that, while free movement must end, the restoration of our sovereignty does not require us to create a situation in which the effective rights of some confirmed victims of modern slavery are diminished. Parliamentary sovereignty actually gives us the opportunity to improve provisions for all victims of modern slavery if we want to. It does not necessitate that we should acquiesce to the effective erosion of the rights of any confirmed victims. That we should inaugurate the Brexit era by doing so for EEA national victims is, in my judgment, unthinkable.
One of the main ways in which a confirmed victim of modern slavery who is an EEA national can seek help for their recovery today is through their treaty rights to remain in the UK and access public funds: in other words, to get benefits and access to local authority housing. In the event that an EU citizen is unable to exercise their treaty rights, perhaps because their ID documents were taken from them by the traffickers, or they have no paperwork to evidence the work they were doing while being exploited—for those exploitations, by their very nature, do not meet the requirements—they have the second fallback option of applying for what is known as discretionary leave to remain.
At the end of the transition period, and once any opportunity to apply for settled or pre-settled status has passed, victims of human trafficking who are EEA nationals will be worse off because they will lose one of the key avenues to support that is available today—exercising their treaty rights—and that will be replaced by nothing.
The confirmed victim will simply be left with the option of applying for discretionary leave to remain. This may not matter if there were a statutory basis for granting discretionary leave, with statutory criteria to make up for the loss of the opportunity for confirmed victims to access support through their treaty rights.
Discretionary leave is only given on a discretionary basis to confirmed victims in very special circumstances set out in the guidance, when they are not eligible for any other form of leave such as asylum or humanitarian protection. The criteria are that a victim is assisting police with investigations into trafficking or modern slavery, that there are compelling personal circumstances which mean the victim needs to stay in the UK, or that the victim is making a claim for compensation against their traffickers and needs to remain in the UK to pursue that claim.
As a Minister said in 2017, discretion to grant leave to remain has been considered as “exceptional”. That might have been acceptable when EU citizens had an opportunity to access treaty rights, but they will no longer be able to do so and it is unlikely that EU victims will be considered for asylum in the future.
In order to really understand this effective erosion of the rights of confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals, it is also important to consider their lot in the wider context of that of victims who are non-EEA nationals. Many non-EEA nationals will have the option of applying for asylum, which, as I said, will not be open to EEA nationals; some will be granted humanitarian protection and the remainder will be automatically considered for discretionary leave. Given these other routes, it may not be surprising that discretionary leave has been considered “exceptional” for non-EEA victims as well.
Internal Home Office data, reported to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee in 2017, showed that just 12% of all victims of modern slavery were given discretionary leave in 2015. Of these, 52 cases were EEA nationals and 71 non-EEA nationals. On 24 September, the Government confirmed that they do not have current data in a reportable form for the different immigration outcomes for victims of modern slavery. This lack of data begs the question as to how the Government will measure the impact of changes in immigration policy on victims of modern slavery if there is no baseline from which to measure.
In July, the Centre for Social Justice, published a report on modern slavery, It Still Happens Here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s. It states:
“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to be a co-signatory to Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I remind the House of my non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the anti-trafficking charity, Arise Foundation.
Characteristically, at midnight last night, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who is in his 88th year, was waiting to move this amendment. If he had been required to, he would have stayed all night, such is his commitment to this cause. I admire him greatly for that. Over several decades, I have been truly fortunate to get to know the noble Lord. I have often found myself on the same side of arguments and deeply admire him on many fronts, not least in the use of his skills as a surgeon in life-saving and life-changing work on the Mercy Ships and his indefatigable efforts to raise in the House the plight of victims of modern slavery. It was also good to see the article on PoliticsHome yesterday by the noble Lord and the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP setting out the case for this amendment.
In 2015, I participated along with many other noble Lords throughout the debates on the Modern Slavery Act and warmly congratulated the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, on pioneering with great skill and determination world-class legislation, a rarity in enjoying bipartisan and bicameral support. Following our debate in Committee on 16 September, I sent our debate on the noble Lord’s earlier amendment to Lady May, as she now is, and received a warm response encouraging us all to continue to champion and speak up for victims of modern slavery.
It has been deeply shocking for us all to see the way in which human traffickers have been fuelling the migrant crisis in Calais, Dunkirk and Zeebrugge. We have heard in our debates on amendments to this Bill about how young children have been exploited, used as pawns in a lucrative and sometimes deadly trade. The House will recall that it is less than 12 months since the deaths of 39 Vietnamese people trafficked into Tilbury. I was particularly pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said yesterday in your Lordships’ House about what she and the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, are determined to do to end this murderous trade in human misery.
No one can doubt the vulnerability of victims of trafficking and modern slavery by those who manipulate and exploit them. The Government are right to accept that other vulnerable groups such as refugees have conferred upon them an immigration status that recognises their vulnerability. When someone is recognised as a refugee in the UK, they are offered an initial period of five years’ leave to remain. That is not the case for victims of trafficking. Confirmed non-EU victims of modern slavery are able to apply for asylum, but for completely understandable reasons this option has not been open to EU nationals. That is what this amendment addresses.
After 1 January, EU victims who are trafficked into the UK will not have any free movement rights and, unless the rules change, will not be able to apply for asylum. Their immigration options are therefore slim. I am sure that the Minister will respond by confirming that victims of modern slavery are able to apply for discretionary leave to remain. Currently, non-EU nationals are automatically considered for this discretionary option if no other immigration path is available; EU nationals are not.
Looking into the background for discretionary leave to remain, I realised that the facts of who the individuals are who get such leave, and why, are opaque—to put it mildly. The Home Office has published guidance on when a victim of trafficking can be granted leave to remain. The guidance is totally discretionary and sets out three criteria on which leave to remain can be given. A person may get leave to remain, first, if they are seeking compensation for their exploitation or, secondly, if they are assisting police with criminal investigations. The third criterion is defined as “personal circumstances”. The data on how many individuals receive such discretionary leave and under which of those criteria is far from clear.
In 2017, the then Home Office Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Field, when he was Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. What a pleasure it was to be here today when the noble Lord took his seat; I know that he will bring great commitment to the fight against human trafficking during his time in your Lordships’ House. In that letter, the Minister made some clear statements that DLR was the last resort and given only when there are “exceptional or compelling reasons”. Since then, no DLR data has been published in response to multiple Parliamentary Questions. This point is raised in the report of the organisation, After Exploitation, entitled Hidden Futures, published on 27 September. The report demonstrates that the Government have multiple opportunities to provide the data on the immigration outcomes of victims of trafficking. Only last week, on 29 September, the Government responded to a Parliamentary Question in another place by the Member of Parliament for Nottingham North, saying:
“Numbers and reasons for grants of discretionary leave to remain to victims of modern slavery do not currently form part of modern slavery published statistics.”
Less than a week earlier, on 24 September, the Government said that the data was not held in a reportable format. It begs the question: why not? There is considerable confusion about the immigration outcomes for victims of modern slavery and even about whether there is any data that would give such clarity.
Notwithstanding the Government’s failure to be forthcoming and transparent on this issue, in 2019 the British Red Cross was able to get information through freedom of information requests about the grants of discretionary leave to remain and it published in its report, Hope for the Future, some of its findings. These suggest that between just 8% and 9% of all victims of modern slavery were granted leave to remain between 2015 and 2017. Given the small numbers granted DLR, which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to, and the fact that the individuals who are vulnerable enough to be subject to trafficking are unlikely to be those who meet the requirements of the new points-based immigration system, it is clear to me that Parliament should now act.
Without Amendment 27, European Union nationals who are victims of trafficking will find themselves significantly disadvantaged compared to the status quo. Ending free movement must not be associated with an increase in exploitation. Given that, unlike non-EEA nationals, who are considered automatically, EU nationals will have to apply for discretionary leave to remain and given that so few grants are made, EU nationals who are unable to claim residency and the benefits associated with that immigration status are more likely to find themselves destitute and subject to potential retrafficking.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Alton and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In Committee, when introducing my Amendment 81, I made plain my grave concerns about the possible negative impact that ending free movement will have on victims of modern slavery. I said then, and I reiterate today:
“I am not opposed to the end of free movement.”
However, as I said then,
“it absolutely does not follow that we have to create a situation in which a significant proportion of trafficking victims have uncertain immigration status and will lose recourse to public funds.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1343.]
This, however, is precisely what will happen, courtesy of the Bill before us, if the Government do not accept Amendment 27.
With the ending of free movement, victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals and who arrive in the UK from 1 January onwards will no longer be entitled to stay in the UK or to access benefits, beyond the period of support granted under the national referral mechanism. This means that the effective rights of these confirmed victims of modern slavery will be subject to significant erosion, and there is currently nothing in the Bill to put in their place.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, from next year EEA victims, who have never enjoyed the option of asylum that many non-EEA victims can access, will lose the immigration status and recourse to public funds that they currently enjoy through treaty rights. The only remaining option for victims from EU countries to gain a credible immigration solution will be through an application for discretionary leave to remain. All victims can seek discretionary leave at present but, as with accessing the option of asylum, EU nationals are again at a disadvantage. Unlike victims of other countries, victims of EEA countries are not, at present, automatically considered for a grant of discretionary leave.
Amendment 27 would remedy this difference and ensure that all EEA nationals who are confirmed by the NRM as victims of trafficking are given a grant of leave if they meet the criteria set out in the amendment, which are similar to criteria by which applications are currently assessed under guidance. I urge the Government to support this amendment to ensure that there is a clear route for EEA nationals to have the option of immigration security and recourse to public funds to enable them to recover.
In reflecting on this, we must not forget that care for confirmed victims of modern slavery is not just about fulfilling our moral obligations to the victims, who, let us not forget, have been exploited in the UK; it is also in our self-interest. There is no point spending taxpayers’ money finding victims, then taking them through the national referral mechanism, only to release them without the requisite immigration security to enable them to access the kind of help they need to recover. Failure to provide them with security and tailored support will leave them vulnerable to being re-trafficked and make it impossible for them to have the space needed to consider giving evidence against their traffickers in court. This is unsustainable. Securing increased testimony from victims in court is crucial if we are to see an increase in the stubbornly low conviction rate of traffickers.
In reflecting on these imperatives, the truth is that, while we badly need Amendment 27 to pass today, we also need a more far-reaching solution that provides immigration certainty and support for all confirmed victims, including UK nationals. This is a position which all 27 organisations that make up the Free For Good campaign agree with. That is why the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, introduced to the House by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and sponsored in the other place by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, is so important.
It is odd that if someone is recognised as a refugee they automatically get five years’ leave to remain, but if they are recognised as a confirmed victim of human trafficking they get no statutory leave to remain on that basis. I am not entirely sure why we consider that we have a lesser obligation to people whose lives have been exploited and traumatised in the UK than we have to refugees. I am not saying for a moment that the way we treat refugees should become less generous. I am not saying that at all. My point is simply that we should treat confirmed victims of modern slavery more generously.
The Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill states that, once someone has been through the national referral mechanism and is a confirmed victim of modern slavery, they should be offered specialist tailored support to help them recover and a minimum of 12 months’ leave to remain to access that support. In that context, they will be protected from re-trafficking and be much more likely to have space to consider giving evidence against their traffickers in court.
Moreover, it will benefit not only England and Wales but Scotland and Northern Ireland by providing immigration security to those who are given support after they have been in the NRM. I note that, in the commemoration of UK Anti-Slavery Day later this month, a Motion is to be debated at Stormont on 13 October that calls on the UK Parliament to pass the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will agree to act to ensure that there is a clear immigration path for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals, and to accept Amendment 27. To lead the way on modern slavery and to take immigration policy back into the hands of the UK Parliament, I call on the Government to make time for the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill to become law by the end of the year. In the 2017-19 session, it cleared the House, unamended, in less than four hours. If the Government want it, this very Conservative Bill—sponsored, as it is, by a former leader of the Conservative Party and the noble Lord—could easily become law by Christmas. Rather than inaugurating the Brexit era on 1 January by eroding the effective rights of some confirmed victims of modern slavery, we could strengthen the rights of all victims, on a basis that, as the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab has demonstrated, will save the Government money.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has withdrawn and I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is no longer with us. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has also withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, discretionary leave is a precarious response, as we have heard, and it is not frequently granted. We support the amendment and the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, as I have said on many occasions.
Some victims—though one would prefer to say “survivors”—want to get back home as quickly as possible. Others want to stay in order to recover—as far as recovery is possible—and for other reasons, as set out in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment. One of the frequently expressed concerns about our response to slavery is the limited period provided for recovery after rescue, and 12 months is hardly a big ask.
One of the findings of the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, published last year, was that few victims pursued or were granted civil compensation where that was possible. I therefore particularly support paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2).
Participating as a witness seems to be a factor that leads to the granting of discretionary leave. That can be a very big ask—I have used that word before—of the victim. Evidence is obviously important in prosecuting traffickers and exploiters, but granting leave to remain—the immigration response—should not be a transaction balanced by the person being prepared to give evidence. The issues that have been raised of course go far beyond the Bill. In Committee, we were reminded of the Government’s commitment to a world-leading system—and we have led the world.
Regarding the programme to transform the identification of and support for victims, and the legal framework, this is the second debate this afternoon in which data has been mentioned. Data is important. It indicates, among other things, a real interest in the impact of policy. That framework could, if we get it into the Bill, repeal the current provisions and be extended to all victims, which is what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, seeks—as do all noble Lords who have spoken. Having that framework in prospect should not preclude agreement to the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 27, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been tenacious and resolute in his efforts to speak up for victims of modern slavery, and it is very much to his credit that he has continued to be a voice for the victims of these appalling crimes. It is a matter of much regret that, so far, the Government have not been minded to listen to him. I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have respected and admired the noble Lord since my earliest days in this House. He is a thoroughly good and decent man, and an example for all of us to follow. He set out a powerful case for the amendment. If it is not accepted, I have no doubt that it will be carried by a large majority when the House is divided. It was good to note his confirmation that he had the support of the honourable Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the other place—not somebody who would normally be described as a lefty do-gooder.
The amendment provides for the circumstances whereby a person over the age of 18 is to be granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and proposed new subsections (2) and (8) set the necessary parameters for granting this status. The amendment is of course confined to EEA and Swiss nationals, but that is to get it within the scope of the Bill. Many victims of modern slavery are vulnerable people who are British and so do not need this additional protection, but that does negate the importance of helping those victims from abroad.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich for instigating this important debate and I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to him for his dedicated and unswerving commitment to supporting the victims of modern slavery. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, it is a commitment that is strong at any hour of the day and one that applies to all noble Lords who have spoken—and would have done to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who, as my noble friend said, would have spoken today had we reached this group sooner.
The Government are equally committed to tackling this heinous crime, which has absolutely no place in our society. We are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring the perpetrators to justice than ever before, and we are committed to supporting victims and survivors and helping them rebuild their lives. However, we do not accept that the victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens should automatically be granted leave to remain in the UK, which is what my noble friend’s amendment seeks to do.
Granting leave to remain is appropriate in some cases, but the individual circumstances of a case are what must be central to the decision. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that a decision on whether leave is granted should not be determined by someone’s nationality. That is certainly an approach which complies with our international obligations under the trafficking convention. Where leave to remain is granted, it is normally where the victim is supporting the police either in an investigation, through being a witness in court or because of a requirement for medical treatment that needs to be provided in the UK—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted, because they are pursuing compensation for the exploitation that they have suffered. It is perhaps worth reiterating, as we touched on in Committee, that the most common nationality among all referrals in 2019 to the national referral mechanism was British, with UK nationals accounting for 27% of all those being referred, so tackling this abhorrent crime is separate from immigration policy.
For those who are not UK nationals, some victims of modern slavery already have leave to remain in another capacity or may qualify for a more advantageous status, such as refugee status. Victims from the EEA, who, as my noble friend noted in his opening remarks, may find that not possible, may also qualify for leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme. There is a further option that my noble friend did not touch on in his remarks, which is that victims can apply for support from the Home Office modern slavery victim care contract, which includes accommodation and support. We want to ensure that all victims and survivors, who are often very vulnerable people, as has been made apparent so powerfully today, have the support that they need.
For those who do not qualify for leave to remain, the Government are committed to supporting them to return to their home country and to rebuild their life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, they often want to do that as soon as possible. We have links with NGOs around the world, including a memorandum of understanding with La Strada Poland, which supports the victims of modern slavery when they return home and helps them reintegrate into their communities. The Government are proud of the work we are doing to stamp out this abhorrent crime and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, pay tribute again to the world-leading legislation which has been passed in this area.
A blanket policy of granting discretionary leave risks creating the incentive for some—a minority of individuals—to make false trafficking claims in an attempt fraudulently to obtain leave to remain. We have to ensure that the system we have put in place is focused on those who truly need our help and is not abused by the sort of organised and callous criminality which, as has been said, profits from human misery. It is for these reasons that we believe that my noble friend’s amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his kind remarks and for all the support and hard work that he does on this and many other subjects. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has done such wonderful work in Northern Ireland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support and her amazing stamina. She never seems to get tired.
To respond to the debate, it is clear that my Amendment 27 does not—I emphasise this—automatically grant leave to remain to all EEA nationals who are confirmed victims of modern slavery. It guarantees leave only where the criteria in the amendment are met, which will require an assessment of the circumstances in each case. The amendment does ensure that all confirmed victims who are EEA nationals are automatically considered for leave to remain. Without this change, confirmed victims who are EEA nationals will not only lose one of the avenues for recovery currently accessible to them—immigration status and recourse to public funds through treaty rights—they will find themselves at a disadvantage when compared with victims who are not EEA nationals and who are already automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain.
Without Amendment 27, EEA confirmed victims of modern slavery will be significantly worse off as a result of the Bill. It is unthinkable that this House should acquiesce to allowing the rights of some victims of human slavery to be moved backwards, and so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to the group consisting of Amendment 27A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 27A
Baroness Hamwee
“Rights and applications after the commencement of this Act
(1) In the event that a person with settled status granted pursuant to the Scheme applies for British citizenship, the period of residence in the United Kingdom which was the qualification for settled status must be treated as not being in breach of any provisions referred to in subsection (6).(2) A person resident in the United Kingdom on or before 30 June 2021 shall be treated as not being in breach of any provisions referred to in subsection (6) if he or she is in scope of eligibility for leave to remain under the Scheme.(3) The Secretary of State may not refuse an application by a person for settled status or pre-settled status under the Scheme made during the period ending on 30 June 2021 on the basis that he or she does not hold or has not held comprehensive sickness insurance.(4) The Secretary of State may not refuse an application for settled status under the Scheme made after 30 June 2021 by a person with pre-settled status on the basis that he or she does not hold or has not held comprehensive sickness insurance.(5) “The Scheme” means the scheme known as the EU Settlement Scheme for settled status or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules and the terms “settled status” and “pre-settled status” are interpreted accordingly.(6) The provisions referred to in this subsection are all provisions applicable to the person’s residence including the Immigration Acts and the Immigration Rules.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the amendment was written with the aid of anti-migraine tablets after some perhaps slightly unfocused exchanges in the previous stage and on the first day of Report about the grace period for the EU settlement scheme and comprehensive sickness insurance. I will not be seeking the opinion of the House.
I have tried to note situations that are giving cause for concern. I am aware that we now have a statutory instrument, and I hope that today’s debate can contribute to our consideration of that. As I said last week, those who know the subject were still poring over the SI, and I do not know whether they have yet come up for air.
I am seeking assurances, through this debate, that the propositions set out in the amendment accurately reflect, and are reflected by, the statutory instrument—I suppose it should be the latter. If what I am asking for cannot be put on the record today, a letter would be very welcome.
The first assurance I seek is that once someone has settled status he can be confident that he will be treated as not having been in breach of immigration provisions during the qualifying period; in other words, that nothing will come back to bite him—not the sort of language one uses in legislation. The second is that a person resident in the UK before the end of the grace period, and eligible for leave to remain, will be treated as not being in breach of those provisions. The third is that an application for status, whether settled or pre-settled status, may not be refused because the applicant does not, or has not had, comprehensive sickness insurance. I acknowledge that there could be another basis for refusal. Fourthly, I would like an assurance that the lack of CSI may not be a reason for refusing settled status after the same date to someone who holds pre-settled status.
I do not for a moment believe that the amendment is perfectly drafted but I hope that my objective is clear. It would be helpful if the Minister’s response is as jargon-free as possible and in the sorts of terms I have used.
On 16 September, the Minister said:
“The grace period statutory instrument does not change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme and those criteria do not include CSI.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1340.]
Later, however, she said that the grace period maintains CSI as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period, for students and people who are self-sufficient, and that
“EEA citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK will not change during the grace period, nor does the grace period SI change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. Therefore, there is no change to the Government’s policy that comprehensive sickness insurance is not required to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; col. 244.]
My amendment is directed at what that means in practice because, with regard to the scope of the regulations, the Minister went on to say:
“People need to exercise free movement rights to benefit from the savings in the grace period SI. We are not inventing rights of residence to save them, because that is not what the withdrawal agreement says.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; col. 244.]
What the withdrawal agreement does say in Article 18(3) is this:
“Pending a final decision”,
and I stress that phrase,
“by the competent authorities on any application referred to in paragraph 1”—
in the case of the UK this relates to applications to the EUSS—
“and pending a final judgment handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such application by the competent administrative authorities”,
and I stress the next bit as well,
“all rights provided for in this Part”,
which are residents’ rights and all related equal treatment rights in the agreement,
“shall be deemed to apply to the applicant, including Article 21 on safeguards and right of appeal, subject to the conditions set out in Article 20(4).”
On the first day of Report, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained the concern raised with both of us by the3million that:
“In their current form, the regulations appear to exclude a large cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period and whilst their application is pending. The regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were ‘exercising treaty rights’ in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; cols. 240-41.]
The organisation amplified this by saying:
“Crucially, there will be people who are eligible for status via the EUSS who will not have a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period. Furthermore, anyone who has … submitted an application to the EUSS before the end of the transition period … is pending a decision after the transition period ends … Will have to demonstrate they fall within the scope of the regulations to have the benefit of its protection.”
Generally, those protected by the regulations will be economically active at the end of the transition period, and they will have the benefit of legal protections during the grace period and while their application is pending. However, that is not the case for those who are not economically active by the end of the transition period, such as an EU citizen dependent on a British spouse and without private health insurance. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, the technical term is comprehensive sickness insurance, but really in this country we know it as private health insurance, which fulfils what is meant by comprehensive sickness insurance.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have little to add to the magisterial introduction made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Amendment 27A, but I will emphasise the deficit of the Bill as it stands especially with regard to Roma women with settled status who look after their children full-time and who apply for British citizenship. The underlying problem—in real life rather than in Home Office rules—is that while their children are little, the mothers have a weak connection to the labour market, like other full-time mothers. I am surprised that this Government should prejudice mothers in this way.
So, because they cannot prove they were exercising treaty rights—according to the Home Office, which does not accord with the European Commission’s interpretation—by showing that they have comprehensive sickness insurance, their application fails. I remind your Lordships that Theresa May, as Home Secretary, recognised this injustice and promised to do away with the requirement for CSI in these cases. So it is very odd that updated Home Office guidance in 2020 changed the application process to direct caseworkers to check whether such applicants had CSI. An undefined power of discretion has not proved much use in rectifying the injustices to full-time mothers. It is shocking that the Government have not honoured the earlier commitment.
In her letter to us of 29 September, the Minister said that the Government’s policy is that CSI is not required to obtain status under the EUSS. Nevertheless, the grace period SI maintains CSI as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period as a student or self-sufficient person, such as a full-time mother, under the saved EEA regulations because, according to the Home Office, this is consistent with EU law. This is not the European Commission’s view, and it is not right or just that applications are turned down because there is no CSI.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will go over very similar ground to that raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
The background is that, under the withdrawal agreement, the UK is obliged to create a grace period following the end of the transition period. During this grace period, EEA citizens have the opportunity to apply by a deadline for a new immigration status through the EU settlement scheme, as it is called in the UK.
As EU rights will end on 31 December, the Government need to create an interim status for those who have yet to acquire their new status via the EU settlement scheme—hence the grace period SI. As we know, it sets the deadline for applications to the settlement scheme as 30 June next year, but the Minister said last Wednesday, on the first day of Report, that it would also
“protect the existing rights of resident EEA citizens and their family members during the grace period.”
What does “existing” mean? A fact sheet published in July also used that adjective when it said that the power in Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 would be used—as has now happened with this grace period SI—to make regulations
“to protect the existing rights of those individuals who are eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did in Committee on 16 September, the Minister said last Wednesday that she could reassure us—here, I repeat a quotation given by my noble friend—that
“EEA citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK will not change during the grace period, nor does the grace period SI change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. Therefore, there is no change to the Government’s policy”,
which, as we have learned, was set by Theresa May,
“that comprehensive sickness insurance is not required to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme.”
Therefore, so far we have established two government statements: first, that the existing rights of those eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme will be protected; and, secondly, that acquiring settled status will not involve a requirement for CSI. So far, so good. Ministerial assurances seemed to accord with Article 18(3) of the withdrawal agreement, which provides that, pending a final decision, all rights provided for in the citizens’ rights section of that agreement shall be deemed to apply to the applicant. That means residence rights and all related equal treatment rights.
However, things then get somewhat murkier. Last Wednesday, the Minister added a caveat—again, quoted by my noble friend—when she said:
“People need to exercise free movement rights to benefit from the savings in the grace period SI. We are not inventing rights of residence to save them, because that is not what the withdrawal agreement says.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; cols. 243-4.]
When I checked back, I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, had explicitly said on 16 September in Committee:
“The grace period SI maintains”
comprehensive sickness insurance
“as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period for a student or self-sufficient person under the saved EEA regulations, as is consistent with EU law.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1340.]
I will not go round all the houses again, but I beg to differ with that last comment, as I believe that the Commission is pursuing infringement proceedings—it is taking a while; it launched them in 2012—over the Government’s wrong interpretation of CSI as meaning private health insurance. In this country, it should mean accessing the National Health Service. However, for current purposes, I will just concentrate on the first part of the noble Lord’s statement: namely, the proposal that during the grace period students and self-sufficient persons will have to show that they have CSI—that is, private insurance—in order to qualify as lawfully resident.
The remarks confirm that in their current form, limiting a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were “exercising treaty rights” in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period, the regulations appear, as my noble friend said, to exclude a large cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period and while their application is pending. In general, a worker and someone who is self-employed will benefit from legal protections, but those not economically active by the end of the transition period will likely be unable to do so, with the consequences that my noble friend enumerated—possible removal, the denial of NHS treatment, being put out of a job, or whatever.
Even where someone successfully lodges an application with the EU settlement scheme, if they are awaiting a decision beyond the end of the grace period and are not in scope of the regulations, they will not have the legal protections it offers. Therefore, someone with a complex EUSS case could be without a legal basis to remain in the UK for many months beyond the grace period.
As a taste of things to come, a case has been brought to my attention where parents seeking to renew their five year-old son’s British passport were told that the EU citizen father had to supply evidence of having had CSI—I repeat: private health insurance—when he was a student many years ago.
To recap where I think we are, we have three government statements: first, that the existing rights of those eligible to apply to the settlement scheme will be protected in the grace period; secondly, that CSI is not a requirement for acquiring settled status; and, thirdly, that CSI is a requirement for some people to have lawful residence in the grace period. We can add in a fourth, given in the course of this Bill: that discretion will be exercised—we have not heard how—in regard to the absence of CSI in assessing eligibility for citizenship.
I am struggling to make sense of how those four statements fit together and to understand how the Government really intend to treat people. So far as I can see, it leaves matters as clear as mud and full of contradictions and obstacles. It seems that the Government are set on making a person cross a crocodile-infested river of legal uncertainty over residence before they can reach the safe shore of settled status.
Therefore, I back up the questions that my noble friend asked the Minister about the practical implications for people who do not fall within the scope of the regulations. Will there be further regulations to cover those eligible for settled status but not in scope of the regulations? When they apply for settled status, will they be told, “Oh no, we don’t need to ask you for CSI, but in the meantime, under the grace period SI, you need CSI”. It is like being on a chessboard, although I can think of some other analogy.
I have one last question. Are the Government willing to consider changing the draft regulation from stating a requirement to have been “lawfully resident”—which, as we know, according to the Government’s interpretation is an extremely loaded term—to a requirement simply to have been “resident”? Given that this definition operates for only six months, save in cases where a settled status application has been made, this might be a simple, workable solution that could save a lot of people a lot of anxiety. This sounds like an awfully complicated and arcane situation. It is, and in the real world a lot of people are affected by it. They are represented by the the3million group, which, again, is doing sterling work, although, as far as I know, even it has not got its head round it, so I do not know what hope there is for someone like me.
I hope the Minister can bring some coherence to this situation, or display a willingness to look again at the regulations under the grace period SI to see if the Government are creating unnecessary hurdles for people who were told they would not need CSI or settled status when perhaps applying later for citizenship. It seems to be creating an awful lot of unnecessary hassle.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The grace period regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were “exercising treaty rights” in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period. This must mean that such citizens who are not exercising their treaty rights fall outside the protection of having a legal basis to live in the UK. This appears to cover a potentially significant number of people, including those who have not held comprehensive sickness insurance.
Amendment 27A ensures EU nationals cannot have an application denied for citizenship, settled status, or pre-settled status on the basis they have not held comprehensive sickness insurance. It is clear from the debate there is considerable confusion—which I share—about the actual position. Surely, any doubts, confusion or uncertainty would be removed by the Government accepting this amendment or returning with their own amendment at Third Reading. That would help clarify the situation.
I conclude by simply saying this, as I do not want to repeat all the valid points that have been made. If Government will not do that, could the Minister spell out the circumstances in which an EU national would have an application denied for citizenship, settled status or pre-settled status on the basis they have not held comprehensive sickness insurance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has tabled Amendment 27A. I hope I can provide clarification.
The new clause has three main purposes. First, it seeks reassurance that comprehensive sickness insurance is not, nor will be in future, an eligibility criterion for applications to the EU settlement scheme. Secondly, it seeks to provide that if someone is eligible to apply to the scheme, their previous residence should be deemed lawful, whether or not that was the case under the EEA regulations. Thirdly, the new clause seeks to remove the lawful residence requirement from British citizenship applications by those who hold settled status under the EU settlement scheme.
Let me address the noble Baroness’s concern about comprehensive sickness insurance, which has been raised several times during consideration of the Bill. Subsections (3) and (4) of her proposed new clause concern eligibility to apply to the EU settlement scheme. I can assure the noble Baroness that currently, there is no requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance or previous lawful residence under the EEA regulations in order to be eligible to apply under the scheme. This will not change for applications made after the transition period, nor after the grace period. I can reassure the House that an application made before or after the deadline of 30 June 2021 will not be refused for failure to hold comprehensive sickness insurance. Accordingly, the amendment is not necessary.
I turn to proposed new subsection (2), which seeks to provide that the previous residence of anyone who is eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of next June will be deemed to have been lawful whether or not it in fact was. In doing so, the intention is to support applications for citizenship, which I will come to shortly. However, the effect of this amendment is wider. It would create new residence rights for those who do not have them at the end of the transition period, as they are not complying with free movement law and have yet to apply to the EU settlement scheme. Those who are currently here without residence rights will continue to have no residence rights until they apply to the EU settlement scheme; that is why we are encouraging them to apply to the scheme.
In line with the withdrawal agreement, the Government are using secondary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—the so-called “grace period SI”—to save the existing rights of those EEA citizens and their family members who are lawfully resident in the UK at the end of the transition period under 2016 EEA regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me to set out the existing rights; they are pre-settled or, indeed, settled status. This means that an EEA citizen, or their family member, who is resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but is not exercising free movement rights will still be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of 30 June next year. However, they will not have any residence rights under free movement law protected during the grace period. This is for the simple reason that they do not possess these rights at the end of the transition period. This reflects the current situation, as set out in the free movement directive and the EEA regulations.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to create new EU rights of residence beyond those saved by the grace period SI once free movement has ended. That cannot be right, nor accepted by the Government. Having an EU “right to reside” provides other rights beyond the right to stay in the UK, as it can confer access to social security benefits. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, at this juncture, after we have left the EU, it would not be appropriate to widen EEA citizens’ benefit eligibility any further than those groups who are already entitled to it.
This brings me to the final limb of the new clause, which I think is probably its main objective, concerning how EEA and Swiss citizens who hold settled status might then proceed to naturalise and become British citizens. The noble Baroness will be aware that the power to determine naturalisation applications from all migrants—not just EEA and Swiss citizens—is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Under Section 6(1) of the Act, an applicant is required to show that they have sufficient residential ties here. For example, they must have resided here lawfully for at least five years and they must no longer be subject to any immigration time restrictions. Proposed new subsection (1) would require any residence before the granting of settled status to be treated as lawful, regardless of whether it actually was or the circumstances under which it occurred. That cannot be right, and I do not consider it unreasonable to ask anyone wishing to become British to have resided here lawfully.
Amendment 27A seeks to treat those with settled status under the EU settlement scheme differently from other EEA and Swiss citizens, and also non-EEA citizens. I believe the noble Baroness is most concerned about those who—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, outlined—are here as students or are self-sufficient. This is because free movement rules require them to hold comprehensive sickness insurance after their initial three months of residence in order to be lawfully resident. This is not a new issue. Had a student or self-sufficient person previously made an application for permanent residence documentation without holding CSI, they would have been refused.
The noble Baroness may be aware that, even where CSI has not been held by a student or self-sufficient person, it does not mean that a naturalisation application must be refused. The British Nationality Act permits the application of discretion to this requirement in the special circumstances of a particular case. Caseworkers will therefore continue to examine each application to understand why the individual did not comply with the EEA regulations, as well as any reasons which can nevertheless allow an application to be granted. This is already set out in published guidance for decision-makers. However, it is right that we assess on an individual basis, rather than having a general rule to overlook any non-compliance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, made a point which we went over in detail yesterday, about people who are applying either to the EU settlement scheme or for citizenship, which are two different things. There are a lot of voluntary organisations to help people who might need assistance through this process, but naturalisation as a British citizen is not part of the EU settlement scheme; nor is it covered by the withdrawal agreement. We welcome people who make the personal choice to become British citizens, but there is no need for any new arrangements because of our leaving the EU. The existing system already applies equally and fairly to all applicants. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the assurance that she sought and that she is happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. My noble friend Lady Ludford asked whether this was a chessboard, but I think it is more like snakes and ladders: up you go, you think you are settled and then you slither downwards into what she called the “crocodile-infested” waters of CSI.
When the Minister referred to “lawful residence” under the British Nationality Act I wrote a question to myself about whether this meant treaty rights—which you would need to have had CSI to exercise—to which I think the answer is yes. She then mentioned discretion. One always has a concern about discretion because the law should provide, not leave things to caseworkers, but the situation that we have posed is not unusual.
I do not intend a pun here, but the issue is not settled. I am glad that we have had this exchange. I do not pretend to know whether I am comforted. I think I am not, as noble Lords will understand from my last remarks, but much better that I leave the experts to use what the Minister has shared with us when they are considering the regulations. I thank her and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 28. I remind noble Lords that Members others than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 5: Power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination
Amendment 28
Lord Flight
“(2A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to make provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement as defined by section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the power to make regulations under subsection (1) can only be used in ways consistent with the UK’s obligations under the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that I must participate by telephone, but Zoom did not work for me today. Amendment 28 would ensure that the power created by the Bill could be used only in ways which are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the UK-EU withdrawal agreement.
The retained direct EU legislation set out in Clause 5(2) is the full gamut of EU legislation on social security co-ordination. Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK is committed to apply this legislation to all those within the scope of Part 2 of the agreement —“Citizens’ Rights”— and to some others. It seems strange that essentially financial matters to do with pensions are mixed with other social matters here.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Is the noble Lord moving his amendment?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Well, the noble Lord has actually spoken, so he needs to move it for everybody else to respond.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
Right. I will withdraw the amendment when I sum up at the end.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on the first day of Report, on an equivalent amendment to Clause 4, the Minister gave an assurance that the Government have absolutely no intention of acting incompatibly with the citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has said, that is not the point. He set out very carefully the social security provisions which are the issue here. The concern is that the use of regulations, or secondary legislation, to modify the primary legislation that is the basis of the various benefits could wittingly or unwittingly modify them—“modify” is a polite legislative word for “cause a lot of people a lot of problems”. If this amendment were part of the Bill, it would protect against this.
Last week, the noble Lord referred to the establishment under the 2020 Act of the Independent Monitoring Authority, and I was grateful for that. I share a rather wry smile with noble Lords because provided for in the authority’s powers is that it may make applications for judicial review—we all know the Government’s expressed position on activists and lawyers using applications for judicial review and generally not liking frequent resort being made to them. There is of course a review of the use of judicial review going on at the moment. So I thank the noble Lord for that moment of amusement in this complicated area. I support the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Flight, this amendment would prevent regulations made under Clause 5 including any provisions that could be inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. I presume that the aim is to avoid any action that might serve to undermine the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens here that were guaranteed under the withdrawal agreement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have had this debate at earlier stages and on Clause 4. On the basis of those past debates, I think there is a decent chance that the Minister will say that this amendment is unnecessary. But as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, pointed out: what is the downside? Given the uncertainty caused by statements elsewhere about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and the extent to which the UK is committed to it, the Minister will understand why some noble Lords are nervous and want the kind of assurances that one would hope she should be able to give without difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, explained the terribly important issues that are covered by Clause 5. This will be our only engagement on Report with the subtle joys of this clause. I raised many of the issues about social security co-ordination at Second Reading and in Committee, and felt that I did not get satisfactory answers in Committee. However, I have now received a letter from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman- Scott, which has provided more information. In the light of that, I do not intend to move Amendment 29 in my name in the next group.
I remain very concerned about the implications for too many people of the loss of reciprocal arrangements for social security co-ordination, but I recognise that we will not get anything more at this stage of the Bill. I hope that the letter I mentioned will be placed in both Libraries. Because it contains information about new developments which were not reflected in the draft regulations shared with us in Committee, it would be helpful if the letter were displayed as soon as possible in the relevant place under the “will write” section of Bills before Parliament, so that its contents are readily accessible to those who are interested.
These are very important issues. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this amendment. The Government have given written assurances in every Bill document throughout the passage of the Bill on this point; I have reiterated those assurances in Committee, and I will do so again here.
I can assure the House that Clause 5 does not enable the Government to alter the rights guaranteed to those in scope of the withdrawal agreement. The entitlements of this cohort are guaranteed by Sections 7A and 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The power at Clause 5 will not and cannot affect those provisions. Rather, it allows for EU law retained by Section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be modified. The rights under the withdrawal agreement are therefore provided by a distinct and separate legal mechanism in relation to that of retained EU law, and this power will not affect the rights of those within the scope of the agreement. This includes those examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, such as state pension uprating, the S1 scheme and the aggregation of contributions. It is therefore the Government’s view that Amendment 28 is unnecessary, on the grounds I have set out.
I note the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for my letter to her to be placed under the “will write” section—I am so pleased that that makes sense—of Bills before Parliament.
I reiterate that it is the Government’s view that Amendment 28 is unnecessary, on the grounds I have set out. I hope that with this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Flight, will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to ask a question of the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Flight.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, this amendment addresses the aggregation of social security contributions across the EU, mutual healthcare and, in particular, the payment of pensions and pension increases to pensioners living in different EU countries. It is important that citizens’ positions are protected. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has given a satisfactory undertaking that these areas cannot be affected by the clause in question and that this amendment is therefore not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
(a) (Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals),(b) (Initial detention: criteria and duration), and(c) (Bail hearings)which come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that new Clauses "Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss Nationals", "Initial detention: criteria and duration" and "Bail hearings" come into force six months after the Act is passed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 32. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate. I should inform the House that if Amendment 32 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 32A.
Schedule 1: Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.
Amendment 32
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, last but I hope not least, Amendment 32 is in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 32 addresses a very odd provision in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1. As currently worded, it states that provisions of the EU regulation on free movement for workers cease to apply if
“they are inconsistent with … the Immigration Acts”
or
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
I suggested in Committee, with widespread support from all sides of the Committee, that the parliamentary draftsmen could and should do better than that. Paragraph 4(2) as currently drafted defies the need for legal certainty. The Bill should set out which provisions of the workers regulation will cease to apply.
The Minister promised to look at this matter, and she indicated that she would discuss it with me. Faithful to her word, as she always is, she has discussed the matter with me—for which I am very grateful—and has now tabled Amendment 32A, which satisfactorily addresses the point. I am very grateful to her. Amendment 33 addresses a similar problem, but sadly it has not received a favourable response from the Minister.
Paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 tells us that
“EU-derived rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures cease to be recognised and available in domestic law”
in two circumstances—that is if
“they are inconsistent with, or … capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of,”
a provision of the Immigration Acts, or if
“they are otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
I simply do not understand how advisers on immigration law, far less those individuals who are the subject of immigration law, are supposed to work out what their legal rights and obligations are. Legal certainty requires, in my view, that the schedule should set out those EU-derived rights et cetera which are disapplied, or those which are retained. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, criticised the legal uncertainty in our 11th report of this Session published on 2 September.
I think the only answer the Minister could possibly give to the concern I have identified about legal certainty is that Ministers and parliamentary draftsmen do not now know which provisions of EU law survive and which do not. That rather makes my point, I think. However, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter, troubling though it is. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to the noble Lord’s Amendments 32 and 33 because they address two long-standing concerns of the Constitution Committee. The first is the broad and unjustified use of Henry VIII powers. The second is the confusing and counterproductive complexity of immigration law, which we believe needs to be clear and consolidated. That is why I support these amendments. I welcome the fact that the Government have addressed the first of these issues by tabling Amendment 32A, which makes more specific the scope of the power, confining it, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, to Articles 2 to 10 of the workers regulations.
I would have welcomed a similar willingness to move on the issues that the Constitution Committee has raised in relation to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which nullifies EU-derived rights and remedies. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has quoted some parts of paragraph 6 and they are really extraordinary: rights should disappear because
“they are inconsistent with, or are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of, any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”
and, even stranger, because they are
“otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
I can think of all sorts of functions that people might consider were “in connection” with immigration, but we really need laws that are clearer than that.
Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, said when he gave evidence to us:
“How is the ordinary person, never mind the legislator, to know whether the law is good or not in a particular area if you draft like that?”
I know that parliamentary draftsmen have had a pretty heavy diet of work lately, not least with Covid-19 orders, but it is possible to do better than that, unless the instructions given to them were so unspecific as to leave things so wide open that they had to draft the legislation in that extraordinary way.
Paragraph 69 of the Explanatory Notes tries to explain why this is necessary, but fails to do so—at least I find it completely unpersuasive. I did learn a little more about Chen carers than I knew previously, which was almost nothing. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hamwee thinks of little else at some stages of the Bill than the quite obscure provision that resulted from the Chen case before the European Court of Justice. However, I certainly found the argument unpersuasive.
The committee says:
“The statute book requires clarity rather than obscurity and provisions such as these threaten to frustrate essential ingredients of the rule of law.”
An essential ingredient of the rule of law is that it is on record and visible and capable of being understood, particularly by those who practice it professionally, but preferably by a wider range of people as well, including those who may face either a penalty or, in this case, the inability to have a right to which they believe they are entitled as a consequence of wording as vague as this.
There is still time to improve this: the Minister could come back at Third Reading with an amendment that makes clear the purpose of this paragraph, and I am only sorry that she has not done so thus far.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of how unsatisfactory the Bill is, particularly Schedule 1, was a model of clarity, unlike the schedule. He has also left us, from the earlier stage, with a vision of straining to read the Emperor Caligula’s laws, and that will stay with me, possibly longer than Schedule 1.
The comments of the Constitution Committee on the complexity of immigration law being a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently were, in a way, reassuring to those of us who struggle with it, but otherwise not reassuring at all, as the noble Lord and my noble friend made clear in their speeches. I am very sorry to disappoint my noble friend by not wandering off into comments on case law. I support the amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on having persuaded the Government to introduce their Amendment 32A, in the light of his comments on this in Committee, and on tabling Amendment 32, to which I have added my name.
The similar concern over wording that resulted in Amendment 33 has not been addressed by the Government. Amendment 33 would remove paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. As noble Lords know, paragraph 6, like paragraph 4(2), is broadly drafted. It provides that any EU-derived rights, powers, et cetera, that are inconsistent with or “capable of affecting” the Immigration Acts or functions cease to be recognised.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have both expressed their strong concerns about the sweeping powers that the Government are seeking to take under the Bill—powers that will not be subject to any effective parliamentary scrutiny. In Committee, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Minister said:
“I totally understand the point that the noble Lord makes about certainty. In addressing this, I should like to meet him, because I totally get what he is saying. He is not being difficult; he is just asking that we lay out the law and provide certainty.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 580.]
Why then are the Government not also prepared to lay out the law and provide that certainty over the EU-derived rights, powers, et cetera, that are being referred to in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1? I hope the Minister will answer that point in her response.
One has already been mentioned as a possibility. Bearing in mind that, in Committee, the Minister also said
“I note that the drafting of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 ensures that nothing is missed that might mean free movement was only partially repealed”,—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 576.]
that could mean that the Government are not prepared to move on paragraph 6(1) because they do not rate their ability to ensure that the Bill says all it needs to say to ensure that free movement is fully repealed. To cover up for their anticipated deficiencies, the Government take these powers to act without full parliamentary scrutiny and leave people in a situation where the legislation, in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, does not enable them to identify the exact nature of their obligations and rights. If that is the motive for not moving on paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, in the way that the Government have on paragraph 4(2), one can say only that that is not the purpose for which use of these powers was originally intended. No doubt we will hear from the Minister why the Government have not moved on paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 or at least produced their own amendment in response to Amendment 33 of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords who have spoken to Amendments 32 and 33. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the noble Lord and draft Amendment 32A as a result.
I understand why noble Lords find these provisions difficult to follow. They are, however, essential in repealing EU free movement. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Schedule 1 disapply elements of retained EU law, where they are inconsistent with or affect the interpretation, application or operation of the Immigration Acts. “The Immigration Acts” is a commonly used legislative shorthand for the UK’s domestic immigration legislation. Most importantly, it includes the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the requirement for non-British and non-Irish citizens to have leave to enter or remain. “The Immigration Acts” is defined in Section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Bill, once enacted, will be added to that definition by Clause 3.
These phrases therefore clarify that the retained EU law in question does not provide a back-door route to enter or reside in the UK outside of the system of leave to enter and remain, once the main free movement legislation is repealed. That system is made up partly of Immigration Rules made under the 1971 Act. That is why the words
“by or under the Immigration Acts”
feature in these paragraphs.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister, certainly for government Amendment 32A, which deals with the concern that we have expressed in Amendment 32. However, the Minister’s attempt to defend paragraph 6(1) of the schedule is, I am afraid, wholly unconvincing. Her observations do not provide me with any useful clarification as to how the paragraph is going to apply. As the Minister has said, there are too many provisions and the position is too uncertain, and therefore the legislation cannot list the provisions. What she is suggesting, as I said in my opening remarks, is that the position is too uncertain for clarification, but the inevitable consequence is that the position is too uncertain for those who are advising immigrants and for immigrants themselves. They cannot possibly know with certainty how this provision will apply. I should respectfully warn the Minister that, if and when paragraph 6(1) is the subject of litigation in individual cases, the Government may well find that the courts will adopt a very unsympathetic approach to it and will give it the narrowest possible interpretation because it is so lacking in certainty. That is the real risk that the Government are running.
I have never seen a provision like paragraph 6(1) before in legislation—that is, a provision that depends on whether something is capable of affecting the exercise of functions—and I hope never to see such a provision in legislation again. I shall regard it as one of the increasing number of undesirable consequences of the decision to leave the EU and as setting no precedent for any other legislative content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 applies only to Articles 2 to 10 of the Workers Regulation.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 12th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 137-I Amendment for Third Reading - (7 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now continue. Some Members are here in the Chamber respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of the amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin. I call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Clause 6: Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: entitlement to remain
Amendment 1
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to address the Minister’s concerns at Report stage by removing the phrase “deemed to have”. It ensures that EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it seems a long time since we debated this Bill on Report. I am now speaking to the amendment to Clause 6 in my name. This is a technical change and need not detain us for long. The amendment is intended to achieve settled status for children in care and care leavers. It deals with the identification of such children and the problems they may have with applying for their status—indeed, dispensing with pre-settled status and moving on to settled status.
On Report, the Minister raised concerns about the original wording of the amendment, particularly the phrase “is deemed”, suggesting that this would mean that children and young people would have no secure evidence of their immigration status. The amendment before us today removes the phrase “is deemed to have”, with which the Minister specifically stated that she was unhappy, and replaces it with
“on notification by the local authority to the Home Office that they are such a child, must”.
I hope that by setting out the process of identifying and supporting these children through the EU settlement process, this amendment would remove the Minister’s concern over automatic entitlements and the problem that these children would not be able to prove their immigration status in the future. In the first instance, we would expect that local authorities would be required to identify these young people, after which they would be granted settled status through the EU settlement scheme. This would allow these young people access to the evidence that they need to prove their rights and entitlements in the long term. This House has always championed the rights of the most vulnerable children, especially those in the care system. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I should have said when I called the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we were talking about Amendment 1, to Clause 6. I now call the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I was about to clarify that we are talking about Amendment 1, but the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and indeed the Deputy Speaker, have now clarified that.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to remove the declaratory status aspect of Clause 6 so that it would provide for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to obtain indefinite leave to remain—or settled status—under the EU settlement scheme, where they applied to the scheme or a local authority did so on their behalf. It would do this regardless of how long the child or young person had been continuously resident in the UK. There is absolutely no difference of view on the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers as we end free movement—just as we are seeking to do where all vulnerable groups are concerned.
I set out in earlier debates on this provision the extensive support that the Home Office is providing to local authorities to ensure that those children and young people, as well as any other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme, and the secure evidence of that status which the scheme provides. This includes grant funding to organisations across the UK of up to £17 million over the period 2019-20, to support this and other vulnerable and at-risk groups in applying to the scheme. I am pleased to say that the Home Office announced last week that the number of organisations funded for this work would increase from 57 to 72. That includes local authorities and local government associations as well as charities.
I made it crystal clear in the earlier debates that, in line with the withdrawal agreement, where a person eligible for settled status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. I have also made it clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or care leaver does miss the deadline, they can still obtain lawful status in the UK.
In light of views expressed in this House in our earlier debates on this issue, the Government do not object to Amendment 1. We will see how the other place regards Clause 6 as so amended.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted with the Minister’s positive response. I say in passing that I wish we had had such a positive response to a number of other amendments, but that may be too optimistic on my behalf.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I give my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for what has been a difficult but nevertheless constructive Bill all round. The Bill gives effect to the ending of free movement as per the referendum and allows for the EU settlement scheme, which has been extremely successful in processing nearly 4 million applicants to date.
There has been a reason why Members of your Lordships’ House have found it difficult—views around leaving the European Union—but the constructive way in which we have approached it, even if we have disagreed, does your Lordships’ House great credit. I have to say that I admire the skill in moving some amendments that had nothing to do with the Bill, but we have had some very good debates despite that and I think it right that these issues be aired.
I thank all noble Lords involved and am very happy that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on her stamina and patience throughout consideration of the Bill, if not, perhaps, on the number of government concessions. We also thank her for her typical willingness to meet and discuss matters relating to the Bill; that is much appreciated. We appreciate, as well, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the work of the Bill team. In addition, perhaps I may be permitted to thank Grace Wright in our office for all her work and invaluable advice on the Bill.
This Bill has of course had its own unique incidents, not least the temporary hiccup over the voting arrangements. Let us hope that that remains unique to it.
As the Minister said, the Bill now goes back to the Commons—in my view, certainly a better Bill than when it left the other place. All that we can now do is wait to see what the Commons make of the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House.
I reiterate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and myself our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the Bill team, and indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in the lengthy and interesting debates during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the Bill is about ending free movement. From these Benches, we are no more enthusiastic about that than when the Bill started; if anything, perhaps less so, particularly because the debates have vividly demonstrated the impact on UK citizens resident in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.
In our view, it is not surprising that the opportunity has been taken to pursue issues relating to the ending of free movement that have a wider context—a rather softer way of describing the various amendments that all sailed through the Public Bill Office, which is particularly careful in that regard. All the amendments have been very people-focused, which shows that there is a view of a fair and firm asylum system that is very different from the Government’s.
This is not the moment for long speeches, nor to rehearse the arguments on the amendments that were agreed by our House with such notable support. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, bore with good humour all that was thrown at them, although I do not know whether they took it out on the cat when they got home.
I express my thanks to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere in the House; to the Bill team for all their work; and, since the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has paved the way, to Elizabeth Plummer in our whips’ office, whose assistance on the Bill has been magnificent.
We would like to think that we will not be discussing the various amendments again but I realise that we may well do so. In the meantime, with the obvious caveats, we support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to have been asked to make the concluding Cross-Bench speech at the end of our consideration of the immigration Bill. I thank not only the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their unfailing courtesy and diligence but also the unsung heroes, the Bill team.
During one of my interventions I drew the attention of the House to the tragic story of a Ugandan refugee, Mercy Baguma, who in August was found dead in a Glasgow flat while her one year-old son was found crying beside his mother’s body, weakened from several days of starvation. Stories such as hers and of those caught up in the underlying themes of this Bill—from the vast displacement arising from movement of refugees, to the criminal gangs who profiteer from this tide of human misery and the consequences of the so-called hostile environment—have provided the backdrop to our proceedings.
Last week, by a majority of 101, the House supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on human trafficking. The Commons will now have the opportunity to reconsider that issue and other changes, such as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on physical documentation, which we have incorporated into the Bill. Although the primary purpose, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, is to end the exercise of EU rights of free movement in this country, noble Lords have focused again and again on the position of children and young people of European parentage who were born here or who have grown up here.
In conclusion, I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said from the government Benches: that it would be deeply upsetting for any of us to find our children or grandchildren experiencing this exclusion from their rights to British citizenship. Thanks to the amendments we are sending back down the Corridor, the House of Commons now has the opportunity to correct this profound and damaging injustice, but also to improve the legislation. I hope it will seize the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As the Member who was lucky enough to speak first on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, I thank those involved with its passage through our House. Indeed, I have spoken on nearly all the Bills that have followed from our exit from the EU, in my position as a former Minister and as a current member of the European Union Committee.
I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Williams on her handling of the Bill. It is possibly the most challenging of the EU exit Bills, involving very divided opinions across the House; yet, thanks to her good humour and diplomacy, shown again on Amendment 1 today, it has been progressed in a timely and very courteous manner. Thanks are also due to another Minister, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, our social security Minister on this Bill; to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; to all those on these Benches who have spoken and to others across the House; and of course to the excellent Bill team.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am glad the Deputy Speaker has given me another chance to speak, because I forgot to thank both my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I will just thank them fulsomely and sit down.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 19th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 October 2020 - (19 Oct 2020)
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:16 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 262 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 4 and 5. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 1
Impact of section 1 on the social care sector
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto, and Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3.
Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 11.
I am sure colleagues will see that a large number of Members wish to contribute to this debate. We have had two quite lengthy statements, so there is pressure on time. That means we will be imposing an initial six-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers. I hope that Front Benchers will keep their remarks as brief as possible in the circumstances to allow others to contribute.
Kevin Foster
This Bill delivers on a key manifesto commitment to end the EU’s rules on free movement, and to deliver our fairer and firmer points-based immigration system. I am pleased the Bill has passed its Third Reading in the other place, led by my colleague Baroness Williams of Trafford. For such a short Bill, there has been substantial debate on a wide range of immigration issues. There are issues on which Members disagree with the Government, but we must now enact this Bill and deliver on our promise to the British people. I will speak to each amendment in turn.
Lords amendment 1 requires publication of an independent report on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. Although it is well intentioned, the amendment is unnecessary because we already have independent reporting in this area through Skills for Care and the Migration Advisory Committee, which is now free to work to its own commissions in addition to those given to it by the Government.
The Department of Health and Social Care funds Skills for Care to deliver a wide range of activities to support the Government’s priorities for the social care sector. This includes programmes to support employers and the workforce with skills development, promote and support recruitment into the sector, and support leadership development. The Department of Health and Social Care uses the data produced by Skills for Care and the trends identified to inform its policy development to support the adult social care sector to recruit, train and develop its vital workforce.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The social care sector is a typical example of where cheap EU labour has been brought in to undercut our own labour force. The public are really worried that, as EU migration has declined, so migration from other parts of the world has increased. I want the Minister to give a categorical assurance that, whatever happens with these negotiations, we will get a grip on migration from other parts of the world and we will not undercut our own workforce.
Kevin Foster
We have been very clear that we will have a points-based system that will respond to the needs of the United Kingdom’s labour market and workforce, and that our migration system will not provide an alternative to investing in and rewarding those who work in critical sectors such as social care.
As Members will know, I have previously spoken at length about the role of the Migration Advisory Committee, which now has an expanded remit to examine any aspect of the immigration system and to provide annual reports that Parliament can, and almost certainly will, debate. I have also outlined the Government’s continued commitment to keeping all policies, including the skilled worker route, under review. We do have the flexibility to adapt and adjust on the basis of experience and evidence. Hon. Members will have heard me say before that the immigration system cannot be the solution to issues in the social care sector. We must not continue to rely on people coming to the UK when the focus should be on the domestic workforce to address shortages in the sector. As was just touched on, migration policy should not be an alternative for employers to offering the type of rewarding packages that care staff deserve.
To deliver change to the social care sector, we need to make changes to the way that we train, recruit, attract and retain staff. The Government are focused on working alongside the sector, including through Skills for Care, to ensure that the workforce can meet the increasing demands and continue to deliver quality, compassionate care. Immigration must be part of our overall strategy for this sector’s workforce, not a handy alternative for employers to—
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Migration Advisory Committee has effectively recommended a significant increase in the pay of social care staff, which they urgently need—and they have been under immense pressure this year. Will the Minister accept that recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee?
Kevin Foster
The right hon. Member will have seen the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee, and I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will consider them closely. I certainly hope that if she is keen on the MAC, she will support the Government’s position on the amendment in the Lobby later.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that paying people from the local labour force better, and paying for their training, is a much cheaper solution than building lots of houses to invite migrants in, and a much more popular one?
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend points out that in a time when we have large numbers of people affected by the current economic situation, we need to focus on our own UK-based workforce when it comes to filling needs.
Kevin Foster
I am conscious that I need to make progress.
Lords amendment 2 seeks to continue certain family reunion arrangements provided by EU law—the so-called Surinder Singh route. It would require us to provide lifetime rights for British citizens resident in the European economic area or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied or joined by their non-British close family members on current EU free movement law terms. In effect, that means that these rights would continue perpetually. Family members of British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreement in terms of returning to the UK. However, we have made transition arrangements for them. British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner in a long-term relationship, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 and continue to exist. Those family members will also then be eligible to apply to remain in the UK under the EU settlement scheme. Now that we have left the EU, we have to be fair to other British citizens, whether they are living overseas or in the UK, and to UK taxpayers who can be called on to pay the costs when family life is not established sustainably in the UK. In the long run, the same rules should apply to all, not continue indefinitely to give preferential treatment to those relying on past free movement rights that have been abolished. This is what a global immigration system means. However, I respect the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has made to me, and, as with other things, we will continue to keep this area under review.
Lords amendment 3 provides for children in care and care leavers who lose their free movement rights to obtain indefinite leave to remain. I pay tribute to the noble Lord Dubs, who sponsored this amendment in the other place. The Government agree on the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers, and other vulnerable groups, as we end free movement. I have also appreciated the points made in a letter I replied to from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We are providing extensive support to local authorities, which have the statutory responsibilities for this cohort, to ensure that these children and young people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This support includes the settlement resolution centre and grant funding of up to £17 million, to cover last year and this year, to organisations across the UK to support all vulnerable groups in applying to the scheme.
A survey of local authorities by the Home Office has so far identified fewer than 4,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with over 40% of those having already applied for status under it, and with most of those who have applied having already received an outcome of settled status. The Government have made it clear, in line with the withdrawal agreement, that where a person eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We have also made clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or a care leaver misses the deadline, they will still be able to obtain lawful status in the UK. There is no time limit to what may be reasonable, so an application today from a person who is a child aged eight would be reasonable if they discovered at age 18 that their local council had not applied for them.
The Government are not, therefore, persuaded of the need for this amendment. Applicants under the age of 21 are already granted immediate settled status under the EU settlement scheme where a parent has that status. The idea of applying such a provision retrospectively runs counter to the general operation of the immigration rules.
Kevin Foster
I have to make progress.
I will now turn briefly to Lords amendment 4, which relates to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I understand the important issues that this amendment seeks to address, and confirm the Government’s commitment to the principle of family unity and supporting vulnerable children. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), recently announced at the Conservative party conference our intention to reform our broken asylum system to make it firm but fair, and we intend to bring forward legislation next year to deliver on that intention. Our reformed system will be fair and compassionate towards those who need our help by welcoming people through safe and legal routes; it will, though, be firm in stopping the abuse of the system by those who misuse it— especially serious or persistent criminals—simply to prevent their removal from this country.
We have a proud record of providing safety to those who need it through our asylum system and resettlement schemes, and we have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019 and 20% of all claims made in the EU. However, now we have left the European Union, it does not make sense in the long term to have a different set of provisions for those in fundamentally safe and democratic countries than for those in the rest of the world, unless those provisions are based on effective reciprocal agreements relating to returns and family reunification. We have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and it remains our goal to negotiate such an arrangement, but the UK does provide safe and legal routes for people to join family members in the UK through existing immigration rules, all of which are unaffected by our exit from the European Union, such as the provisions under part 11 of the immigration rules.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to offer a physical document free of charge to any EEA citizen who applies for leave or has been granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. As announced earlier, this amendment engages financial privilege, so I will not debate it specifically, but I will point out that the House has considered that proposal on a number of occasions, and has declined it each time. We have made such a move across our migration system: in particular, we are looking at the British national overseas visa route, which will also use an electronic system. Again, that is similar to other countries: for example, Australia has had such a system since 2015.
Kevin Foster
I am going to have to start making some progress.
Lords amendments 6, 7 and 8 relate to detention time limits—an issue that is not directly relevant to the purpose of the Bill, which is to end free movement. In addition, at the heart of the Bill is a commitment to a global system and equal treatment of immigrants of all nationalities as we exit the transition period. On the broader point, imposing a 28-day time limit on detention is not practical and would encourage and reward abuse, especially of our protection routes. No European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that proposed in these amendments, and comparable nations have not gone down this route at all.
However, I recognise the point made by those who are concerned about this issue. As I said when we discussed a very similar amendment tabled on Report, we want to reform the system so that it makes a quicker set of decisions, and for our position to be clear that detention is used when there is no alternative, or when there is a specific need to protect the public from harm.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that many of us across the House are concerned about the fact that there is not a limit. He is absolutely right that what is required is an international convention and international agreement on this issue. Nevertheless, for some people to be detained indefinitely having committed no crime is a matter of concern, and I would like my hon. Friend’s commitment that he will keep this matter under review within the Home Office.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. We will absolutely keep it under review. I gently say that it is not possible to detain someone indefinitely as such; they can apply for immigration bail, and we have to meet a test that says there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, similarly, there are instances where it is out of the Home Office’s hands, or even this jurisdiction’s hands, and we cannot immediately remove someone by a particular day.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Kevin Foster
Very briefly, because I am conscious of the number of Members waiting to speak.
Mr Carmichael
Last year, the Government had to pay out £7 million to 272 people who were wrongfully detained. Was that good value for money?
Kevin Foster
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the law on detention is very similar to that pre-2015, when he was in the Cabinet. Immigration detention is part of our rules, but we have been reducing its use over recent years; again, it should be a last resort when other methods cannot be used. However, I say again with regret that introducing a 28-day limit would allow people to exploit the system and would actually run contrary to our ability to run an effective system.
I turn to Lords amendment 9. I appreciated the chance today and over the weekend to have significant conversations on this subject with my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who have had a strong passion and commitment to this area over a long period. Lords amendment 9 would require arrangements to be made in the immigration rules for the granting of leave to remain to confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens, in specified circumstances. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, for reasons that I will briefly set out.
Currently, confirmed victims of modern slavery who are foreign nationals from non-EEA countries and who do not already have immigration status are automatically considered for a grant of discretionary leave to remain. By “automatically” I mean they do not have to apply for it. Our national referral mechanism arranges for that consideration if, after a decision has been reached, there are conclusive grounds to believe that someone is a victim of modern slavery. EEA citizens are not automatically considered in that way, as many are likely to be exercising free movement rights and therefore do not require a grant of discretionary leave under UK immigration rules. They may, however, apply for discretionary leave if they wish.
However, to address some of the points that have been made, following the end of free movement, EEA confirmed victims who do not already have permission to stay in the UK, for example though our EU settlement scheme, will be treated in the same way as other foreign national victims and therefore receive automatic consideration for a grant of discretionary leave. The published policy will be amended to make that clear beyond 1 January 2021; the recent publication reflects the guidance that needs to be followed today, with free movement rights still in place.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I spoke overnight to the Home Secretary and we agreed that this was an anomaly and needed to be sorted, so I am pleased that he now commits to doing it. Will he also, however, commit to having a full and proper set of discussions with Lord McColl, me and others about the possibility of introducing modern slavery victims support legislation to iron out many of these anomalies?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. Yes, certainly; I am more than happy to engage with him about how we can look at this process. He will realise that it is not just in this area where there has traditionally been a difference, because EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights, so it would be odd to grant them status under immigration rules, but I am certainly happy to have that conversation. I also reassure Members that we would consider someone’s being held as a modern slave as reasonable grounds for a late application to the EU settlement scheme. I say gently that it would be unhelpful to have two very similar sets of criteria, one under the immigration rules and one under policy, so we do not accept Lords amendment 9.
Having been through the more contentious areas, I hope that Members support Lords amendment 11, which was introduced in reaction to feedback in the other place. I hope that Members accept the reasons I have outlined why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments that we ask the House to disagree with, but I hope that they have a sense of the Government’s commitment to the issues raised.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box for the return of this incredibly important piece of legislation. I thank peers in the other place for their detailed work on the Bill. We welcome the amendments that have been secured, most of them with significant majorities; several of the improvements before us today demonstrate cross-party support.
Lords amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. The Government’s intransigence on this matter has been beyond disappointing. This Bill has been an affront to those migrant workers working on the frontline in social care. To have clapped them on a Thursday night and then told them that they are unskilled and therefore not welcome on a Monday is both disrespectful and shameful.
Members on both sides of the House have witnessed the vulnerabilities across our health and social care sector, which, despite the best efforts of its dedicated workforce, has been pushed to the limits over the course of the pandemic. Unison, the UK’s largest trade union, represents our dedicated public sector workers, including social care workers, across the UK. We have worked closely with Unison, which has supported and represented workers throughout the pandemic. With its in-depth knowledge of the sector and foresight, it has articulated its vision of social care in its “care after covid” campaign to address the fault lines that were so exposed throughout the last six months. To propose a Bill that will make radical changes to the recruitment of social care workers without considering the impact is simply negligent and careless governance.
The Minister referred to the Migration Advisory Committee; in its recent report, commissioned at the request of the Home Secretary, it expressed concerns about the social care sector and argued that if necessary funding and pay increases do not materialise urgently, it would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector. That would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the covid-19 pandemic frontline response.
These remarks should unsettle the Government and spur them into action, and I fully expect that if the Government do not listen, on the day that the new points-based immigration system is implemented we will still be deeply entrenched in the battle against coronavirus. If we do not do our due diligence by adopting this amendment, the Bill is set to undermine social care recklessly at a time when we can least afford it, so we urge the Government to reconsider their position, commission the impact assessment and understand the impact of the Bill on the social care workforce, on visas and on the consequences for recruitment, training and staff terms and conditions.
Amendment 4 would ensure there are safe refugee family reunion routes after Dublin III ceases to be available in the UK following the end of the UK-EU transition period. I want to place on record my thanks to the brilliant and inspirational Lord Dubs for his tireless work and leadership on this amendment in the other place.
A great deal has been said about immigration over the summer and we on the Labour Benches want in the strongest possible terms to distance ourselves from the Home Secretary’s dangerous rhetoric and to thank those lawyers who play such an important role in ensuring that the UK is upholding its international and legal obligations. The amendment demonstrates the future for one of the safe and legal routes we have all advocated for over the summer.
The Dublin III regulation is for family reunion and represents legal routes to safety from Europe for children seeking to come to the UK. Family reunion under Dublin III is currently the only legal pathway to reach the UK from the EU for the purposes of claiming asylum. It will no longer apply after the transition period. If we do not seek to address this issue, I fear that we will see more images of people making precarious and life-threatening journeys on dinghies across the channel.
The Government will say that they have a draft proposal for family reunion; however, it is apparent that their proposal is woefully inadequate. The proposals remove all mandatory requirements to activate family reunions. They remove the child’s right to appeal against refusal, and some children would not be covered by the narrower definition of family which Parliament passed in a 2017 Act.
Other safeguards have been removed, too, such as deadlines. According to one non-governmental organisation, 95% of people helped by NGOs to obtain a right of passage would fail the test proposed by the Government. Existing immigration rules also fail to cover this specific area, and therefore this amendment gives Parliament a chance to enshrine in law the basic principle of family reunion.
This issue is incredibly salient and our thoughts are still fixed on the suffering and horrors caused by the fire at the Moria refugee camp in Lesbos. The scale of that tragedy could have been minimised.
We all heard the pleas before the incident to the Greek Government for help with numbers at the camp, yet the calls were ignored by the people in power.
It is worth noting that the number of people who have come in under Dublin III has historically been very small. Up to 2014, there were 10 or 11 a year, and since 2016, a little over 500 have come in under it. We hear about the Government’s proposed fairer borders Bill on asylum, but those children cannot wait. We are asking the House to use its power to give transformative opportunities to innocent children who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves fleeing persecution and destitution.
Matt Rodda
Does my hon. Friend agree that having physical proof is deeply reassuring to many older people in particular, some of whom might not be familiar with IT and might feel that an IT-based system alone does not give them the security they so want?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Many people have been confused about what status they have because of the emails they have received.
Dr Julian Lewis
I warmly endorse the last intervention the hon. Gentleman took. Governments of all stripes surely have enough experience of digital disasters to know that people need to have something tangible on which they can rely if they request it and if they feel insufficiently confident that a digital system guarantees that they can prove their status.
Bambos Charalambous
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to ensure that there is documentation, because we have seen the failings of other IT systems in the past and cannot allow that to happen again, especially on an issue as important as people’s rights.
Although we are open to the Government’s aspiration to move towards a digitally-focused system for all UK immigration, we are also aware of the internal failings that prevail within the Home Office. With that in mind, we urge the Government to think again about adopting Lords amendment 5.
Lords amendment 9 would give EEA and Swiss nationals who are victims of trafficking at least 12 months’ leave to remain and access to benefits during their period of recovery after being confirmed as victims of modern slavery. I thank Lord McColl for all his work on this issue and congratulate him on garnering considerable cross-party support. There is an unfortunate absence of domestic statutory provision in England and Wales for confirmed victims of human trafficking on their rights to support and assistance. Over the years, that deficiency has been filled by EU law.
As things stand, following the end of the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, human trafficking victims will be left in an undefined legal vacuum. Following the end of the EU settlement scheme, victims of human trafficking who are EEA or Swiss nationals will be able to apply only for discretionary leave to remain. The criteria for that are very narrow and it is unclear whether the same treatment as that for non-EEA nationals will apply.
Lords amendment 9 would provide much needed refuge and support to people who have suffered unimaginable uncertainty and abuse. We hope that the Government will support it. We must tackle the systemic factors that lead to modern slavery, provide support to those who are affected, and encourage more people to come forward to end the perpetual cycle of abuse and crime. I heard what the Minister said, and we wait with interest to see what the Government will come up with, particularly in respect of support for victims of modern day slavery.
To conclude, this is a bad Bill: it is reckless and ignores the evidence. The Lords amendments, many of which have cross-party support, are a genuine attempt to address those failings. If passed unamended, the Bill will lead to staff shortages in our care system at a time when it is perilously close to collapse; encourage dangerous crossings, as it fails to address safe family reunion routes after Dublin III; and lead to a lack of safeguarding and support for victims of modern day slavery. The amendments have been well debated both here and in the other place, and I urge the Minister to accept them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now have a time limit of six minutes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to be called to speak at this particular point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was the Centre for Social Justice, which I set up and had the fortune to chair, that published the original document that pushed the Government into passing the first modern-day slavery legislation, a matter of which they are rightly very proud, and that made the UK the first country in the world to bring forward such legislation. That legislation now needs overhauling. That has been the case for some time. The recent report, “It still happens here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s” states:
“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”
The one thing that we can learn from recent events in places such as Leicester, where we have uncovered the most appalling abuse of individuals who have been victims of slavery, working for a pittance and living in terrible accommodation, is that we really do not want to see that repeated in the UK. That is the point that I want to make in my speech today.
There must be some kind of recourse to public funds for victims of modern slavery, which will make them more secure than they are at the moment. We need to make that case in legislation. I am pleased that the Government have moved on the issue of European economic area nationals and recognised that there was some contradiction in what they were proposing in their guidance. I notice that a paragraph was inserted into the guidance after Lord McColl’s amendment had been passed, which, had it been there originally, might have meant that there would have been no need for this particular amendment. Two contradictions were made but I do not have the time to go through them now, so Members will have to read about them themselves. None the less, I am pleased that the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the Government have now rectified that matter and that non-EEA and EEA nationals will now be treated the same when it comes to discretionary leave to remain. That is a really important move. Having spoken to the Home Secretary and got that guarantee from her, it is a great pleasure to hear it from the Dispatch Box.
There has always been a problem with discretionary leave to remain and it was made worse by a Minister back in 2017 saying that there must be exceptional or compelling reasons to justify granting it. The bar has been set too high, and it is really important for us to recognise that people who come here having suffered the real persecution of slavery need to have a little more consideration shown for their position. They are not in the same boat as pure asylum seekers. In fact, those people can get a much longer period of time; whereas somebody who has genuine problems and who has been abused finds their time curtailed. That is why we need to look further than just at what the Government are doing here. I recognise that, perhaps today, this Bill is not the right way to try to press this matter forward, but I do say to the Government that there is another way.
I recognise also that the problem on that score is that a confirmed refugee can get five years’ leave to remain, but a confirmed—I repeat “confirmed”—victim of modern slavery gets no leave to remain at all. It seems to me that we have got ourselves in a twisted position, not because the Government—or any Government—want to be there, but because we have an anomaly, which we now need to rectify. That is the point that I really want to make in the short time available.
It is expensive for us to take someone through the national referral mechanism, conclude that they are genuine victims of modern slavery, but not provide adequate care. Those people remain very vulnerable and are quickly re-trafficked. As I said earlier, Leicester is a very good example of that, but there are other cities in the UK where people are drifting into these terrible conditions because they have nowhere else to go, or, for that matter, going into the national referral mechanism but facing uncertainty over ongoing care. They do not have the capacity to give evidence in court against their traffickers and that is the one thing that we want them to do. We need to be able to prosecute the traffickers to make sure that they never do it again. We need to think about this very carefully, so I have an ask of the Government—I said this when I intervened on the Minister. He needs to make sure that the change to the guidance is included and seen in the other place and that, critically, Lord McColl and others recognise that this has been done and that it is not just a gesture.
Secondly, I ask the Minister seriously—he said he was prepared to do this—to bring all this together in a new Bill that deals with the problems that we have now found. This is a good Bill, but we now find problems coming through relating to the abuse of people who are confirmed as having been brought in under modern-day slavery conditions and who we need to give support. I recognise that the Government are worried about people using modern-day slavery provisions as a route in, but the numbers coming in and getting a claim are so tiny that we can surely manage this. I understand the position in respect of failed immigration and people on asylum, but this is a very peculiar group that needs our care. If the Minister can commit to a discussion about future legislation with myself, Lord McColl and others in this place who would wish to be part of that, we may be able to make some progress on that.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who always speaks so expertly on issues of modern slavery.
The Lords amendments ask three important questions of MPs. First, are we going to protect and promote fair treatment for families and family unity? Secondly, will we look out for the most vulnerable? And thirdly, do we listen to legitimate concerns raised by communities impacted by migration policy? If the answer to those questions is yes, as it should be, we must oppose the Home Secretary’s motions and support the amendments made in the House of Lords.
Let me start my whistle-stop tour with Lords amendment 2, which is designed to protect families. The fact is that in the UK we have some of the most restrictive family visa immigration rules in the world, splitting up tens of thousands of British citizens and children from their spouses and parents. Sadly, that regime is now to be extended to British citizens and settled persons who happen to fall in love with European nationals. There is now little we can do to stop that, but we can stop the rules applying to British citizens who are already living elsewhere in the EEA with non-UK spouses and their families.
When such citizens left here and established family life elsewhere in the EEA, they had absolutely no reason ever to suspect that their ability to return would be restricted. This is not, as the Government have tended to suggest in some debates, about avoiding or circumventing rules; it is about British citizens having a legitimate expectation of an unrestricted right to return with their family. The Government should respect that expectation. On the one hand, the Government have, to an extent, recognised the particular circumstances of this group by providing a grace period, which is good in so far as it goes, but the grace period does not solve the problem; it simply postpones this deep unfairness for a couple of years. Basically, the Government are saying to many families, “You need to decide by March 2022. You can come back before then, uprooting your family, even in the most difficult of circumstances; otherwise, you will need to stay away altogether.” What the Government should do instead is simply remove the unfairness altogether and exempt this fixed and finite cohort from the rules forever. I really cannot see why that is such a difficult ask of the Government.
Lords amendment 4 is also about the importance of family unity. It is about protecting some of the most vulnerable people out there: people, including unaccompanied children, seeking asylum. It is not just common sense but common decency that says that this is the right place for an asylum claim to be considered if the applicant has a family connection here or if it is in the best interests of a child. As Lord Dubs said in the other place, this is not about the UK taking responsibility for all unaccompanied children; it is about taking our fair share of responsibility.
The Dublin system is far from perfect, but so many families have benefited from it, and indeed the UK has benefited from the system as well through the contribution that those asylum seekers and refugees have made. Alternative options in immigration rules, such as the exception route, are way too limited in scope and just will not do as an alternative. Whatever is or is not happening with negotiations, these people should not be the victims or the latest bargaining chips.
Lords amendment 3 would benefit another vulnerable group—children in care and care leavers—by fast-tracking their access to the settled status scheme. It would allow all children in those groups to proceed to fully settled status, rather than creating another cliff edge for a later date with pre-settled status. The Government have themselves acknowledged—the Minister acknowledged it today—that fewer than half of eligible children in those categories have applied to the settlement scheme with just eight months left to go.
The new approach in the Lords amendment is a practical, reasonable and now, I would say, urgent compromise, after Government arguments against an earlier iteration of the amendment that referred to deemed leave. It is just a practical way to assist the Government in achieving as broad a reach as possible for the EU settlement scheme. Having said that, I echo what Lord Dubs said when moving the amendment, which was that local authorities and the Home Office must also make sure that children entitled to British citizenship have full access to that without unnecessary fees and barriers. Although welcome, it is not enough for the Government to state that late applications from these groups would be accepted; although that is better than not accepting such late applications, we should be doing everything possible to avoid any period of their being undocumented, and all the huge difficulties and stresses that that can entail. So we support this amendment, and my amendment (a) would simply increase its scope to include another group of care leavers under legislation in Scotland, something that the Scottish Government have written to the Minister about.
Lords amendment 9 relates to a group of people who could not be any more vulnerable: the victims of the awful crimes of modern slavery. I pay tribute to Lord McColl and various other members of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, for their relentless pursuit of this issue. Our party will always support immigration leave being granted where that is required for such victims to put their lives back together, and that is exactly what Lord McColl’s amendment seeks to do. I agree with the observations of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—I was listening to the exchange between him and the Minister, and we will follow the progress in that regard—that we need to go further still. There are rights being lost for the victims of modern slavery from the European economic area, and we have not got ourselves into a place yet where those rights are being adequately replaced.
On the detention amendments, too many victims of modern slavery, far from being given a short grant of leave to remain to help rebuild their lives, end up instead in our hideous immigration detention estate, along with scores of others who should never be there. During the pandemic the numbers detained have dropped significantly and we should be aiming to keep numbers as low as possible. As the Minister said, detention should be a matter of last resort, and it should be for the absolute minimum period necessary, but the figures show that a majority of people detained are simply released again into the community. It is a badge of shame that the UK continues to be an outlier in failing to place any defined limit on detention. We are dealing with basic but fundamental principles: the right to liberty and the requirement for speedy judicial oversight of any deprivation of liberty.
Lords amendments 1 and 5 highlight the Government’s failure to listen to serious concerns. As we have heard, Lords amendment 1 flags up the huge danger that an end to free movement and the design of the future immigration system pose to the care sector. It is similar to an amendment tabled when this Bill was first in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). It is totally wrong to talk of cheap labour undercutting the resident workforce here; we should be expressing our gratitude for the amazing work that EEA citizens are doing in our social care workforce. The danger to the care sector has been spelled out by the sector and by the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, not just last week but repeatedly. Yes, the long-term future of care will require greater investment and better pay, but the Government have shown no indication or inclination to suggest that they are going to fix that any time soon, never mind in the two and a half months between now and the end of free movement. So to take this step in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic is just jaw-droppingly reckless. As the MAC said, ending free movement will
“increase the pressure on the social care sector, something that would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when…care”
is so
“central to the… pandemic frontline response.”
The Government are not listening to the MAC, but perhaps a review that would follow this amendment would force them to listen.
Finally, let me close by discussing Lords amendment 5 and paying tribute to those in the3million campaign group for their perseverance, even when it seems that the Government do not listen. Now their modest ask is that they are not used in the Home Office’s moves to go digital; they are simply asking that, like everybody else, they are provided with the physical means of proving their status here. The Minister referred to the example of Australia, but it spent five to 10 years trialling that system with a physical document as back-up. This is first about technology: the fact that someone’s legal status and rights can be verified only by a Home Office system, and all the risks inherent in that.
Dr Julian Lewis
In support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, let me say that it is not that millions of these documents would have to be issued; they would be issued only to people who felt the need to request them.
Stuart C. McDonald
Absolutely, and it would be the perfect trial of the Home Office system; if it really works as the Home Office anticipates, there will not be a demand for it. If the Home Office has confidence in the system, it should have nothing to fear from this. It is about not just technology, but human nature. We know that discrimination is a feature of the hostile environment policy, as private citizens are forced by the Government to do checks. They face harsh penalties if they get those checks wrong, so they will, as a result, play it safe. The danger is that a property will be let to, and a job will be offered to, a person with a passport and a visa, instead of to a person with a piece of digital code, all other things being equal. The3million is simply asking to have the same reassurance that everybody else has access to, and we should provide that.
The amendments could have a transformative effect for many marginalised and vulnerable people. They would enhance family unity and provide additional reassurance for those most directly impacted by Brexit. They could be a small silver lining on what we regard as an awful Bill. We should stand by the House of Lords’ amendments.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak to a number of amendments. I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, which I chair with the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss from the other place.
I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, because I agree wholeheartedly with every word, but, if I may, I will add to his comments. Just today, the organisation ECPAT published a freedom of information request which found that just 28 children who were confirmed victims of trafficking were granted discretionary leave to remain in the UK between 2016 and 2019. I therefore say to the Minister that the statistics do not stack up with the words we are hearing from the Dispatch Box. I know he is a good man and he wants to do the right thing, but we need to deliver as a Government so that the statistics back up what is being said.
The key point here is that we want to see prosecutions. We will not break the cycle of this horrendous crime if we do not bring the perpetrators to justice. That means having victims here in the United Kingdom who are able to testify, able to give evidence and able to bring the perpetrators to justice. It is incredibly important that the Government bear that in mind, because, as with all hidden crimes, without support given to the victims, who are the most vulnerable people imaginable and who have been through the most hideous experiences, we will never break the cycle and bring the perpetrators to justice.
I urge the Minister not just to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about support for victims, but to implement all measures from the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That was an excellent, groundbreaking and world-leading Act—we are using lots of clichés—but so much of it has not yet been implemented. If it was implemented fully, we would see so much more success with prosecutions, which is what we all want.
I will speak very briefly on Lords amendment 3. I urge the Government to deliver on this matter. Communication is absolutely key. We need to ensure that people who are entitled to claim settled status know about it. The international reputation of the United Kingdom is at risk here. Getting this wrong will not enhance the view of us by others in the world. We need to make sure that we get it right.
I want to focus the majority of my time on Lords amendment 4. I thank all Ministers for their engagement over the weekend. I spoke to Minister on the Front Bench—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—and to other Ministers in the Home Office. I know there is concern to make sure we get this right, but again it goes back to the point that we must help the victims, because we can never break the cycle of crime that is getting people to the point where they are in Calais, Dunkirk and Zeebrugge unless we can help the victims.
I gently say to the Minister—he is not guilty of this, but I gently say it to all Ministers—that we must not think of victims as good victims or bad victims. When a constituent who has been the victim of a fraud or other crime comes to our surgery, we might well think to ourselves, “Well, buyer beware, and you should have realised when this too-good-to-be-true offer was put in front of you. Maybe you should not have accepted it or given your bank details,” or whatever else it might be. However, we do not judge. We do not say, “We are not going to take your case, because you’re a bad victim who brought it on yourself.” Instead, we say to our constituents, “Of course we will take your case to Parliament. Of course we will raise it with Ministers. Of course we will take it to the highest authorities.” The same applies to the victims of traffickers. If somebody has been trafficked to Calais, Zeebrugge or Dunkirk, it is because they believe there is a chance of a better life. Whether they are educated and should have known better or whether they are very vulnerable victims, they are still entitled to be listened to and heard. It is clear from so many hidden crimes that until victims are believed and listened to, we cannot break the cycle.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), and I agree with the points that she made.
Last month, the Home Office published its comprehensive improvement plan in response to the Windrush scandal, with a big focus on listening to what outside organisations say, presumably with the intention of taking some notice of it. Simply ignoring the concerns that people have raised and ploughing on regardless is the reason why we ended up with the Windrush scandal in the first place.
In her foreword to the comprehensive improvement plan, the Home Secretary said:
“Today, the Home Office is already a very different place. We are listening to community leaders and organisations and urgent change is underway”.
I was hoping that that was not just hot air, but there is absolutely no hint of that change of heart in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. He has rejected out of hand all the Lords amendments. He was speaking for the old Home Office, not the new Home Office that we have been promised in the comprehensive improvement plan.
I will focus my short remarks on one of the amendments in particular—Lords amendment 5—which was raised in the excellent opening remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), as well as by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the SNP spokesperson, and it was supported in interventions by Members on both sides of the House. Support for the amendment has been underlined by a community organisation in my constituency. I will refer to that in a moment but I underline again that, as elsewhere in the Bill, community organisations, trade unions and businesses all agree. I quote in particular what the business group, London First, said about Lords amendment 5:
“With so much immigration control now being delegated to banks, landlords, and employers, the complicated system being proposed (involving websites, emails, passport numbers, passcodes, and security questions to prove one’s status) leaves everyone in an uncertain position. Legitimate migrants will struggle to prove their status and employers, service providers, and landlords will be reluctant to take part in, or to trust, such a convoluted procedure. A piece of physical proof that can be produced on demand would give everyone the certainty they need.”
London First is absolutely right. Why is the Minister, contrary to the assurance in the comprehensive improvement plan for the Home Office, not taking a blind bit of notice? This is purely about administrative convenience for the Home Office.
Support for Lords amendment 5 has been highlighted to me by the Roma Support Group, a long-established organisation doing excellent work in my constituency. The EU settlement scheme statistics show that Newham, the borough I represent, had a total of 91,000 applications submitted—the biggest number of any local authority—and within that, Romanians account for the biggest cohort, at about a third of the total.
The Roma Support Group pointed me to the European Commission’s digital economy and society index 2018 country report on Romania, which shows that by 2018 only 61% of Romanians were regular internet users—the EU average is 81%—and, looking at basic digital skills, the figure is 28% for Romanians compared with 57% for the EU average. The assessment of the Roma Support Group is that only 3% of its clients, and it has over 5,000 in my borough, are able to complete an online EU settlement scheme application independently, and it also estimates that only 20% of the families it deals with have an IT device, such as a tablet or laptop, available to them at home.
The Roma Support Group has told me about a Newham resident, Nicoleta, a single mother working in the hotel industry. She paid somebody to help her make the EU settlement scheme application in 2019. She did not know that free support was available. After she was granted status, the third party she had paid gave her a confirmation letter from the Home Office and told her that that paper would be the confirmation she needed. In July this year, she realised that the status she has is only digital and that she does not have the details needed to access her online account. She had to get somebody to call the Home Office and change the details on it.
Nicolaie works in the construction industry. In April this year, his work stopped due to the pandemic and he was told to make a universal credit application. He was asked to provide his EU settlement scheme details, for which he had applied with help from a local organisation, and he got into trouble as well because he could not access his digital status statement.
Of course, everybody can see the benefits of moving in the direction the Government want to, but the fact is there is a large number of people—thousands of people—who will not be able to make this work in the short term. I do say to the Minister that he should heed what he has signed up to in the comprehensive improvement plan, and accept Lords amendment 5.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I declare an interest as a barrister who has worked within the care system for many years.
I am delighted to be speaking in this debate at all, because it is further evidence of the fact that this House is making the necessary laws and arrangements for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The Government were elected on a mandate to deliver departure from the EU in clear terms, and reform of the present broken immigration system is very much part of that mandate. I receive many emails from my constituents in Derbyshire Dales who are pressing for such reform.
The primary purpose of this Bill is to end the free movement of persons in UK law, and to make EU citizens and their families subject to UK immigration controls. It is the Government’s clear intention that, at the end of the transition period, citizens of the EU and their families will require permission to enter and remain in the UK. For me, this is the logical result of our leaving the EU and becoming independent once more. I should mention that the Bill protects the immigration status of Irish citizens once free movement ends. This is only proper, and it is enshrined in a long-standing Ireland Act 1949 and subsequent legislation.
As is often the case, the Lords amendments seek to water down or negate the purpose of this important and good piece of legislation. I am of the view that if the amendments are passed, I would be letting down my electorate in Derbyshire Dales. I therefore oppose the amendments and wholeheartedly support the Government this evening. It is time for a clear and logical reform of the present broken immigration system.
I would like to turn to the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. Lords amendment 1 requires the Secretary of State to publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector within six months. This is wholly unnecessary. The Government already work with Skills for Care, which carries out independent reporting, and rely on the information of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, which will be providing annual reports on our new immigration system will be working. I am of the view that immigration is not the solution to the challenges the care sector faces. The solution to those problems rests at home. The Government are investing vast amounts of money, including £1.5 billion more funding in adult and children’s social care, and have launched a national recruitment scheme in this sector, which I support. The covid-19 pandemic has shown us how important this sector is and how important it is to treasure, train and retain social care workers in this country.
Miss Dines
No, I will not give way. Our focus needs to be investing in this country for more young people and older people to be retrained to work in this sector and to be valued with proper wages. We have a fantastic resource at home. In Derbyshire Dales, I have spoken to several care workers. They all work incredibly hard and we treasure them. For those reasons, I oppose Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 2 would amend clause 4 of the Bill. I cannot go into as much detail as I would like because of time constraints, but the change suggested would provide preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The people of this country did not vote to leave the EU to go on to grant such indefinite rights. It would provide an unfair situation for all other UK nationals who wish to live in the UK with family from outside the EU. The suggested creation of a lifetime right for one group of nationals over another—UK nationals living overseas who have families from other parts of the world—would be grossly unfair to our citizens. We are not leaving the EU and taking the EU’s broken immigration rules with us. European Union free movement simply needs to end.
Lords amendment 3 relates to children in care. The proposal is over emotive and simply not necessary. The Government are providing extensive support to local authorities, which have a legal responsibility already for applying on behalf of eligible children in care to get UK immigration status under the settlement scheme. In my practice at the Bar representing guardians, children, parents and local authorities, I witnessed such circumstances frequently. Furthermore, the Government have made it clear that they will accept late applications. The amendment is just political and wholly unnecessary.
I am not going to be able to spend much time talking about Dublin III, but it is worth remembering that this country is now a sovereign country and we can make our own laws. We have a strong record of supporting vulnerable children, refugees and asylum seekers, and we will do that. We have an admirable record internationally, and I do not accept the naysaying and doom that we hear from the Opposition. The fact is that we have an electoral mandate to fix the problems that exist in our broken electoral system, and I very much look forward to the great ideas of the Government for new legislation in that area next year. We will continue to provide a safe haven to those fleeing persecution and oppression and tyranny, but we will not allow organised criminals to continue to exploit people, and we will have to stop what is happening in bringing people who are exploited across the channel.
Briefly on Lords amendment 5, I say that we do not need to rely solely on written documents. Physical documents can get lost, stolen and are often tampered with. The online scheme is safer and more reliable. I therefore oppose the amendment. As I am running out of time, I cannot go into detail, save to say that a time limit is necessary to be able to control immigration, and any suggestion otherwise is fanciful. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government in opposing the amendments today.
Yvette Cooper
Can I say to the Government that I am disappointed that they are resisting all of the amendments from the Lords? Clearly, immigration legislation is needed, and new immigration rules are needed in time for January when the transition ends, but the purpose of Lords amendments is to try to improve those rules and the legislation.
I would say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) that that is what this debate is all about—for the UK to decide what principles it wants to embed in the immigration system for the future, and many of the Lords amendments are about establishing principles around compassion and drawing on the history the UK has long had of supporting refugees and also supporting the vulnerable.
It is disappointing that the Government are not responding to the mild request to have a social care impact assessment. It is only a limited request, but it is the right response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation that something needs to be done. It recommended a pay increase, which I would strongly like to see. In the absence of that, it said that social care should be added to the shortage occupation list to make sure that that vital service is not overstretched as we go through another difficult winter. The Government have provided no response to that at all.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Like others, I would like to thank all those in the other place for their time and their attention to the Bill. The amendments that they have sent to us are undoubtedly significant improvements and, like the right hon. Lady, I regret that all we have had from the Government is a de plano refusal of them. There are not even any amendments in lieu, which would have shown a level of engagement.
This is particularly true in relation to Lords amendment 1, an eminently modest proposal that has elicited the quite remarkable assertion that, somehow or another, the purpose of immigration is to keep wages and salaries low in the British care sector. I have to say that I struggle with that somewhat. I just do not buy the idea that, if we were to increase the level of pay in the care sector, we would see a flood of local labour going back into it. Notwithstanding that, it is quite remarkable to think that the Government would not want to have an impact assessment for an area of public policy with whose financing we have struggled for almost as long as I have been in this House. Indeed, I cannot remember a time, in any part of the United Kingdom, when we did not struggle with its finances.
I want to touch briefly on Lords amendment 5, which was promoted in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Oates. Various points on this were made exceptionally well by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The promise made by the Government at the election last year was that there would be some sort of evidence-based settlement scheme, but now we are told that it will be enough just to rely on a digital provision. I strongly suspect that, inside the National Audit Office, there are alarm bells and lights that flash every time a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that there will be a digital solution to a problem. In my experience, any digital solution generally creates a new problem, especially for those who are older and those who are digitally excluded, for whom this is going to create a further and unnecessary level of exclusion.
I want to focus the bulk of my remarks this evening on Lords amendments 6 to 8 and 10, which were promoted in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee. Subject to your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we might test the opinion of the House in relation to these amendments later this evening. It is worthy of note that the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe that locks people up indefinitely for immigration purposes. Detaining people for months on end without giving them any idea of how long they will be there is clearly inhumane, but it is also expensive and unnecessary.
I have long since given up trying to plead with Home Office Ministers on the basis of humanity and compassion, but I would have hoped that a case based on economy and efficiency would find some favour. However, even that seems not to be the case. When I made an intervention on the Minister, he deftly ignored my point that £7 million was paid out last year and that there were 272 cases of wrongful detention. That is the scale of the crisis in this area. It really worries me that there is so little concern about the fact that no fewer than 272 people were detained wrongfully. That is wrong, it is inefficient and it is expensive. Surely for those reasons at least, the Government should be looking to find a better and more humane basis for doing this.
Stephen Timms
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he has given up asking the Home Office for compassion, but I wonder whether he has seen, in the comprehensive improvement plan, that theme 2 involves a more compassionate approach.
Mr Carmichael
That is indeed the case. However, the rhetoric and the reality do not always provide a perfect match in this regard. But in fairness, and at the risk of playing with semantics, it would not be that difficult to achieve a more compassionate system because we are currently starting from an exceptionally low base. At the end of June this year, even in the midst of the pandemic, there were 40 people who had been in detention for over a year and four people who had been in detention for more than two years. This has particular importance when one considers the other areas that we have discussed, such as the right to family reunion for child refugees. To pick up the point from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in relation to amendment 9, I endorse his views on human trafficking. The problem in all these cases is that we do not get upstream because we do not get the necessary co-operation from the victims themselves. If the focus in our system was on catching those who are responsible for the trafficking, and not those who are the victims of it, we would be in a much stronger position. The issue of unlimited detention goes right to the heart of that. It is about which end of the telescope we see the problem through.
The amendments that are before the House this evening are all significant improvements. I hope that the Government, on reflection, will find a way to engage with this in a more constructive and compassionate way.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is difficult, in six minutes, to do justice to such an important piece of legislation, with such a diverse set of amendments. I want to speak primarily to Lords amendment 3—the old new clause 2 that I proposed on Report—and Lords amendment 4, which is the old new clause 29 on the Dublin replacement. However, I also support Lords amendment 6, previously proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and Lords amendment 9, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke so eloquently about.
On Lords amendment 3, we had previous arguments about lots of children in care going under the radar. There are now just eight months to go until the end of the EU settlement scheme. The Home Office originally told us that it estimated that there were some 9,000 EU children in care and care leavers in this country, but now, after a survey completed by 90% of local authorities, it suggests that the figure is under 4,000. Why the drop? At a similar time, it estimated that the number of EU adults who would register to qualify for the EU settlement scheme would be 3 million, but it has turned out to be over 4 million. Why does the number for children in care go down and yet the number for adults has gone up?
These children are of course already in this country. Not a single additional child will be brought into this country under this legislation. It is about regularising status and giving those children safety and giving confirmation to children already in this country. That is why the amendment is still very important. We risk another Windrush scandal for a particularly vulnerable set of children growing up in care who inevitably have more chaotic lifestyles than most people.
Recent research by the charity Coram, “Children left out?”, highlighted the mixed practice among local authorities in identifying and supporting children in care through the EU settlement scheme, with fears that some authorities are making no attempt to identify children in their care who need to regularise their status. Of course, there is no incentive for authorities to regularise that status through citizenship when it costs £1,012, for every child, to do that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is drawing attention to a very important issue. Does he agree that the crucial point is that a local authority may have the statutory duty as the corporate parent, but if the child does not have documentary evidence proving their nationality—not their residence, which the local authority can prove easily, but their nationality—the local authority is unable to take forward the application at all? I hope the Minister will be able to address that issue when he responds to the debate.
Tim Loughton
That is absolutely right. It is very difficult to replace documents, and many people come here without any documents. We are relying on the timescales of high commissions and embassies in various EU countries, and it is not exactly a priority of social workers, who are snowed under with all the other safeguarding work they have to do.
This is a really important amendment. Interestingly, there was a judgment by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman against Liverpool Council. A care leaver complained that the council had failed to regularise his immigration status and failed to secure him British citizenship and a passport, which meant he could not travel or work. That complaint was upheld. The Government did not vote against the amendment in the Lords, so what has changed between then and tonight? This is a great opportunity for the Government to show why such a provision is necessary, without adding a single additional person to the immigration figures, if that is what they are actually worried about.
Karen Bradley
It is often said that these are older children aged 14, 15 or 16. I have a 14-year-old, and if my 14-year-old did not have me, I would want to know that they could go to one of my family, be that my brothers or my in-laws. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend is right. I have met many of these children in camps in Calais, in Zaatari in Jordan and in some of the less well-run camps in Greece. These are real children, bereft of parents in many cases, with just a link in the UK. Without this amendment—without a replacement for Dublin III—those children have no obvious safe and legal route to get to the UK.
The Minister rightly says that we have been very generous in this country through various other schemes, and I agree. Some 7,400 family reunion visas were issued in the year to March, and there is also the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the hugely successful Dubs scheme, under which 480 children have come here. Like everybody, I pay tribute to Saint Alf Dubs for the fantastic work he does for this cause. It was a privilege to go to the United Nations and the Zaatari camp in Jordan with him. Of course, the Dubs scheme is full, and none of those other schemes is currently operating. From 1 January, there will be no effective mandatory family reunion scheme either, and there will be no safe and legal route for these children to come to the UK.
I am tough on the illegal migrant channel crossings. I think many of those people who can afford to pay people smugglers are effectively jumping the queue ahead of those who are in refugee camps, who are going through due process and who are abiding by the rules. If we are going to be tough—and, gosh, we need to be tougher on those routes, which line the pockets of people smugglers—we need to make sure we have alternative safe and legal routes for those genuine vulnerable refugees, particularly children, to whom we have a duty of care and can offer a safe haven in this country.
Of course, this has come at the worst time, as we heard from the Labour Front Bencher, after the fires in Lesbos at the beginning of September, in camps that were already five times over capacity, with over 13,000 people residing in a centre built for 2,757. There are now more than 1,600 unaccompanied children on the Greek islands, many whose basic needs are not being met, and many of these children have chronic illnesses. As of last week, there were more than 300 covid cases on Lesbos alone, with a hospital that has capacity for just 50 people. These are deeply vulnerable children, dangerously exposed to people traffickers and other exploitation.
Some 7% of these children are under the age of 14, yet we have no scheme to deal with them, despite having taken many reunification cases earlier in the year for such children. France has taken 350, Portugal 500, and Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia are taking these children. What are we doing about it, Minister? The Government have said we do not have places for them, but more than 30 local authorities have identified 1,400 places if the Government will make the scheme work and will pay the cost of it.
We need a Dubs 2, and we need a family reunion scheme, regardless of Brexit. We need it. We have a great tradition of saving these children; if we do not have it in this Bill, come 1 January, we will have no safe and legal route for very, very vulnerable children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. After the next speaker the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. I give that warning in advance so that Members can prepare if necessary.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who made a powerful contribution not only on amendments 3 and 6 but right the way through his comments. It is a testament to the House that almost every contribution thus far has been on the right track and has exuded the compassion that we want to show as a country, and none more so than that of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley); I was greatly enthralled by what she had to say and agree with the sentiments she expressed.
On amendment 5, the Government have engaged financial privilege. They are asking this House to disagree on the grounds of the financial implications of the proof of status document and for no other reason: engaging financial privilege means that is the rationale for asking us to disagree to amendment 5. I ask the Minister to reflect on that in his comments. If the only issue is finance—if he recognises that a biometric residence permit, for example, is available for less than £20—I hope that, should there be a subsequent attempt in the other place to insert a similar amendment without proposed subsection (2), the Government will agree to it, because the argument is not only about digitalisation and the difficulties associated with online information, but about people’s sincere desire to hold a permit outlining their status. The Government should engage with this issue thoughtfully.
I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House on indefinite detention, and the Minister knows that I have quite a rigid position on the issue. I supported more keenly amendments that were previously before this House that at least gave the opportunity for an extension of an additional 28 days. I thought that gave Government more latitude in exceptional circumstances, but I still believe that indefinite detention is immoral and unjustified. I have not heard a justifiable rationale for it yet; it is unjustifiable.
We hear about the difficult and hard stories and we hear about the excessive cases. If someone breaks the law in this country, then we should arrest them and put them through due process. If somebody is going through an immigration application process, we should not put them in custody without any sense of how long the process will take. We should treat them as we would wish to be treated: humanly and humanely.
I will use the remainder of my speech to touch on amendment 9. I am pleased to speak in support of this amendment, which was supported in the other place through a powerful speech made by my colleague Lord Morrow, who as a private Member in the Northern Ireland Assembly brought through our seminal Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. To those who talk about the United Kingdom Government bringing forward modern slavery legislation that is the best in the world, I say that it started in Northern Ireland. We are proud of that record. We are the first devolved Administration to bring forward such legislation, and we are proud of what was achieved.
I listened carefully to the opening remarks made by the Minister. I am grateful to him for a telephone conversation we had earlier today, and for the subsequent correspondence that he has shared. I think he knows from the tenor of contributions made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others that there is still work to be done on amendment 9, and on changing the terms of the guidance available. I recognise the development that he has brought forward this afternoon, but I am still not sure from what we have heard that we should be convinced that that is a good enough reason for this House to agree with the Government and disagree with the Lords amendment.
The challenge is that any trafficked person from an EEA territory who arrives in the UK after 31 December will only have one long-term route to recovering discretionary leave to remain, whereas today, they have two. While the commitment to automatic consideration is progress, it does not change the fact that the then Government Minister spoke to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in 2017 as part of that Committee’s inquiry on victims of modern slavery, and said that there must be
“exceptional or compelling reasons to justify a grant”
of discretionary leave to remain. One has to go through freedom of information requests—it should not be so difficult to get this information from the Home Office—to establish that 8% to 9% of applications from those certified as victims of modern slavery get discretionary leave to remain. That is far too low, and it is something that the Government need to consider. I fail to see why confirmed victims losing their right to recovery through treaty rights will be particularly reassured by the commitment that they will automatically be considered for something that, unlike recourse to public funds through their treaty rights, is only given in an exceptional situation.
The other difficulty with the idea that the introduction of automatic assessment for discretionary leave to remain is an effective replacement for recourse to public funds through treaty rights is that discretionary leave to remain is discretionary. It is not a right, but clause 12 makes it a right; Lords amendment 9 makes it a right. If a confirmed victim of modern slavery who is an EEA national meets the criteria in subsection (2), their access to leave to remain will no longer be discretionary, and that is what we should strive to achieve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The time limit is now reduced to four minutes.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who speaks with such compassion. As a child, I remember being told, “Virginia, life just isn’t fair”, but why can life not be fair? I believe in fairly rewarding people for the hard work they do. I believe in using our hard-earned taxpayers’ money fairly and responsibly to honour the effort that has been put into generating it, and I believe we must fairly give our gratitude to those who help others, such as Roy Fyles and the many hidden heroes who do so much for others in my constituency.
While we have been a member of the EU and have been abiding by the principle of free movement of people, we have been unable to make our immigration system fair, but that is now changing. As we near the end of the transition period, we are greeted with many new opportunities: from 1 January, we will give priority to those with the highest skills and the greatest talent—scientists, engineers, academics and other highly skilled workers—so that we are better equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century, whether those be the need for increased numbers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics professionals, or of doctors.
As the Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, I receive many letters and emails from my constituents who simply cannot get an appointment with a doctor in Holyhead. These services are vital for their health and wellbeing. One of my constituents, Mr Barry Smith, wrote in desperation: “There are two GP surgeries in Holyhead, Longford and Cambria, who for some time have not had consistent or regular doctors. Is there anything you can do to bring forward a solution to the dire shortage of GPs in Holyhead?”
What is the solution? Keith Amos, head of service for managed practices, and his team at Betsi Cadwaladr have been working hard to ensure that my constituents can access the healthcare support that they need on the island, whether that is e-consultation, paramedics or occupational therapy, but there is an ongoing struggle to recruit GPs. Today, he told me: “In north Wales we are desperately short of GPs. The key is that we recruit doctors with the right qualifications.” However, a long-term solution is in sight. I am pleased to say that Bangor University’s new four-year graduate entry medical degree with Cardiff University is unique, and the pro vice-chancellor for learning and teaching said that she is delighted to be working with Cardiff on that step change. But what about the here and now? How can I help my Ynys Môn constituents get access to a GP?
Let me conclude by saying that we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and I pay tribute to everyone in it. The Bill will give us flexibility to recruit medical professionals from abroad and in specific areas.
Nadia Whittome
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who speaks with expertise and passion about healthcare in her constituency. It is a privilege, too, to speak to Lords amendment 1, which would require an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector.
It was not so long ago that everyone in this House hailed our key workers as heroes and we stood on our doorsteps and clapped for our carers. It is care workers, cleaners, cooks and delivery drivers who keep this country running, but they are also the people this Bill would keep out of the country. One in five health and social care workers was born outside the UK. When I was a care worker, I worked alongside talented and dedicated carers from Zambia, Spain, Italy; we worked long hours to look after elderly people, yet the Government have the cheek to call them low skilled and to say that they do not belong here.
When I went back to work during the pandemic, I had to retrain. My day would look like this: getting up at five; making notes during handover; administering medication; dealing with someone who had had a fall; hoisting someone twice my size, and being alert at all times to small changes that might indicate a serious medical problem. I would try my best to brighten someone’s day and make them feel valued, knowing that I would probably be the only person they saw that day, all while meticulously recording everything that happened on every call.
Our key workers are not low skilled; they are underpaid. They should be rewarded with a pay rise, not threatened with deportation. The purpose of the Bill is to close our borders with Europe. Those who make over £25,600 a year will be allowed in, and those who are paid less will be kept out. That is what a points-based system looks like. It is free movement for those who can afford it and a hostile environment for everyone else.
This Bill will not solve the problems my community faces. It is not foreigners taking away jobs; it is this Government refusing to extend the furlough scheme. It is not migrants running the NHS into the ground; they are keeping it going. If the Minister is so committed to increasing wages, I urge him to listen to the Migration Advisory Committee and increase the wages of care workers to at least £10 an hour. Whether you are a retired miner from Mansfield, a Deliveroo rider in Nottingham or a Bulgarian mum who cleans this very building, we have more in common with one another than we ever will with those who try to divide us. We all want to protect our families. We all want to contribute to our communities. We all know what it is like to have no power, and we all know that it is Ministers who are making people powerless.
We have an enormous privilege as Members of this House, but being paid £80k a year does not make our lives worth any more than those of people being paid £8.72 an hour. We have a responsibility to vote for these amendments and to treat people—our neighbours, our friends, our co-workers—who were born on a different soil in the way that we would want to be treated ourselves and the way that we would want our families to be treated.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who spoke so eloquently about the impact of Lords amendment 1 and the importance of wages for people who do some of the most important work in our country.
I will speak to Lords amendment 6, which would place a time limit on immigration detention and was moved so well by the noble Baroness Hamwee in the other place. Immigration detention is the ghastliest aspect of the failed immigration system we inherited from the last Labour Government. However, we can no longer apportion the blame to them, because it was so very long ago.
This amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to start to modify the worst aspect of immigration detention, which is that we never tell people when they will come out. That is the most atrocious thing to do to anyone. Those of us who have been through the national lockdown or quarantine know how psychologically debilitating it can be. Imagine being in that position and never knowing when you will come out.
This is an opportunity to make change. This is an amendment that the Government could have adopted. It is an amendment that screams, “We can do better. Please accept this.” The Minister said in his opening remarks that 28 days was a very short limit. Of course, the Government had the opportunity to put in their own limit, if they had wished to. They did not do that. It is another indication of the lost opportunity we see with this amendment today.
Unfortunately I do not compliment the Minister on this too often, but I was very pleased that he did not use the usual Home Office trope that putting a time limit on immigration detention would let out the rapists, the murderers and all the other people they like to scare others about. As he well knows, that argument does not hold water. There were 24,500 or so people in detention in 2019, of whom 26% were detained for more than 28 days. That is 6,373 people—a vast number—who were detained for over 28 days. That has nothing to do with failures in the criminal justice system in processing people’s immigration claims while they are in prison.
As the Minister indicated in his speech and as others have said, we are looking towards a new system that promises to speed up application processes and make our asylum system more effective. I say gently to him that the Government cannot speed up a broken immigration system without causing more harm. It is better first to recognise the failures in the system we have before seeking to speed the process up, thinking that that will somehow provide a solution.
It is for that reason that I am so disappointed the Government have not taken this opportunity to put in a time limit or to say, “We understand the psychological problems that come when we detain someone without telling them they can leave.” As the Government come forward with the new system, I want them to say, “When someone comes here to claim asylum, we will provide them with access to the best psychological resources, so that we can understand what underpins why they have sought asylum.” I want people to have the best access to legal aid and legal rights so that their claim can be made with the greatest precision and so that honourable claims for asylum have the best chance of being heard and recognised.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Like other hon. Members, I rise to speak to Lords amendments 4 and 5. Lords amendment 5 would ensure that EU citizens received physical proof of settled status if they request it.
The Government have responded to calls for physical proof by saying that digital status
“cannot be lost, stolen, damaged or tampered with.”
What a great argument. Why don’t we move to digital passports next? For EU citizens living in the UK, their settled status certification could soon have similar importance to a passport. Also, the Government’s response is simply not true. Digital data is regularly lost and stolen. It is also not true that digital data cannot be damaged or tampered with. The3million has heard of just that from an EU citizen—the photograph of her digital status has been swapped with another, without her knowledge or consent.
Some 22% of people do not have the essential digital skills for day-to-day life in the UK. Those who struggle with digital skills will not be able to access their status when they need it without further help. It will mean widespread discrimination in a number of areas from finding employment or a place to live to opening a bank account. A survey from the Residential Landlords Association found that 20% of landlords are less likely to consider renting to EU or EEA nationals simply because it is becoming very complicated. Is it any wonder that the lack of physical documentation is causing real anxiety? Digital simply does not work. Lack of physical documentation will have very real consequences for EU citizens living in the UK. Amendment 5 simply ensures that EU citizens have the same quality of life, housing and employment. The callous disregard of this Government for people and their rights because we have left the EU has been sickening, and I simply do not believe that that is what the British people voted for.
I urge Members to protect children and families by supporting amendment 4. I simply cannot understand the cruelty that has driven this Government to decide not to guarantee family reunion. What has become of this once tolerant nation whose rules were based on a humane response to tragedy and hardship? All too often, it is now children who lose their lives in the dangerous attempts to be reunited with a family member. Those children are already traumatised by conflict, loss of family members, destitution and fear for their lives. Families must be together, and the UK should guarantee that. Removing safe and legal routes to the UK is cruel and counterproductive. Again, this is such a shame given that we once had a humane and compassionate response to people in hardship. It simply increases the risk of dangerous journeys and exploitation by criminal gangs and we have already heard much about that this evening.
Research from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees shows that children are especially likely to resort to people smuggling when access to family reunion is delayed or at risk. What is more, our communities are ready to support unaccompanied children, to give them a home and a chance to rebuild their lives. Councils have pledged 1,400 places for unaccompanied child refugees in Europe if only the Government would provide them with a legal route. It is inexplicable that this Government are not prepared to support the efforts of councils and local people whose hearts are simply in the right place. We have a choice about the sort of country that we want to be: do we callously turn our backs on those most in need, or do we uphold the values of compassion and humanity? I have not given up on urging the Government to listen to compassion and humanity. I urge the Government and Members across the House to please do the right thing.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which ends free movement, takes back control of our borders, delivers on people’s priorities and paves the way for a modern, fairer, points-based immigration system that will welcome skilled workers from across the world to contribute to the United Kingdom’s economy, communities and public services.
I want to consider the amendment that proposes that children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care or entitled to care leavers’ support are granted automatic indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme. The Government have legislated through the EU withdrawal agreement Act to protect the residence rights of EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members who are in the UK by the end of the transition period. In addition, the Government fully opened the EU settlement scheme to such citizens and their family members in March last year.
The concern is that if eligible children are not identified and supported into the scheme, they will be at risk of being left here unlawfully through no fault of their own. This amendment would give EEA and Swiss children who are currently in the UK a default safety net to qualify under the EU settlement scheme if it were later found out that the necessary paperwork had not been lodged at the appropriate time by either a social worker or a local authority. No matter the circumstances in which these children find themselves here, they are innocent and, on the face of it, this amendment would be a sensible and humane measure to take. We cannot have another Windrush-type situation where children who have been legally in the UK for most of their lives apply later for a job or for accommodation as adults, only to find that there is no trace of them through no fault of their own.
It is of concern that looked-after children and care leavers who currently call the UK home are at risk of being left undocumented if they do not receive settled status through the EU settlement scheme. The Government have acknowledged that just 40% of identified looked-after children and care leavers have had applications made on their behalf some 18 months since the launch of the EU settlement scheme, which is extremely worrying. However, the Government have confirmed that they have focused on working closely with local authorities to ensure that vulnerable groups get UK immigration status under the scheme. I urge them to continue to support local authorities in those endeavours.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am honoured to speak in this important debate in support of the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendments 4 and 5, which are reasonable amendments that were supported by great majorities in the Lords. Amendment 5 provides an option of providing physical proof of immigration status under the EU settlement scheme to prevent disenfranchisement of EU citizens.
In Wandsworth, there are 41,000 EU nationals, which is 13% of my constituents, so this is a big issue for my constituents in Putney. Two of those constituents, who have lived in the UK for 30 years, are French citizens and classical musicians with settled status in this country. They have written to me and said: “We are very concerned by the fact that we have no physical way of proving our status when we come back from holidays or trips abroad, and we are afraid that at any moment a similar situation to the Windrush population might happen to Europeans who’ve settled in this country.”
Moreover, Citizens Advice Wandsworth workers who support EU citizens are concerned about that aspect of the Bill. Access to proof of settled status requires digital skills, access to the internet and a suitable device. Time and again, they have seen that vulnerable people find it difficult or impossible to view or prove their status. That means that they are unable to prove their rights in the UK when they are seeking job opportunities, finding a place to live or even getting treatment in hospital. They find that they are discriminated against in those circumstances because they cannot have the physical documentation that they need to prove their status. That cannot be right.
Lords amendment 4 allows unaccompanied children and vulnerable adults to claim asylum in the care and context of their family, which will prevent dangerous journeys from being taken to join them. I have been to the camps in Calais—they were not really camps; they were a lot of bushes in an area near Calais—and I have seen the traffickers circling the area. I know that if any of my children were in that camp and their siblings were just across the channel waiting and able to protect them, I would do everything I could to reunite my family members. To narrow it down to just parents is not fair when many have lost their parents—that is why they fled their country and why we can rescue those children and show compassion.
On 20 December last year, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and stated that the Government were “absolutely committed” to continuing family reunion. A Home Office statement on 15 January used exactly the same language, saying it was
“absolutely committed to the family reunion of refugee families”.
There has been commitment after commitment to family reunion, yet it is not in a good enough state in the Bill. That will leave children such as Lili, who fled Eritrea and was found by Safe Passage on the streets of Rome, in a highly vulnerable situation, instead of being reunited with her brother as she was. She wants to be a computer engineer. That is compassion—to allow those children to be here.
To conclude, unless we act tonight, 2021 will be the year in which child refugees in Europe lose the only safe legal route to sanctuary in the UK. Voting against this amendment would be quite wrong. I urge Members on both sides of the House—we have heard good arguments from Members on both sides for this—to think of children such as Lili, do the right thing and vote for Lords amendment 4. It is time to show our British values of compassion and justice, and to deliver for refugee children.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I have been pleased to support this Bill throughout its passage, particularly for its two primary aims of ending free movement of labour and introducing a points-based system. I wish to focus mostly on Lords amendment 1 and social care. As has been discussed, the amendment would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of ending free movement of labour on the social care sector. I spoke on Second Reading and served on the Bill Committee, and at every stage of my involvement in this Bill I have heard Opposition Member after Opposition Member try to claim that in some way the only way to fix labour shortages in the UK is by immigration. I simply do not agree with that analysis. In the Committee stage, we heard from Brian Bell, the MAC’s interim chair, that only 5% of social care workers come from EU migration. In constituencies such as mine, unemployment is standing at 10.5%. Are the Opposition genuinely trying to say that these jobs in the social care sector are not ones that more than 6,000 people in my constituency can have and that they are out of reach for my constituents? I do not agree.
Immigration plays a very important role in managing labour markets, but it does not solve all the problems all the time. The Government are tackling this issue of social care head on; we have seen the investment of £1.5 billion in adult and children’s social care, along with a national recruitment campaign for the sector. I absolutely support those two things. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), made a fair point about the MAC suggestion about pay. Every Conservative Member stood on a manifesto that pledged to look at social care and, importantly, at a way of redesigning it so that it is fairer for those who are cared for, their families and carers too. That is very important, and it is incumbent on all of us that we come to some kind of consensus across this House on that system. In the same way as we see a consensus on the NHS, we need to come to one on social care.
On the NHS, there will be times, including now, when there are gaps in the labour market, which is why I am pleased that the Bill contains provision for the health and care visa, which will be available for people to use to come to this country to work in the NHS. That is very important.
I conclude by saying that I am happy to support this Bill and will be voting to reject the Lords amendments, because I will be fulfilling my promise to my constituents to end free movement of labour, to introduce a points-based system and to deliver on a firm but fairer immigration system for this country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
This is a thoroughly depressing Bill, one that is entirely political and deeply impractical. That is the kind of Bill, or Act, as it will become, that does not stand the test of time. That we are celebrating the loss of the freedom of British people and thinking it is a good thing would be comical if it were not so tragic, confident though I am that this will not last.
Let us look at some of the details. The Lords amendments are entirely practical and reasonable. Indeed the Minister himself has accepted that, in principle at least, some of them fit that description. I want to focus on Lords amendments 4 and 5. Lords amendment 4 would of course provide the opportunity for family reunion—a safe and legal route. The Home Secretary herself, at the Conservative party conference just a few weeks ago, talked about the importance of safe and legal routes, but of course we are sleepwalking out of one of the safe and legal routes we currently have, the Dublin settlement, with no sign of any kind of meaningful replacement to take its place. If we are—and I am sure all of us here are—outraged and filled with compassion and horror at what we have seen in recent times as people have made the death-defying journey across the channel in rickety boats, taking desperate risks because they are desperate people, the answer is most certainly to provide safe and legal routes. Lords amendment 4 gives the Government the opportunity to have a safe and legal route, and to reject it is music to the ears of the human traffickers. I do not yet understand why the Government seek to turn down such a route via either compassion or practical application.
On amendment 5, it seems an absolute no-brainer that EU citizens with settled status granted to them by this Government should have physical proof of that status. I have had a number of my constituents in touch with me recently who are deeply concerned about the lack of physical documentation. I talked to a person working for a local school and people working in hospitality in Windermere and in Kendal who are concerned about the lengthy multi-step process involving passport, date of birth and a unique one-off code sent to their phone, their employer’s email addresses, business details and both accessing the Government’s website separately. Members have already spoken of the occasional tendency for Government IT schemes not to work completely perfectly. Like other issues that we are talking about tonight, this has huge resonance with the appalling Windrush scandal. While there may be some debate as to which Government bears responsibility for the heartbreak of the Windrush scandal, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever who is to blame for this one. They saw it coming and they voted for it.
Comments were made earlier about the minimum income salary threshold. The Lake district hospitality industry is possibly the most hard-hit part of the UK economy as a result of the coronavirus. May I point out also that 20,000 people working in that industry are from outside the UK, and if we say to 90% of them, “You are not welcome here unless you’re earning a figure that your employers cannot afford to pay”, that would deal an appalling hand to, and damage massively, an industry that is struggling to cope with the covid crisis? It is time for politics that is more practical and less political.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and although we will not agree on much, I am sure we both agree that immigration has often brought many delights to this country. In fact, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, my grandparents on my mother’s side—Paul Kreciglowa and his wife Lilly —were refugees in the second world war. My grandfather was in a gulag in Siberia and managed to get out by fighting against Nazi Germany. My mother was born in a displaced persons camp, and they settled here. It has brought many delights to my family, so it is a cause that is very close to my heart. Nevertheless, we have to have a sensible immigration policy that we have control over and in which we actually have the right to say who we want and who we do not want in this country. I fear that the Lords amendments would undermine our ability to take back control of our lives.
Many people in Rother Valley voted to leave the European Union because they wanted control over their lives, and they wanted control of many issues, including immigration. This Bill, unamended, does take control back of our immigration system. Unfortunately, if we were to accept these Lords amendments we would undermine what I think is a key aspect of this Bill, and that is fairness. To me, fairness is one of the most important things in life, and fairness is one of the most important things to residents of Rother Valley. These amendments undermine fairness and I will highlight that in the short time I have available.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Much has happened since the last time we debated the Bill in this House. We saw the worst of the pandemic, and we saw the ill-conceived words spoken in this House about who was low-skilled completely disproven, as those same people were our key workers who continue to see us through these tumultuous times. It was refreshing to see some of the regular scare stories about migrants displaced by splashes about migrant key workers. This Bill and the Government’s points-based system, which is not legislated for in the Bill, does not recognise that.
The Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the income threshold would mean that 69% of EU nationals currently here would not even be eligible to enter the country under these new rules. The trade union, Unison, has explained that there will be 122,000 shortages in social care, with projections from think tanks explaining that that could be up to 250,000 by 2030. This does not even help our workforce, our skills shortage or our economy, so what logical reason could there be not to have an impact assessment, as suggested in Lords amendment 1, unless it is a purely ideological one?
I will take some time to debunk some myths about refugees. Refugees are not obligated to claim asylum in the first safe country that they land in, and we are not overrun with refugees. In fact, we are below the European average for asylum applications, with countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Greece all seeing between two and four times as many as the UK, and 85% of all refugees live in developing countries. Our country has a proud tradition of accepting refugees, most notably the Kindertransport children, such as Lord Dubs, and I fully support Lords amendment 4 to continue arrangements to maintain unaccompanied child refugees and family reunion.
As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said, without this amendment, there will be no safe and legal routes for vulnerable people. The idea that we would just turn away the most vulnerable is a disgrace, but so is a lot of this Government’s legislation of late. As the great Tony Benn once said,
“The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
The Government have to understand why, following the ongoing Windrush scandal, EU nationals will not be content without physical proof of their status, for which Lords amendment 5 rightfully makes provision. I have said it before, and I will say it again: this is the second time in a decade that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have settled in this country. Why should any migrant feel secure?
On the 28-day limit to immigration detention, the Minister has said again and again that there is no indefinite detention, so I would like to know, what is the current limit? I am heartened by the cross-party support that Lords amendment 6 has received and by the release of a number of immigration detainees during the pandemic, but recent outbreaks in Dungavel and Brook House have caused a lot of concern. We have already heard about how much is paid out in claims of false detention. Nearly 70% of those in immigration detention are eventually released and allowed to remain in the UK. Private companies such as Serco and G4S are paid by the Government to hold them. It has to end.
I am proud that the Labour party has consistently and unequivocally stood up to this reactionary Bill since its inception and all its iterations. Our hon. Friends in the other place have done a sterling job in amending some of the most reactionary parts of the Bill, and I support every single one of their amendments. They have tabled these amendments with consideration and compassion to a piece of legislation that so fundamentally impacts the lives of others. It is a disgrace that the Government intend to vote these amendments down, and I wholeheartedly believe that they will sincerely regret this decision.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my namesake, the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). This Bill is about ending free movement. It is not the place for broader changes to immigration policy in the areas of detention, asylum and care. As ever, the amendments made in the other place are a mixture of the well-meaning but unnecessary and those that seek to undercut this Government’s manifesto commitments. I urge noble Members to reflect on the fact that we have won a majority for these measures. Those of us on the leave side also won the referendum, and continually trying to frustrate what we have repeatedly put to the British people is not a good way for the other place to proceed.
In the brief time I have, I would like to speak about Lords amendments 1 and 2. As the Migration Advisory Committee and the Minister have said, immigration is not the solution to the challenges of the social care system. It depresses wages, and bowing to pressure to exempt it from these rules, in the hope of increasing pay, makes no sense. I was struck by the eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about her experience in the care sector, and I pay tribute to her work in the sector before and during the pandemic. But our desire to change the immigration system in the future is not to denigrate those who have come here already and served this country so well, particularly during the pandemic. It cannot be the case that we cannot choose to change our system because we believe that that is somehow offensive to people who are already here. We are not proposing to throw people out who are here legally. We are saying that we choose a different future—a future that the British people chose when they chose to leave the European Union and end free movement.
I turn to Lords amendment 2. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, EU citizens who settled here before the end of the transition period can apply for settled status, so that the rights they currently enjoy are guaranteed. That is absolutely right. It was negotiated in good faith with the EU, and it applies both ways. But after the end of the transition period, it is right that EU and non-EU citizens should be treated in the same way. There should not be discrimination based on citizenship, and therefore EU citizens should meet the same requirements set out by our immigration rules— the points-based system that we will introduce—as non-EU citizens.
Lords amendment 2 would provide preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The result would be that family members of such UK nationals could forever bypass the immigration rules that would otherwise apply to family members of other UK nationals. It would be unfair to other UK nationals wishing to live in the UK with family members from other countries outside the EEA and Switzerland. The British people voted to ensure the creation of a new immigration system built on fairness, not on nationality. The creation of a lifetime right for one group of nationals would undoubtedly be unfair on other UK citizens living overseas who have family members from other parts of the world. When free movement ends, we should treat family members of all UK nationals living abroad equally. We have given a clear date of 29 March 2022 for people to bring close family members to the UK. That is fair. We are giving sufficient time for people to make changes if they wish to do so, but after that we will treat everybody the same.
I do not have time to go over the other Lords amendments, but by rejecting them we will pass the Bill as it was written. It a historic, important Bill. It is absolutely clear that delivering control of our borders, both in terms of the total numbers who come here and the skills that people bring with them, was what the British people—and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme—voted for, and that is what the Bill will let us do. I am happy to vote to bring the Bill one step closer to law.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Lords amendments. I am proud to come from Liverpool, a city built on immigration from all corners of the world, which has contributed to the diversity and vibrancy of our culture and history and is what makes Liverpool great and the best city in the world. Liverpool is home to the longest-established black, Chinese, Yemeni and Somali communities, who have contributed massively to the development of our city. We have faced and continue to face discrimination and oppression, but despite that I am deeply proud that Liverpool is a city of sanctuary, welcoming people fleeing wars and oppression, with the devastation that that brings.
As a black woman, I am appalled by this Government’s treatment of asylum seekers, refugees and many migrants who seek to come here to contribute to our society. We witnessed the injustice of the Windrush generation, who came here after the war, at the invitation of the British Government, to help to rebuild the country. We took their service, their contributions and their taxes; then, towards the end of their lives, we took away their citizenship.
I know from first-hand experience the contribution that so many of our migrants—especially those in the care sector, in our NHS, in care homes and in the domiciliary care sector—have made to our society, but their reward is to be undervalued and poorly paid. The Home Secretary’s proposed immigration system does not even count workers in the social care sector as skilled. Care workers, who are low paid but in reality highly skilled, are an essential workforce for our most vulnerable residents, yet they do not even rate a mention in the Home Secretary’s plans. The average salary for a care worker is £19,104, meaning that they do not reach the £26,500 threshold that she proposes.
We currently have a national shortage of 100,000 care workers—or we did before covid—and projections show that that could double by 2030. We have a growing, ageing population, with many people with complex health needs, including dementia. We are going to need more care workers, not fewer, so why has social care been excluded from the shortage occupation list? Because this Government do not value them.
The pandemic has shown, like nothing else has or will, the crucial role that care workers play in keeping our elderly and vulnerable citizens safe and cared for. They put their lives on the line every day without sufficient safeguards, yet the IPPR found that 79% of the EEA employees working full time in the UK would be ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary threshold that the Government want to impose. As a former Liverpool City Council worker who worked in adult social care, I know only too well the crucial work that carers undertake, often without recognition, on low pay and with zero-hours and precarious contracts. I urge the Government to rework the shortage occupation list to include these jobs.
I want to live in a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution that they make and that offers a refuge to those who need it. I support all the Lords amendments, but especially the call for an impact assessment for our care sector as a matter of urgency to provide the actual data on how the proposed legislation will affect the provision.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am very conscious of time, so I am going to get stuck in straightaway.
I want to try to cover as many of the Lords amendments as I can, but I want to start by looking at social care. I represent an area where 16,000 people work in social care. I just want to pick up on one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). She made a very eloquent speech, but I will say this. I care about my social care workers. I care about making sure they get the wages they deserve. I care about making sure they have the conditions they deserve. However, the amendment runs a real risk of tagging the social care debate—which we need to have, gloves off, because there are issues we need to discuss in an adult and appropriate way—into the migration debate. If we do that, we run the risk of pigeonholing it and not having the full broad-brush debate we need that covers everything from conditions to pay to the expectations we have of the sector.
Shaun Bailey
I am really sorry, but I have not got the time. I am more than happy to pick up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber if he wishes. [Laughter.] I am always open to a debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been very open-minded in this place.
I am conscious of time, so I will turn to Lords amendment 5 on the IT system. It is important to have this discussion because one thing we have noticed during these times is the digital disconnect—the digital lockout. Hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House have pointed that out. I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister on the merits of using a digital system, but we need to be really careful that we do not lock a generation out.
I know from my area that there are many people who do not have access to computers and digital. There is a reliance more widely across Government on digital—obviously, we are going into the future and it is going to be there—but we cannot lock people out. From discussions with the Minister, I am heartened by the way in which the Department is open to being agile in that space, but we need to be mindful that we cannot lock out a generation.
I want to wrap up my comments, because I am conscious I have only 30 seconds left, but I will just say this. I stood on a manifesto in my constituency to get Brexit done. I stood on a manifesto to bring in a fair immigration system that my constituents felt ultimately stuck by that principle of fair play. I believe the Bill, unamended, does that. However, there are operational points, which I am sure the Minister will pick up in his winding-up speech, that we need to address. If we do that, we can be absolutely sure that we refine this and make it work for that sense of fair play that my constituents voted for.
David Simmonds
Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I am very much of the view that the Bill has the purpose of replacing the arrangements we had in the European Union. I will not be supporting the amendments this evening, because I feel very much that the issues highlighted are principally about matters of management and administration of the process, rather than operation of law. That said, I hope those on the Government Front Bench are paying close attention to what has been said across the House this evening about a number of particular points. The two I would especially like to draw attention to are: the circumstances of undocumented children in the care system, and the point about documentary evidence in the hands of those who are applying for settled status.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time and attention to the first issue relating to undocumented children. However, we heard Members across the House emphasise the vulnerability of those in the care system to finding themselves at risk of a future Windrush situation because of the retroactive nature of some elements of the applications for settled status. While it is welcome that the Home Office accepts that people will be able to apply in effect out of time—that is a positive thing—it does not address the fundamental problem that a local authority with care responsibilities, or indeed a family member with a special guardianship order for a young person, would face if they do not have the necessary documentation proving that young person’s nationality in obtaining settled status for them in the United Kingdom. Although I think we recognise that that group is a relatively small group, it is vital that their needs are addressed to ensure that we do not, in 10 or 15 years’ time, find ourselves regretting that we did not take more action on that tonight.
Another point which arises from that of course is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which is the significant cost of this. Local authorities paying that cost to the Home Office is simply a cost shunt from one taxpayer to another taxpayer, and I would urge the Home Office to give consideration to ensuring that, for children in care, those costs are either waived or substantially reduced to remove a final barrier.
I will finish on this point, time being tight. A number of Members have raised the issue of documentary evidence in the hands of the citizen. We have seen many examples in all different walks of life where we would have legitimate concerns about whether the digital record keeping, of all kinds of organisations and for all kinds of reasons, is sufficiently accurate. We all hear, as Members of this House, from our constituents about the issues that that causes them in their day-to-day life. For people who may be refugees, who may be facing a degree of digital exclusion or for whom English is not a first language, that is an even greater problem. I am reassured by the message from the Home Office that everybody who makes an application will receive a written response, with a number on it, that provides evidence of the status that has been granted, but I think it would be useful for all of us to hear a bit more in due course from the Home Office about how it proposes to ensure that that is something people appreciate the value of, and that it is kept and preserved so that the evidence is there for the future.
The UK has much to be proud of in the way that we respond to immigration. It is right that we keep this tight to the matters under consideration, but I trust that colleagues have heard the concerns across the House and that the Minister will address them in his summing up.
Kevin Foster
This has been an interesting and fascinating debate, which has mostly been reflective and reasonable. I hope colleagues will appreciate though that, in the seven and a half minutes I have, I will not be able to respond to every single point that has been raised.
I will start with the themes, and we have again had a lengthy debate on social care. I was pleased to hear the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), say he agreed with the MAC. He will recall the evidence that Brian Bell gave to the Public Bill Committee that considered this Bill, and I am glad to hear that he now agrees with that. I would say, however, that we are being clear again that the MAC has been free to make its own reviews and commissions, and to produce an annual report that can then be considered by this House. It will be able to do that independently, and it will almost certainly provide commentary on social care. To set up a body that is independent and free to make its own decisions, and then tell it all the reviews it needs to do does not make a great deal of sense. Similarly, we are keen that it is there, and it can be lobbied, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), about areas that it may wish to consider of importance. As we keep on saying, if the lesson people have taken from the last few months is that the solution to social care is to give employers an unlimited opportunity to recruit at the minimum wage, they have really taken the wrong lesson.
Moving on to the issues of modern slavery, we have again had some impassioned speeches and some very well-informed ones, particularly from my right hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Again, I would say that we have obviously made the changes to guidance. We will bring forward those changes to guidance and have them in place on 1 January. He will appreciate why we will not do it before then, because people will still have free movement rights and we should respect that. But certainly we are happy to engage more widely around the position on what we can do and where we can ensure that the support these victims need is available to them, particularly as we remove the distinction between EEA victims who have free movement rights and non-EEA victims who do not, subject to the caveat that we will of course always look to see if a victim of modern slavery is eligible for the European settlement scheme.
Turning to the issues of family reunion and resettlement, I again point out that there are provisions under the UK’s migration rules that, certainly under part 8, go wider than purely affecting parents with children. We are in negotiations with the European Union, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is actively looking at what we can do. If we can get bilateral arrangements, then fantastic, but does it make sense in future to have a different set of rules for people in EEA countries versus those in the rest of the world? That is the core of this Bill, which is about free movement rights. If there is an agreement—a reciprocal arrangement—in place, then that would go beyond what we have as our baseline rules. Now that we have left the European Union, with the transition period and free movement coming to an end, whatever settlement we have in future—there is a debate to be had in this House about our asylum system, and we will have it at more length in the near future—it does not make sense to have a distinction between someone whose position is in the EEA and someone whose position is, for example, in Turkey, unless there are reciprocal arrangements that justify that difference of treatment.
The issue of children in care has rightly been a subject of some debate. I hear the point that has just been made about identification. Let me be clear: EUSS does not require a passport or an ID card; alternative measures can be used to prove entitlement through documentation. However, that issue is not particularly caused by EUSS because today you would need the same challenge to identify whether someone is a UK national, an EEA national or a rest-of-the-world national, given the impact that that has on free movement rights. However, we are happy to continue working with local authorities to see how we can help them to tackle these issues, and to work with high commissions to ensure that those who deserve their status receive it.
As we have said, there is a range of provisions around late applications and those who should make an application but do not. This is not just about children in care. We also include those under 18. If a parent does not make an application, and, at a later time, the child reaches the age of majority and they have to do a compliant environment check, for example, and discover that it has not been made, we would see that as a reasonable ground for a late application. As touched on, there is no specific time limit to that provision.
On detention, we have outlined our arguments. I am conscious that there are strong feelings on this in the House. We all want to see people swiftly moved out of detention and, if they have no right to be in this country, to be removed from it. We want detention to be used as a last resort. Its use has been declining over the past few years. That is partly because we cannot guarantee that a country in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will issue us with travel documents for the person to be returned to it within the timeframe. In particular, we have to be clear that there is no ability to put someone in detention for no reason. We have to have a lawful basis for doing so, and that can only be where there is a reasonable prospect of removal or a threat to the public—although I accept that only a very small number of people are serious foreign national offenders.
On physical documentation, we are moving towards more digital statuses. For example, we are looking to see where we can use public services to automatically check status. In recent months, we have seen the advantage of EU citizens who already have EUSS—although they are not yet required to have it—being able to share that online and digitally when doing a range of checks, at a time when a face-to-face meeting to do so may be a lot less desirable. As touched on, it will not just be EEA nationals with status under EUSS who will be using digital status—we also intend the route for British nationals overseas, who will also be moving to digital. As touched on, countries such as Australia have had a system like this in place for some time. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talk about the idea of digital passports. We are starting to look to the future where people may well travel on their biometrics and with digital identities rather than travelling purely on passports—although that is probably a few years away given that it would require technology being reciprocated in other nations.
I particularly enjoyed some of the speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) hit the nail on the head: this Bill is about delivering a manifesto commitment. This Bill is about ending free movement, as voted for in the general election and in the referendum back in 2016. It is not there to have the whole range of debate around immigration, but I respect the fact that people took the chance to do that. This Bill is about delivering a manifesto commitment, and that is why we should remove these amendments, which do not go to that core goal.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I put the Question, I would like to say that I am expecting some Divisions this evening, and there is a distinction between “should” and “must”. When I say “should”, it is guidance; when I say “must”, you must do it. If there is a Division, those sitting on the Front Benches must leave by the door in front of me; everybody else must leave by the door behind me. It is not optional. Please keep social distancing throughout; if you can touch the person in front of you, you are standing too close.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12. Will those leaving the Chamber do so socially distanced?
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 21st October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 145-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons - (20 Oct 2020)
15:55 - Division conducted remotely on Motion B1 - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 254 - Motion B1 disagreed.
16:48 - Division conducted remotedly on Motion D1 - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 242 - Motion D1 agreed.
17:55 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 237 - Motion E1 disagreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to move Motion A1.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In the Commons on Monday, the Government chose to describe your Lordships’ amendment calling for an independent report on the impact of the end of free movement on the social care sector as “well intentioned”, but went on to claim that it was “unnecessary”—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, if I may intervene, I was going to give a speech. Would the noble Lord bear with me while I speak?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I did call the Minister, but she sat down, so I presumed she had finished. No? Baroness Williams of Trafford.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was very politely waiting to be asked, then the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, came in. Shall we start again?
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will turn to Motion A, Amendment 1, and Amendment 1B in lieu, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an independent report on the impacts of ending free movement on the social care sector. I start by acknowledging the work of noble Lords in the scrutiny of this important Bill, which ends free movement between the EU and the UK, and the passion and commitment with which your Lordships have spoken on a number of issues. We have debated many issues, and although there are some areas on which we may still disagree, I always come back to the focus of this Bill: ending free movement and delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a firmer, fairer points-based immigration system.
Amendment 1B requires the Secretary of State to publish the response to the independent assessment within two months of publication and make a statement to Parliament within seven sitting days of publishing the response. I recognise the good intentions behind Amendment 1, but the other place disagreed to it because independent reporting already exists in this area through Skills for Care and the Migration Advisory Committee. The Government remain committed to improving social care, focusing on increased funding and training opportunities and improved recruitment practices. I will reflect further on a few related points.
“Impact of section 1 on the social care sector
(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of section 1, and Schedule 1, on the social care sector within six months of this Act being passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent Chair to conduct the assessment.
(3) The assessment must consider the impact of provisions in section 1, and Schedule 1, on—
(a) the social care workforce
(b) available visa routes for social care workers;
(c) long-term consequences for workforce recruitment, training and employee terms and conditions; and
(d) such other relevant matters as the independent Chair deems appropri-ate.
(4) A copy of the independent assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days of its publishing date.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the independent assessment within two months of its publishing date.
(6) The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament within seven sitting days of publishing the response under subsection (5).””
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for what she has just said about my amendment, which started off life in Committee, being moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, albeit not with exactly the same words. As I understand it from what the Minister has just said, the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment to the Bill but are giving a commitment to carry out the terms of the amendment in full, and that must, therefore, include the timescales laid down in it. If that is the case—and the Minister gave a commitment to carry out the terms of my amendment—then I will not seek pursue my Motion to a vote.
I note that the Minister said that she wished to discuss with me how we ensure—I I think that was what she said—that we get the detail right, and, of course, I am happy to do that within the context of the Government having committed to carry out the terms of my amendment in full, including the timescales laid down in it. I do not think I misheard what the Minister said: I certainly heard the phrase “give a commitment to carry out the terms of his amendment” being used with no caveats added. Therefore, on the basis that the Government are committing themselves to carry out the terms of my amendment in full, then I would be prepared to withdraw my Motion when the time comes.
However, I would like to add one further comment. Within the terms of the amendment, it is, of course, left to the Government to decide who will undertake the
“independent assessment of the impact of section 1, and Schedule 1, on the social care sector”.
These relate to the ending of free movement. From what the Minister has said, I suspect that a candidate will be the Migration Advisory Committee, whose views on even the single issue of funding social care for higher wages have been ignored “for some years”, to use the MAC’s words. That does not suggest that it is a body whose views on that issue carry much weight with the Government. It will be vital for the independent assessment to have a significant and meaningful input from people of influence who understand fully the way in which the social care sector functions and the constraints under which it operates. Although it is a matter for the Government, I hope they will ensure that that vital, significant and meaningful input occurs.
On the basis that I have understood clearly what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government—namely, that she has made a commitment to carry out the terms of my amendment, and that this must be in full because there were no caveats added—then I would be prepared not seek to pursue the matter to get it written into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Member in the Chamber has indicated that he wishes to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response this afternoon and her agreement that an independent assessment would be undertaken. I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rosser. At the end of the day, whatever the worthy work of Skills for Care has been and whatever the recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee, we have a big problem with the social care sector in relation to the workforce challenges. The intention that, basically, most care workers cannot meet the criteria in the new health and care visa means that, from the beginning of next year, further pressure will be leant upon the sector.
Given that the sector is almost totally dependent either on government funding or on self-funders—who are already hugely overstretched because they sometimes pay more than £1,000 a week for their care—this will not be solved simply by saying that we can rely on the UK population. There will have to be an injection of resources; this is inescapable. In thanking the Minister, which I do very much, for her response this afternoon, I remind the House that the social care sector faces many huge challenges, and, in the end, the Government are going to have to come up with the necessary if we are going to get it out of the problems that it now faces.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? We have not received any requests as yet. Does the Minister wish to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am, of course, pleased to hear the Government’s decision on this. From and on behalf of our Benches, I added my name to the previous versions of this amendment. The point has been made throughout the Bill that the amendment is unnecessary, but, given that its proposers have kept on pressing, clearly they have not been satisfied. This is good news, but one always has to think around the subject, and I wonder what the correct level of scrutiny is. To me, it involves stakeholders very widely and the context for consideration of a proposal, which, in this case has to be more than just the immigration provisions which may apply. One thing on which I agreed with the Commons and with others who have spoken is that the social care crisis cannot be solved through immigration alone: it is much wider than that.
The correct level of scrutiny involves the organisation being scrutinised—in this case, the Government and their proposals—not being committed to its initial proposition but being prepared to listen to the responses. We are always faced with statutory instruments where there is no possibility of making a change. It would be tragic—I do not think that is putting it too highly—if the opportunity is not taken on this occasion to adopt a much more open-minded practice. Having said that, I welcome what the Minister has said.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I apologise to noble Lords; I keep wanting to pop up at the wrong time during this debate. However, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this part. First, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and absolutely commit to the timescales set out in his amendment. He asked, with a certain degree of cynicism, I think, who will carry it out and suggested the Migration Advisory Committee. It must be a hot contender for it, but I take his point about the skills of the people who carry it out.
When settling on the proposals for the new points-based system, we did not do it in isolation; we conducted an extensive programme of engagement with stakeholders— as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, alluded to—across the whole of the UK, including in the social care sector, listening to people’s concerns and hearing about the unique challenges they face.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have in different ways pinpointed that the workforce challenges are not single silver-bullet issues—they will not be solved by continuing along the trajectory of low pay. It is incumbent on employers in what has been, throughout the last few months and years, a very valued occupation not to continue to rely on low-paid workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, social care cannot be solved just by immigration; progress needs to be made with a whole plethora of interventions in this area of a much-needed, well-respected and very much appreciated workforce.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In the light of what the Minister has said, which I appreciate and welcome, I shall withdraw my Motion. Obviously, I do so on the basis of the Government having given a commitment to carry out the terms of my Amendment 1B in full. I am happy to participate in the further discussions which the Minister has said she wishes to have with me, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2, in its previous form, was also disagreed to in the other place. It seeks to continue certain family reunion arrangements provided by EU law—the so-called Surinder Singh route.
Amendment 2B, tabled in lieu by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Government to provide the right for British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied, or joined, by their non-British close family members on current EU free movement law terms until 31 December 2040—that is, for a period of 20 years from the end of the transition period. They would retain preferential family reunion rights for that period. For the next 20 years, family members of British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland would continue not to be subject to the same Immigration Rules as family members of other British citizens. This would perpetuate a lack of parity, which the Government cannot accept.
Family members of British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreements in terms of returning to the UK, but we have made reasonable transitional arrangements for them. British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner in a long-term relationship, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after that date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Those family members will also then be eligible to apply to remain in the UK under the EU settlement scheme.
Family members will be able to come to the UK after 29 March 2022 but will then need to meet the requirements of the family Immigration Rules. Those rules apply to the family members of other British citizens, irrespective of where they come from, and reflect the public interest in preventing burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. This is a fair and balanced policy. It was announced on 4 April 2019, so those affected will have had almost three years to decide whether they wish to return to the UK by 29 March 2022 on current EU law terms and, if they do, to make plans to do so.
The Government’s approach strikes the right balance between providing sufficient time for British citizens and their family members living in the EEA or Switzerland to make decisions and plans for returning to the UK, and ensuring equal treatment of the family members of British citizens under the Immigration Rules as soon as is reasonably possible once free movement has ended. We must be fair to other British citizens, whether they are living overseas or in the UK. The same rules should apply to all, not continue for the next 20 years to give preferential treatment to those relying on past free movement rights, which will have been abolished. That is what a fair global immigration system means.
I hope that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment 2 or agree to Amendment 2B in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Hamwee
Moved by
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
“(5A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of—
(a) the Withdrawal Agreement,
(b) the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or
(c) the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,
to return to the United Kingdom before 31 December 2040 accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom before 31 December 2040 by, close family members.
(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members of UK citizens which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as on the day on which this Act comes into force.
(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—“close family members” means—
(a) children (including adopted children), and
(b) other close family members where that relation subsisted on or before 31 January 2020 and has continued to subsist;
“Withdrawal Agreement”, “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).””
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am moving an amendment similar to that moved at a previous stage but with a change to meet one of the points made against it.
It came as a shock to me to learn that there will be restrictions on, and conditions applying to, a UK citizen wishing to return to the UK with a non-British family. In Committee, I asked what the Minister would advise a couple with elderly parents in both countries, for both of whom they wanted to care. This rather follows on from the previous amendment. Following that, I received many emails describing many, varied families affected. They all explained the anxiety they felt.
The minimum income requirement will apply, as the noble Baroness said, after March 2022 as it applies now to a UK citizen wishing to bring a non-UK—currently non-EEA—family to this country. I have always felt that the MIR is very harsh. It presents real difficulties, including as regards the spouse’s contribution to the household income. In the 21st century, most households are necessarily two-income households. In response to the point that these families should be treated the same as families that include non-EEA citizens, I say that it should not apply to them either, but that would not be within the scope of this Bill—although I would have liked to have taken that opportunity. Those families will, in very many cases, have been aware of the situation when the family unit was created.
I understand the Government’s concern that EEA citizens should be treated the same as citizens in the rest of the world after the end of free movement, but the situations are not exactly the same. When marriages were made and families created after we had acquired rights of free movement, who would have given a thought to what might happen if those rights ended, or indeed given thought to whether those rights might end? And who in the British military who met their spouse when they were serving abroad would have contemplated this situation? I do hope that the Secretary of State has read their letters.
The provision may not be retrospective in a technical sense, but in an everyday sense it is. This is not something that is widely understood, even now. The Government’s original proposal in June 2017 did not deal with the issue. As the noble Baroness said, the public announcement of the 2022 date came out in a paper in April 2019 and was presented as a concession. The paper said that the Government recognised that UK nationals needed certainty—this was after we were supposed to have left the EU.
I wondered whether I had missed something here, so I checked on what had been done, and when, to make people aware of the position. Had the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to draw this to people’s attention? Had our embassies raised it in local town hall meetings abroad? One, rather dry, comment made to me was that, if these citizens had voting rights, the embassies would have been able to make direct contact with them. I understand that the targeted FCO campaigns have focused largely on rights in the host country, advising people to register and to change their driving licence, for instance.
On the “Living in France” and “Living in Italy” pages on GOV.UK, I clicked on “Ending your time living abroad” and, after a couple more clicks, found—because I was looking for it—“bringing your family”, which told me that a visa would be needed for them. One might easily stop there. Immigration rules required further clicks, and so on. I understand that all this is still coming as a surprise, and of course a shock, to those who happen to trip over it.
An EU citizen here now or by the end of this year can bring in family members—and quite right too. But is it not right for our own compatriots? This is discrimination against UK citizens. It is not as if what we propose would open any floodgates. It is self-limiting: no-one would qualify after free movement had ended; it is not a “perpetual” or “for ever” right, as it has been badged.
Criticism was made on Report that there was no cut-off date by which a UK national must return to the UK. Ministers say that three years gives a reasonable period to plan. This version of the amendment includes a cut-off date—deliberately long—of 20 years after the end of the transition period. By then, most of those affected, who will have formed settled relationships and families, are likely to be over 50 with parents of 70 or 80, so their families would be in a better position to know whether returning to the UK was likely to be necessary. The Minister in the Commons presented the 2022 date as reflecting a need
“to be fair to other British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 804.]
as if there is something “other” about UK people who have married people from the EEA. He also said that the Government would keep the policy “under review”, so I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could expand on that today: when, how, with whom? She has described the policy as simple fairness. We disagree. What we are proposing is what I would describe as fair, and I will wish to test opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated a wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said. The Minister said that the arrangements that the Government have made are “reasonable”, but one has also to think of the reasonable expectation of British citizens who may have moved abroad, married, set up partnerships and had families with citizens from elsewhere in the EEA. They would have had no reason to suppose that the conditions and rules under which they did that would change—after all, the promise of a referendum in 2015 came somewhat out of the blue; it really was not expected. My noble friend’s amendment would accommodate fairly those reasonable expectations while meeting the Government’s apparent objection that they do not want a period which is unlimited.
The Conservative manifesto for the 2017 general election promised to legislate for “votes for life” for Britons living abroad. That has not happened, but, at the time, the Conservatives rejoiced at scrapping what they called the previous Labour Government’s “arbitrary” 15-year rule. I think that one could also describe the Government’s three-year rule in this scenario for UK citizens living in the EU as arbitrary.
Mr Chris Skidmore, who at the time was Minister for the Constitution, said:
“British citizens who move abroad remain a part of our democracy and it is important they have the ability to participate … Our expat community has an important role to play.”
One can deploy that statement in this context. These were valuable sentiments about Britons living abroad. I would transfer them to say that British citizens residing elsewhere in the EEA should have the right to participate not only politically but economically and socially in this country. To put them now in a quandary of having to decide by March 2022 what their family circumstances with parents and children could be in the decades ahead is an unnecessary, arbitrary and unreasonable imposition. Twenty years is a highly reasonable proposition.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak only briefly because my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford have comprehensively set out the injustices that will be visited on thousands of British citizens and their families if the Government’s policy stands. I shall make just two points.
First, the argument that to retain the existing rights of UK citizens with EEA spouses or families is somehow discriminatory or unfair as against UK citizens with non-EEA spouses has no merit. I speak as a UK citizen with a non-EEA spouse. When we made decisions about our lives, we did so in the knowledge and understanding of the rules at the time, just as UK citizens with EEA spouses made decisions about their lives on the basis of the rules at the time, which they could have had no reasonable expectation would change. The only way in which one could say that discrimination would occur would be if this amendment suggested that UK citizens forming relationships with EEA citizens going forward should be afforded different rights, but that is not what it says.
Secondly, yesterday, your Lordships’ House passed two amendments in lieu on agri-food standards. They were important and I was pleased to support them, but this amendment, I venture, is much more important, because it is about people’s lives. If it is not passed, huge misery will be inflicted on a large number of people. I do not think that we have really understood the level of suffering that will be inflicted. Frankly, it is wrong and heartless, and we should not allow it to stand.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We do not minimise the importance of this issue any more than we minimise the importance of any of the amendments and the issues they covered which this House sent to the Commons and which the Commons rejected. As has been said, British citizens who moved to other EU countries will lose the right they had to return to this country of birth with a non-British partner or child, perhaps to look after an ageing parent, unless they can meet financial conditions that will be beyond the reach of many. While British citizens who have moved to the EU or EEA before the end of 2020 will face these restrictions, EU citizens who have moved to the UK before the end of 2020 will not.
However, while this issue of the right for UK citizens to return with their family was referred to by some speakers during the Commons proceedings on Monday, it was not taken to a Division. This rather indicates that we have now taken this matter as far as we can at present, having sent it to the Commons once. For that reason we will abstain if Amendment 2B in lieu is taken to a vote. In the Commons on Monday, the Government said they would
“continue to keep this area under review”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 804.]
We call on it to continue to look further at this issue, in which I declare a personal family interest, outside the Bill and well before the deadline date of 29 March 2022 for bringing existing close family members to the UK on current EU law terms.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who rightly points out that the Commons did not divide on this matter on Monday. We should remind ourselves that the British people voted to leave the EU in 2016; we are now four years on from that point.
I will answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: of course we keep all legislation and policy under review, and we are assisted by MAC in that endeavour. We recognise that UK nationals who moved to the EU expected free movement rights to continue. That is why we have provided for these transitional arrangements, but we have to be fair to other UK nationals whether they live overseas, beyond the EU, or in the UK. The UK family Immigration Rules reflect the public interest in preventing burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. UK nationals protected by the withdrawal agreement because they are living in the EEA before the end of the transition period do, of course, have lifetime rights to be joined in their host state by existing close family members. This mirrors the rights of EEA citizens living in the UK by then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, challenged me about the date of 29 March 2022 being arbitrary. It represents three years after the date when the UK was originally supposed to leave the EU. For me, it strikes the right balance between providing sufficient time for UK nationals and their family members living in the EEA or Switzerland to make decisions and plans for returning to the UK, and ensuring equal treatment of the family members of UK nationals under the Immigration Rules as soon as reasonably possible, once free movement to the UK has ended.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am of course grateful to my noble friends who supported this amendment. I hope that I never give my noble friend Lady Ludford cause to look up what I have said in the past. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Oates, who—if you will—embodies the point I was making about the differences between those who married EU citizens, not knowing what was coming down the road, and those in his position.
I am disappointed in Labour’s response to this because it is a legislative opportunity to get this sorted quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I asked about keeping the policy under review, but it sounds from the Minister as if this is no more than the normal keeping of a policy under review: no detail, no particular plan, no timetable. What she said is not a reason not to pursue this amendment. As my noble friend says, this is not fair and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I ask that this House do not insist on its Amendments 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10, as set out in Motions C, F, G, H and K respectively, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 3A, 6A, 7A, 8A and 10A.
I will speak to Motion C on Lords Amendment 3, which provides for children in care and care leavers who lose their free movement rights under the Bill to obtain indefinite leave to remain—or settled status—under the EU settlement scheme where they apply to the scheme or a local authority does so on their behalf. This would be regardless of how long the child or young person had been in the UK. I will also address Motions F, G, H and K, covering Lords Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10, which cover a time limit on detention.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be disappointed with me on the position taken by the other place on Lords Amendment 3, but I reassure him that the Government agree as to the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers and other vulnerable groups as we end free movement. The Home Office continues to provide extensive support to local authorities, which have relevant statutory responsibilities for this cohort, to ensure that these children and young people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This includes the Settlement Resolution Centre, which is open seven days a week to assist local authorities with this work. It also includes grant funding over last year and this year of up to £17 million to organisations across the UK to support vulnerable groups in applying to the scheme. The number of organisations funded for this work has now been increased from 57 to 72.
A recent survey of local authorities by the Home Office has so far identified fewer than 4,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with over 40% of these having already applied for status under the scheme. Most of those who have applied have already received an outcome of settled status. Local authorities are making good progress to identify and support relevant cases.
The Government have made it clear that, in line with the withdrawal agreements, where a person eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We have also made it clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or a care leaver misses the deadline, they will still be able to obtain lawful status in the UK.
The Government are not therefore persuaded of the need for this amendment, which also presents some technical problems that the Government cannot accept. It effectively exempts this cohort from the suitability requirements of the scheme when there is absolutely no reason to do so. It also seeks to backdate the settled status granted following an application made after the 30 June 2021 deadline. This runs completely counter to the general operation of the Immigration Rules made under the Immigration Act 1971, under which status has effect from the date on which it is granted.
I hope noble Lords will agree that, while understanding and supporting the motivation behind this amendment, the House should not insist on this amendment.
I shall now address Motions F, G, H and K on Lords Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10, which relate to introducing a detention time limit on EEA and Swiss citizens. Detention is a very important issue that merits debate, but it is not directly relevant to the purpose of this Bill, which is to end free movement. The central point of the Bill is a commitment to a global immigration system, and equal treatment of immigrants from all nationalities as we exit the transition period. These amendments seek to impose a time limit on detention only for EEA and Swiss citizens, which would lead to a discriminatory position for those who are not. It is important to acknowledge that the other place disagreed to the amendment for these reasons.
On the substance of the amendment, to impose a 28-day time limit on detention is not practical and would encourage and reward abuse. No European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that which is proposed in these amendments, and countries such as Australia and Canada have not gone down this route at all. We need an immigration system which encourages compliance but, where people refuse to leave voluntarily, we must have the ability to enforce that removal. We do not detain indefinitely; there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and this is a complex process that requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person for whom detention is considered.
A time limit would allow those who wish to frustrate the removal process to deliberately run down the clock until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed. Under these amendments, any person in scope who is detained for 28 days will automatically be released, regardless of the facts of their case, including some foreign national offenders who present a genuine threat to public safety.
The Home Office operates a number of safeguards to review detention and prevent anyone entering detention who would otherwise comply with a removal from the community. Some 95% of people who are liable for removal from the UK are managed in the community while their cases are progressed. The detention gatekeeper and case progression panels are key operational safeguards. Where detention is deemed necessary, there is judicial oversight through bail applications to the tribunal, and the continuing detention of any individual remains under regular review by the Home Office.
Everyone in immigration detention is protected by these safeguards, which entitle them to apply for bail hearings at any point, to appeal against any refusal of asylum and to have access to legal representation. If we accept a 28-day time limit, it will enable these people to exploit the immigration system, making unmeritorious claims to avoid their removal. In the current immigration system, it is only in the most complex cases that detention exceeds 29 days. A time limit would cripple the function of the detention system, exposing it to abuse, undermining our capacity to enforce removals and potentially endangering public safety. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is not only unconnected with the main purpose of this Bill but unsupportable, and I urge them not to insist on this amendment, which would lead to unfair treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much regret the rejection of the clause to which your Lordships had agreed regarding children in care. The Minister said on a previous occasion that we were united on children in local authority care needing a secure status. But insisting on this being achieved for this cohort—and we all understand the difficulties—through the EU settled status scheme rather than on a declaratory basis seems to indicate that the Government are more concerned not to acknowledge that the scheme cannot perfectly deal with every situation rather than to acknowledge the special situation of these children and young people.
The Commons formal reason is that local authorities are supporting this cohort, and the Government are funding support. Well, good—but what do the Government have to lose? The Minister in the Commons said that the idea of applying such a provision retrospectively runs counter to the general operation of the Immigration Rules. But when it is not a tightening of the rules, I do not understand the comment—but there it is.
I also of course regret the rejection of applying a time limit to the detention of asylum seekers and others. The suite of amendments applies clear criteria for detention, and national security would disqualify a detainee from the time-limit provisions. I do not think that it is right to use the position of foreign national offenders as if all detainees were offenders. The amendments would also prevent cat-and-mouse redetention.
The great majority of detainees are released eventually into the community, but they do not know when this will be. Again, the Commons Minister said that it was not possible just to detain someone indefinitely “as such”. That misses the point that there is no time limit, and that means a loss of hope. For months, people in the UK whose lives are restricted to some extent have been saying that they need to know when all this will end, which is understandable—and there is something of a read-across.
The Commons formal reason is that there are already procedural safeguards to ensure the lawfulness of the period of detention. They work so well that, as my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael observed, £7 million in compensation was paid out last year for 272 cases of wrongful detention.
But I can at least use this opportunity to say how much we welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment today quashing the judicial review and injunctions policy on the application of medical justice, with the intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the good work of the Public Law Project—not, if I have the Minister’s word correctly, an “unmeritorious” application.
We shall not pursue this matter today, but we will be back soon on the issue, because it is a matter of fairness and humanity.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the decisions taken by the other place on all these issues are most disappointing. I thought my noble friend Lord Dubs made a convincing case, but sadly it was not listened to in the other place, as is so often the case now. I hope the Government will take a constructive attitude in working with local authorities to protect vulnerable children. Many local authorities have considerable pressures on them in terms of looking after children in care, and I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that there is a positive attitude from the Government to address these concerns, even if they are not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment today.
I note the comment—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also made the point—that the other Motions in this group make reference to all these dangerous criminals who would potentially be released into the public. I think we have to accept that the people we are talking about here are vulnerable people, and that if there are people who are dangerous criminals, there are other procedures to deal with them. We should not be wrapping people up like that: these are vulnerable people who need our help and support. There is an issue about people being locked up in detention when they have done nothing wrong and not knowing when they will get their release date.
The noble Baroness may well say that they are normally released into the community. That is obviously really good news, but if you are locked up in a cell or in a detention centre and you do not know when you will be released, the fact that you will be released at some point in the future may not be a huge comfort to you. Again, we are not going to pursue these issues any further today, but the fact that the Government rely on those arguments underlines the weakness of their case in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we will return to these issues at a later date, but we will not be pressing any of them today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, initially challenged me on what the Government have to lose. It is not really about what the Government have to lose; it is a demonstration that, throughout this process, we have constantly articulated just what the Government are doing to ensure that children in care, or other vulnerable people, are able to register for the EU settlement scheme. We have put in quite a lot of resource to ensure that that happens. We have increased the number of organisations helping in this regard from 57 to 72 and we will put significant funding in place to ensure that people eligible to apply do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are acting as though all detainees are offenders, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the number of people detained who are vulnerable. In fact, a snapshot of offenders from the EU detained at the end of March 2020 found that if a 28-day time limit were in place, we would have been required to release into the community 166 foreign national offenders being held under immigration powers to effect their deportation. Of these offenders, 35 had committed very serious crimes, including murder, rape, offences against children and other serious sexual or violent offences. There is no indefinite detention, but it is necessary sometimes to keep people detained, particularly serious offenders and those frustrating their removal.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I shall put the question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Lords Amendment 4 and Amendment 4B in lieu, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, relate to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I ask noble Lords to note that the other place highlighted that Lords Amendment 4 would engage financial privilege. Amendment 4B in lieu would remove the previous restriction on charging a fee for applications for leave to enter under the proposed new route; however, there remain a number of costs with this amendment. These relate to family reunion applications—not just the cost of processing the application but the cost of providing asylum support and accommodation for asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their claim. Clearly those costs could not and should not be recouped via an application fee.
Turning to the substance of the amendment, we had many interventions on this issue on Report and I confirm the Government’s commitment to the principle of family unity and to supporting vulnerable children—we take their well-being very seriously. We have a proud record of providing safety to those who need it, through our asylum system and world-leading resettlement schemes. We have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe: we received more claims than any EU member state in 2019, and 20% of all claims made in the EU and UK.
We have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It remains our goal to negotiate such an arrangement. I reaffirm my commitment to further constructive engagement to identify ways to level up access to safe and legal work pathways for talented displaced persons. I once again thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and Talent Beyond Borders for discussing this with us and I look forward to continuing to work together to attract the best and brightest talent to the UK, regardless of background. Furthermore, as the Home Secretary made clear in her speech at the Conservative Party conference, safe and legal routes are a core part of our proposed reforms to the asylum system to ensure that it is both fair and firm.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not to insist on his amendment, or to divide the House on Amendment 4B in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
“Leave to enter: family unity and claims for asylum
(1) For at least such time as a relevant agreement has not been concluded and implemented, a person to whom this section applies must be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum.
(2) This section applies to a person who—
(a) is on the territory of any relevant Member State;
(b) makes an application for leave to enter for the purpose of making a claim for asylum; and
(c) would, had that person made an application for international protection in that Member State, have been eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 by reason of a relevant provision if the United Kingdom remained a party to that Regulation.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that applicants receive a decision regarding their application under subsection (2)(b) no later than two months from the date of submission of the application.
(4) A claim for asylum made under subsection (2)(b) must remain pending throughout such time as no decision has been made on it or during which an appeal could be brought within such time as may be prescribed for the bringing of any appeal against a decision made on a claim or during which any such appeal remains pending for the purposes of section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeal); and a claim for asylum remains one on which no decision has been made during such time as the claim has been made to the Secretary of State and has not been granted, refused, abandoned or withdrawn.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring that unaccompanied children on the territory of a relevant Member State continue to be relocated to the United Kingdom, if it is in the child’s best interests.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“applicant” means a person who makes an application for leave to enter under this section;
“claim for asylum” means a claim for leave to enter or remain as a refugee or as a person eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection;
“Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013” means Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council including the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast);
“relevant agreement” means an agreement negotiated by a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the United Kingdom, with the European Union in accordance with which there is provision for the transfer of a person who has made an application for asylum in a Member State of the European Union to the United Kingdom which is no less extensive than Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 insofar as that regulation operated to enable the transfer of a person to join a child, sibling, parent or other family member or relative in the United Kingdom before exit day;
“relevant Member State” means a Member State for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
“relevant provision” means any of the following articles of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013—
(a) Article 8;
(b) Article 9;
(c) Article 10;
(d) Article 16;
(e) Article 17.””
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, I shall comment on the Commons reason for rejecting an amendment from this House, which states:
“Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.”
Given the time we spent on the issue and its importance, to say that the technicality of financial privilege is sufficient to dispose of it in the eyes of the Commons, I think falls short of being humanitarian and falls short of respecting the opinions of this House.
When I was in the Commons, there were some colleagues who made themselves experts on parliamentary procedure and were virtually walking Erskine Mays. I have no wish to follow them down that path, but I note the issue of financial privilege seems to occur only when the Government do not like something to do with child refugees. If I can take the House back to 2016, we passed an amendment to the then Immigration Bill; when it got to the Commons the Government used financial privilege as a technical reason, so when it came back to this House we changed the wording and eventually it passed again and the Government accepted it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have not received any indication that any Member wishes to speak who is not listed. Does any noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak at this point before I move on? In that case, I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support most strongly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which provides for refugee children to come to the UK from EU countries if they have family here with whom they can reunite.
The Government say they have proposals to deal with family reunion, but as the noble Lord has pointed out—I will not repeat his explanation—those proposals would not provide a secure route for child refugees to join their families here in the UK. Why is this country so much less willing than our neighbours in Europe to accept these vulnerable children? Germany stands out as the most generous and morally correct European country on this issue, having taken 71,000 children in 2019, but we do not even measure up to France, Greece or Spain—and two of those countries are a great deal less well off than we are.
It is important to note that local authorities, if adequately funded, are willing to welcome refugee children from Europe and, as my noble friend Lord Kerr pointed out on Report, the Government will have public support if they accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Surely the Government want some public support, do they not? They have enough problems on other issues at the moment. The British public understand the importance of refugee children being able to join their families, whatever the reason they became separated in the first place.
In her introductory remarks, the Minister referred to the costs of housing asylum seekers. Will she clarify that the Government would not have to fund the housing of unaccompanied children who come over here to live with their relatives? It is quite important that there is not that financial hit for the Government.
If the Government reject this amendment and children are not able to join their families under the Government’s proposals, many will inevitably resort to the traffickers and the rubber dinghies, with inevitable loss of life. Surely, it is only a matter of time before the Government are challenged under the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8, on the right to respect for your family life. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point.
As the Minister will recognise, this amendment has huge cross-party support and public support across the country. I hope she can persuade her colleagues to accept it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, at every stage, tributes have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—rightly so, but I imagine he must sometimes be shouting at his screen, while on mute, “Forget the tributes, just accept the amendment.”
The Commons reason is that leave to enter to make an asylum claim, and a strategy to ensure that an unaccompanied child can be relocated in the UK if it is in the child’s best interests, would be, in their words, as the noble Lord said, a “charge on public funds”. Like him, I appreciate that this is a standard response, but it in no way reflects the debate. They trust that we will regard it as sufficient; it is not a sufficient reason.
We were told that it would not be right to undermine negotiations with the EU, with which, it must be said, agreement on this issue shows no sign of life at all. Domestic legislation must be the least threat in this context. It is still not too late to do the right thing.
Our Immigration Rules are inadequate, and applications outside them rarely successful. The Government have announced that they are looking at safe and legal routes for those seeking sanctuary next year. We on these Benches will not subscribe to the notion that this is an issue for next year. The routes are unsafe now, and we could make them considerably safer. We support the amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Currently, the only legal way to reach this country from the EU in order to claim asylum, including for unaccompanied children, is through the Dublin III regulation on family reunion. That route, as we know, will cease to be available at the end of the transition period in a few weeks’ time. The Government have no comparable proposals to replace Dublin III, since their alternative removes the mandatory requirement to facilitate family reunion, removes a child’s right to appeal against refusal and further narrows the definition of “family”, since a child or teenager would no longer be able to join, for example, an aunt, an older sister or someone who could look after them when they have been separated from their parents
Safe Passage, to which reference has already been made, which supports child refugees, has said, I believe, that more than 90% of the young people and children it has supported through the Dublin III legal pathway would be unlikely to qualify under the Government’s alternative system. The numbers involved are not large and are very small indeed compared with the numbers of those from outside the EU whom the Government, by choice, each year, have enabled to come to this country. Before the mandatory Dublin III provisions came into effect, about 10 or 11 children per year came to this country under the scheme. Since 2016, when it became mandatory, the average number of children per year has been just over 500.
We support the amendment in lieu, Amendment D1, moved by my indefatigable noble friend Lord Dubs, which represents the guaranteed continuation of a decent and humane approach, particularly to children and young people in real need, including in real need of a safe and legal route to safety.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who makes this plea so genuinely and passionately. I hope, at this late stage, he might consider withdrawing his amendment to the Motion when he hears what I am going to say. First of all, we do not just use financial privilege for child refugees. That is not the case at all, but I think he knows that. The wording—
“trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient”—
is standard parlance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in response to her question, that it is true that the state does not have to fund children who are living with relatives, although, of course, it is different for children who are living in local authority care. I go back to the point I made earlier, which is that the Home Secretary made it absolutely clear in her speech at the Conservative Party Conference that safe and legal routes are a core part of our proposed reforms to the asylum system to ensure it is both firm and fair. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that very thing today in his speech. I can confirm that, as an integral part of that work, the Government will conduct a review of safe and legal routes to the UK for asylum seekers, refugees and their families, which will include reviewing routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to reunite with their family members in the UK. As noble Lords will recollect, we intend to bring legislation next year that will deliver those reforms.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about bilateral negotiations. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about the risk of a non-negotiated outcome on asylum and illegal migration, and I can, today, make a commitment to the House that in the event of a non-negotiated outcome, this Government will pursue bilateral negotiations on post-transition migration issues with key countries with which we share a mutual interest. This will include new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I hope noble Lords listened carefully to what I have just said.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and to other noble Lords who supported the amendment.
The Minister referred to the Home Secretary’s commitment that she wants safe and legal routes for family reunion of children. Of course, that is an aspiration, but it has to be made effective, and I am not convinced that anything the Government are doing will actually give effect to the Home Secretary’s commitment. The Minister also said that even after 31 December, the Government will continue to talk to achieve bilateral arrangements. That is well and good, but that is a long way ahead, and the Government have, in the past, given undertakings, and, frankly, nothing much has come of them.
This issue tests our humanity; it tests whether we are willing to do something now, not at some point in the future. It is a test of whether we are a decent, humanitarian country. We are talking about a small number of highly vulnerable people, the majority of whom are children who want to join family here. What could be more humanitarian or more in our traditions than allowing young people to join members of their family who are here and find safety down that path. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 5 and Amendment 5B, tabled in lieu and proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, require a physical document to be offered to any EEA citizen who applies for it and who has been granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. The other place has rejected the previous amendment submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as they considered it would incur significant costs. The amendment in lieu removes the provision prohibiting charging a fee for the physical document. However, this does not fully address our concerns about the cost of this proposal.
To allow the now nearly 4 million people who have been granted status under the EU settlement scheme to apply for physical documents, we would have to incur significant up-front costs. These costs would include setting up and designing the application process to issue a secure biometric document, some caseworking resource and significant communications costs; much of this cost would be incurred regardless of how many people applied for a physical document.
As we would not know how many people will apply, we would not be able to set an individual application fee that covered these costs without that being beyond the reach of most applicants. Much of the concern expressed in this House relates to the most vulnerable, and I really do not think we would want to pass on to them the costs of setting up this process. The cost of producing a biometric immigration document is about £75, but that fee does not cover the costs that would be incurred in setting up the process and communicating it. Therefore, being able to charge a fee does not in and of itself fully address the reasons given in the other place for rejecting the previous amendment.
We cannot accept the amendment, but that does not mean that the Government do not understand the concerns raised. We are committed to working with this House and with stakeholders to ensure that measures are in place to support those who may find the transition to digital services difficult. We will run a campaign to ensure that third parties understand how to check a person’s immigration status and the need not to discriminate when doing so. In some cases, the check will be directly with the Home Office, and we are confident that this system will reduce the scope for error and better ensure that people have access to the services they are entitled to.
The Government have clearly set out their ambition to move to a system which is digital by default. That will produce a better system for migrants and will make it easier for them to prove their status where all migrants, not just EEA citizens, will have online access to their immigration status. Other countries, such as Australia, have had a system like this in place for some time, so we know that it works.
This amendment is well intentioned, but it will have an adverse impact on our plans for modernisation and digitisation of our immigration system. These plans include the support services we need to provide to migrants for the future. It will also adversely impact employers and landlords, who would still need to conduct manual checks to authenticate a document and go through the process of photocopying it, signing and dating it and then filing it away in a cabinet.
The Government recognise that digital processes represent a major change for some people. However, as I have outlined in this House, we will provide a physical document in the form of a written notification of their permission to stay in the UK, which they can print off and store as a record. We will require EEA citizens to use the online system to prove their immigration status to employers and landlords only after 30 June 2021, to give them time to adjust, and we will continue to provide information and support to enable them to do so. Many thousands are already successfully using the service now to evidence their status in the UK, as I pointed out during the passage of this Bill.
I am aware that many noble Lords are worried about the impact of digital by default on the elderly and the vulnerable, but I reassure them that we are taking steps to ensure that those individuals are not disadvantaged by the move to digital services, particularly in accessing public services. System-to-system checks with other government departments and the NHS will mean service providers, such as healthcare and benefits, will check status directly with the Home Office at the point at which the person seeks to access them. This will reduce the number of occasions where individuals need to prove their rights, where such information can be made available directly to the service provider on their behalf.
In moving to a digital system, we recognise that there are people who cannot access online services and will need additional support. We are committed to delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. Help on how to use the online service and share status information is already available through our telephone contact centre, and we provide a free-to-use assisted digital service where those applying to the EU settlement scheme, or others making online applications in the UK, are able to get support. We continue to improve the support services to ensure that they are inclusive and available to all who need them, and we would welcome continued discussions on what additional support we would need to provide to address the concerns that many noble Lords have raised.
We want a robust and secure system that is efficient as well as convenient. Migrants will be able to access details of their immigration status online at any time and from anywhere, with a variety of devices, such as a smartphone or laptop. The Government want a better immigration system, and we believe that the move to a digital service is an important part of that. The amendment would prevent our moving in that direction and would require significant expenditure, which would be better used in supporting those using the services. I hope noble Lords will not insist on this amendment. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
“EU Settlement Scheme: physical documented proof
The Secretary of State must issue physical proof confirming pre-settled status or settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status under the EU Settlement Scheme and who request such proof.””
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in moving Motion E1, which includes Amendment 5B, I give notice of my intention to test the opinion of the House, unless the Government are willing to change their position on this issue. I express my thanks to all noble Lords on all sides of the House who have so steadfastly and consistently supported this cause, in particular the original signatories to the amendment: the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride.
We have discussed this issue frequently over a number of years, but it appears that the Government have not been listening. Either that or perhaps I have not been listening properly, because I am still at a loss to understand the arguments that they have put forward to justify their decision to deny EEA nationals alone, among all the people residing in the United Kingdom, physical proof of their right to do so.
This issue, as we have said before, has no partisan flavour. It has been supported by Peers across the House of all parties and of none, commanding one of the largest majorities in your Lordships’ House of any amendment on this Bill. It involves no Brexit arguments; it may be happily supported by any Member, whatever their position on those past arguments. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do to alleviate the anxieties and hardship that will otherwise be visited on millions of people who have made their home with us in the United Kingdom.
In Committee, the Government appeared to advance three principal arguments against our amendment: that a system with both digital proof and physical proof would be confusing; that a digital proof is better than a physical proof because a digital proof cannot be lost; and, lastly, that the Government intend to move to a digital-by-default system in future and therefore that it makes sense for the new settled status scheme to adopt a digital-only model from the outset.
On Report, a new argument was raised—or at least advanced more vigorously—and that was of cost. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government, in rejecting our amendment, have claimed financial privilege, advancing no other argument against it. Therefore, to address the issue of financial privilege and to tackle the Government’s concerns over cost, we have removed the requirement that physical proof must be provided free of charge, which was in the original amendment. It should be noted, therefore, that this amendment in lieu requires only that the Government offer physical proof of status to those who request it; that it allows the Exchequer to charge for such a document; and that the charge is permitted under the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
The Minister told us on Report that if 89% of those with settled status sought a physical document, it would cost £100 million—I think that was at col. 472 —which, by my calculation, would mean, in order to cover costs, a charge of £28.09. I therefore question the Minister’s statement just now that the cost would be £75, and I wonder how she marries that up with the figure she gave us before. Perhaps she will say, “We would have to take into account the setting up of a whole new process”—but I do not understand that. There is a process for issuing biometric residence permits, so there is no need to set up a new process. Indeed, non-EEA citizens who are granted settled status via their spousal relationship are given biometric residence permits—so I do not understand that at all.
I would much prefer that there was no charge for a physical document—not least because our citizens abroad are being issued physical proof of status without charge, as I understand it. Nevertheless, if this is the only way that EEA citizens who have made their homes here can be given the surety and confidence that they seek, I suspect that they would probably regard the fee of £28.09 as money well spent. I hope, therefore, that this addresses the issue of costs and privilege.
As to the response to the Government’s other arguments, I shall try to be brief, both because they have already been well rehearsed in this House and because even the Government do not seem to have the heart to argue them convincingly. First, on the argument that it would be confusing to people to operate a digital system as well as physical proof of status, it remains unclear to me why the Government make this claim. It is exactly the system that exists for non-EEA citizens with indefinite leave to remain, who can access a digital proof of status and can apply for a physical document. Landlords, employers and others who are expected to check for immigration status already operate under such a system, so I fail to understand who the Government think will be confused. What is likely to be confusing, therefore, is not the presence of a physical document but its absence.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Five Members have indicated that they wish to speak at this point: the noble Lord, Lord Polak, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I call the first of those speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I have no intention of delaying the House as I have made my views on this pretty clear. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has been very clear and precise. I believe that the Government are sticking their heels in for no good reason.
I should make it known that this morning there was a power outage at the police national computer centre in Hendon—run, of course, by the Home Office. As a result, police forces across the country were not able to access the police national computer. I do not need to explain to noble Lords that power outages of this sort have a serious effect on police operations. Following the technical issue that affected our voting on 30 September and this issue today, surely those EU citizens who request physical proof should be able to receive it like any other citizen.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, tabled the amendment in lieu to deal with the cost element that the Minister brought up on Report. I agree with him, because non-EEA citizens now receive physical proof, so I really fail to understand what the up-front costs that the Minister referred to are. It is an existing scheme. EU citizens deserve to be treated equally and the amendment deserves to be accepted. This is a matter not of policy, but of process. Non-EU citizens can obtain physical proof of settled status, so EU citizens will be the only group without that physical proof. I fail to understand why the Government are unable to accept the compromise amendment that now deals with the financial question.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Oates’s excellent speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, with whom I worked on the EU Justice Sub-Committee. The Minister referred to people being able to use their smartphones for this purpose. A friend of mine could not open the link in the email she received confirming her settled status. She had to go to an internet café to do so. I am not quite sure what went wrong there.
I will refer to a report published yesterday by the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union in the other place called Implementing the Withdrawal Agreement: Citizens’ Rights. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at it, but it backs the amendment so that EU citizens should have
“the option of … a physical document to evidence their residency status … in addition to their digital status.”
I am very pleased indeed that it has given that support. It refers to a number of reasons why this should be accepted. It talks about
“examples of people getting assistance from unregulated immigration advisers to make their application, then the third party retain the log-in details necessary to access the platform”
and make a
“charge to send on details to employers.”
I hope that is something the Home Office might look into.
The committee also talks about how, because the online product
“remains linked to the physical document, such as a passport, used by the individual in their application … If the passport is changed, then the applicant has to update the online system.”
That is an issue that will recur. The committee also says that
“accessing the online profile is not straightforward for people not fluent in IT”—
something we have discussed a lot on this subject—so they
“end up relying on the pdf document they receive informing them that a status has been granted”.
The Minister referred to that being put in the desk drawer. It is, of course,
“not a substitute for actual evidence of status”,
but unfortunately it might be used by some people who are confused by the online environment, which is a recipe for some difficulty.
Then, of course, the person asking the EU citizen to demonstrate their status has to understand it. The Minister referred to support for the holders of settled status. I am not sure whether she plans to give lots of tuition to prospective landlords, employers and so on. She talked about the NHS. It was not quite clear what that system will be. The Public Law Project has listed nine steps that a third party such as an employer would have to take to check the status of an EU citizen. It is worth quickly mentioning them:
“Request the code from the applicant … Wait for an email with a link to arrive … Open and read the email … Search, identify, and open the correct website”,
because apparently there is no link in the email,
“Start the checking process … Enter the share code from the email … Enter the applicant’s date of birth … Enter their company name”—
I am not sure what happens for an individual landlord—and, lastly,
“Check that the photo on their screen looks like the person applying for the job and keep a secure copy of the online check, either electronically or in hard copy.”
All this requires reliable access to the internet. If you do not have access to wi-fi, which you might not in an empty flat that you are showing it to a prospective tenant, a person would have to rely on mobile signal, which is honestly not great, even in London.
Also, the committee’s report says that apparently
“the lack of a physical document has contributed to the confusion over eligibility for benefits, because claimants have been unable to show a photo ID card showing their status … it was unclear how some decisions have been made by the DWP in terms of using settled status as a proof of eligibility.”
It is quite a serious point that even the DWP does not seem to have got this right.
The report says that
“the option of a physical card would give an additional layer of safety against criminal attempts to ‘hijack’ someone’s status.”
We are being warned all the time about cybersecurity, and the dangers of malware, hacking and so on. The report says that, in a recent survey of 3,000 EU citizens, apparently more than 10% had been asked
“to provide proof of settled status, and that the digital only status was deterring some from applying.”
It was actually putting them off. The report continues,
“physical proof came right at the top of concerns of EU citizens: 89% said that they would like an option, not compulsory, of physical proof.”
Having gone through all that evidence, it is hardly any wonder that the committee in the other place backed this sincere, reasoned request for EU citizens to have the option of a physical document. I know the noble Baroness cares about people and people’s lives, but it really seems the Government ought to find a way to accede to this request.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, here we go again on this one. I have not been persuaded any more by my noble friend—whom I hold in very high regard—this evening. She regurgitated the brief from last time, with a few little gildings, and did not convince me at all.
We are dealing with EU citizens. As my noble friend Lord Polak said very forcefully, they are being discriminated against in comparison with other foreign citizens resident in this country. This amendment asks for an option. If there was a weak point in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in the previous debate and a strong one from my noble friend on the Front Bench, it was over the issue of cost. The noble Lord has dropped that, and he is wise to do so. Frankly, people who want this physical proof will, I am sure, be glad to pay for it, whether it is £28 or, to take my noble friend’s figure, £75. There are ways and means of ensuring that those who cannot afford £75 are able to do it.
We must not stumble on this particularly weak, faulty argument of the Government. I say “of the Government” because I like to think that my noble friend the Minister, who is held in genuine high regard in this House, is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said a few moments ago, a woman who has demonstrated that she does care. She has not been given a kind brief. She is acting as a mouthpiece for a government department that does not have a history of great humanity.
Windrush was mentioned. If many of those people who suffered as a result of maladministration—and that is what it was—had had this sort of physical proof, we would not have gone through those agonising moments, and months, and years. This is common sense.
As far as the fallibility of the technology is concerned, my noble friend Lord Polak gave an up-to-the-minute example. We have heard many examples in your Lordships’ House since our last debate. One day last week, we had to adjourn for albeit not a long period, because the system had malfunctioned in some way.
We also must bear in mind that many of those about whom we are talking are of the generation that many of us in this House belong to. We are behaving in a rather arrogant way towards people who are not used to these systems. It is not a crime to be not particularly technological; if it were, I should be locked up for life. One sees the same sort of arrogance creeping in with those who say that we should have no more cash or cheques with which to pay our bills. We need to recognise that the whole of our society should be treated in a fair and equal way. What is being suggested this evening by the Government is that they should not be treated in a fair and equal way.
I appeal to my noble friend, who cannot—and does not, I know—believe in discrimination and who believes in fairness and equity, to do as I urged her to do last time: for goodness’ sake, tear up the brief and accept the argument. I know that these things are formulaic—I sat in the other place for 40 years—but the only reason the Government can dredge up is cost. Well, we have dealt with that one through the revised amendment.
Let us move forward. I will certainly vote for the revised amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as I voted for his last one. I hope that I will not need to; I hope that none of us will need to. I hope that, if we do need to and it goes back to the other place, the other place will have the guts and the gumption to realise that we are not driving a coach and horses through any party-political policy and that we are not doing anything against the Government because they are a Conservative Government—a slightly odd one, but that is another matter. We are making a plea for people who, in many cases, are extremely vulnerable; who have made a real contribution to our society; who have lived in our country and made it their own in many ways; who love the place and who have served it, many of them with great distinction.
Please, let us be sensible. Let the Government be sensible. If it is necessary, let us give the noble Lord, Lord Oates, another thumping majority tonight.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, there are three strong arguments that support my noble friend the Minister’s position and the Government’s decision to seek to reverse the Lords amendment.
The first is the cost, which, as we heard on Report, might be more than £100 million. I know that £100 million seems like tuppence ha’penny after discussions about Covid but it is a very large sum. The movers have brought the cost down by proposing a charge, which the Minister says will be £75 on that basis. We must accept the Government’s figure; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, argued that the cost is less but I am sad to say that, in my experience, government estimates are usually under-estimates rather than the reverse.
The second argument—this is the one that I feel most strongly about—is that there is always a risk of error and enhanced fraud with two versions of the truth, with one online version and one paper version. I do not think that that issue has been addressed properly in our debates.
The third argument, which this House may not like, is that digital is the way of the future; in my experience, everyone emphasises that unless they are pleading for a special case. In the words of my noble friend the Minister, digital by default is what we need because it gives access from anywhere from lots of different digital devices. It is precedented: as we have heard, digital ID has been used in Australia. Moreover, none of us worry about US ESTAs, which have the merit of providing one version of the truth. My noble friend also committed the Government to giving extra support to those who need help coping with the system; I am sure that DWP will also help.
I am afraid that I must disagree with the other noble Lords who have spoken. We should look forward, not back, and reject this proposal.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am tempted to support this amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as we both approach the anniversary of our entry into this House, five years ago. I urge my noble friend the Minister to keep an open mind on this amendment and to agree to it.
As I reminded my noble friend, in 2014-15, the Government—at that time, it was the Defra department —tried to introduce a digital-only farm payments scheme. It was scrapped because it simply could not be delivered and the department reverted to paper-only applications. I remind the House that many of the applicants will live in rural areas—they will not all live in inner-city areas and major towns—where broadband is woeful. Many existing not-spots do not have the capability to carry this scheme. The Government acknowledged this recently and are backing down from their commitment to universal coverage by 2025, so they recognise the limitations of their digital by default-only policy.
I remind the House that on 16 October, the National Audit Office reported that broadband users in rural areas are being left behind in major network upgrades. The Home Office should recognise that there is not universal coverage of the broadband and internet technology that will be required to deliver the digital service by default. While I have the greatest regard for both my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and the Minister, we have to accept that some 5% of people are living in the hardest-to-reach areas. In my view, this digital-by-default policy is being driven by an unelected adviser whose respect for the rules and the law is less than exemplary, and I think that he should join the real world with regard to some of the policies being brought forward.
The other difficulty I have with this policy is a very real one. I remind the House that my mother became a naturalised Brit, having come over to Britain from Denmark via Germany in 1948. What grieves me most about the policy that we will end up with without the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is that most of the applicants do not have English as their first language; it is not their mother tongue. In the words of my noble friend Lord Cormack, why are we seeking to discriminate against people in this way? I therefore urge my noble friend to show the big heart and affection that she has for these people and make sure either that we adopt the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in lieu of his earlier amendment for the reasons he has given, or that the Government should come forward with an amendment of their own. Digital by default in these circumstances is not going to work.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I know that almost everyone in the Chamber has spoken to the Motion, but I have to ask whether anyone else wishes to contribute at this point. Silence being the case, I shall move on to the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. He has removed the only apparent government objection to his original amendment —that no fee could be charged—and, in her opening remarks, the Minister produced a few rather more minor costs. However, he undermined that argument, so perhaps she can clarify that point in her summing up.
As I understand it, this amendment will do no more than bring EEA nationals into line with all other immigrants residing in the UK. The Government have argued in relation to many amendments to this Bill that they are determined to treat EEA nationals in exactly the same way as other people who are resident in this country. Surely the Minister cannot then argue in relation to this amendment that EEA nationals should be treated differently when compared with immigrants from other countries. If she does not accept this amendment, can she explain this apparent inconsistency of approach?
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has cogently set out the case for this amendment and his arguments need no repetition. For me, the two most powerful are first, that, as others have mentioned, IT system failures and technical faults are all too frequent, while the second is that large numbers of people have limited IT skills. The Minister responded to that point by saying, “That will not be a problem because there will be department-to-department communication.” Let us suppose that someone goes to a doctor needing medical help, but the Home Office system has gone down or some other technical problem has arisen; the doctor cannot treat them. I do not think that it is good enough to say, “Oh, do not worry, it will all be fine on the night.”
Just imagine, as an example, that we no longer had physical passports, merely an entry online to prove our UK citizenship. We could arrive at an airport and not be entirely confident that our details would be found to enable us to board an aircraft. How many of us would be comfortable with that? I certainly would not be. I wonder, when the Government talk about these things, whether they are actually planning to abandon physical passports, because that would be the logic of this situation. I will support this amendment if it is put to the vote.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is rare for a campaign to take off in the way that the call for physical proof has done. The Government have made their arguments over a number of stages and those who have been calling for this have not been satisfied—they certainly have been following what is going on. I regret that the Minister in the Commons did not address the issue but, apart from the standard financial privilege response, said that the issue had been debated many times. Yes, it has, but no one seems to have changed their position.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we may all have different views of this Government. While some might think that they are useless and incompetent, others might take a different view. However, I think that we would all agree that they certainly make many strange decisions—often ludicrous, inconsistent, contradictory and largely disappointing. This is one example. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a consistent argument has been made about this issue, but the Government are just not listening. That is much to be regretted on the part of the Government because they should have given way on this point, but it is quite clear that they are not going to do so. I do not know if that is down to unelected advisers, the Home Secretary, or the general attitude of the Government as a whole. However, it is clear that they are not going to give way and that is most disappointing. For that reason, we are not going to support sending this issue back to the other place again because I do not think that the Government will change their position.
However, I have a few other comments to make. A few days ago, we had a debate about the costs to enable British children in care to get their British citizenship. The Government were happy to charge over £1,000; there was no issue about that at all. That is many hundreds of pounds more than the cost, so apparently there is no issue there at all. Here, of course, the Government have raised the issue of cost, saying that they are not sure and that it could be too much for people. I have equally made the point by asking for years why we cannot stop council tax payers having to subsidise planning applications. But no, the Government say that we have to continue letting those taxpayers subsidise such applications. That is completely ludicrous, contradictory and inconsistent, but that is what we have before us again today.
In all of these debates, I have never had an answer to this question. The point is made about how we cannot have certificates because they are not needed, everything is now digital, and we should not be worried about it. Yet, at the same time, we are handing out certificates to people who become British citizens. This is done in ceremonies in town halls up and down the country. You have to hand them out, they are signed by the Home Secretary of the day, and you tell the person that the certificate is really important. You hand it to them, a photograph is taken, and off they go with a document that at the moment is signed by Priti Patel. I have handed out hundreds of these things over the years, but I do not believe that those certificates are biometric. I think that they are a piece of paper. I might be wrong about that; perhaps they are biometric now and I do not know. Again, this is from the same department, so it is inconsistent and completely ludicrous. It is a real shame that the Government have not listened and that they are not going to do so. I think that that is much to the regret and shame of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who moved it.
One of the first areas of disagreement that he raised was on costs. We have used published costs for enrolling biometrics and issuing a BRP, which are £19.20 and £56 respectively. They cover only the casework in the applications and not the significant set-up costs. There are costs of issuing and replacement, and one-off costs of upgrading pre-settled status cards. There is a cost of communication of the change and, of course, of facial technology.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, suggested that the system should be trialled. The fact is that people are using it now. It is not going live on 1 January; people are already using it to prove status. That is proof of the success of the “trial”, as he puts it. Surely the fact that 4 million applications have already been made suggests that the system is working. This takes me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding the difficulties of the system. I have seen how the application process works. It is very easy; I have suggested previously in this place that noble Lords take time to look at just how easy it is to set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, also stated his dismay that the PSED has not been published. I do not have any update on my previous statement that we intend to publish it.
On discrimination, the BNO route will be launched in January. Applicants will receive digital status using the technology based on the EU settlement scheme. People receiving that status will be required to use it from January, so the system relates not just to people from EU member states but to our BNO friends who we expect to come here from then. The system is therefore not discriminatory in the sense that our BNO friends will use it from January as well.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is absolutely right: although it might not be the way forward for older people, digital by default is the way forward. It is completely retrograde to talk about physical documents when in fact, to date, the system appears to be working well. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about physical documents being less open to abuse. They are more open to abuse and far easier to forge than a digital status that an employer or landlord can access.
Finally, regarding a power outage at the PNC, I should tell my noble friend Lord Polack that our back-up systems are very robust, as I have previously explained.
I do not think that I will convince some noble Lords—indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, intends to divide the House—but it is a retrograde step to talk about returning to physical documents. I remember my noble friend, joined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the importance of physical identity, which we fully intend to take forward. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, will withdraw his amendment but I do not think that he will.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I do not understand the issue with set-up costs; a system exists. I also do not understand the point about casework costs for people who already have settled status.
All the arguments have been aired extensively. I very much regret that the Labour Front Bench is unable to come with us, not least because of the strong arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for exactly my position. However, I hope that, despite the view of the Front Bench, my friends on the Labour Benches will support us, just as my friends on the Conservative Benches will do. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support and I appeal for their support again. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery, which has no place in our society. We are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before, and we are committed to supporting victims and helping them to rebuild their lives.
Lords Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl, would require arrangements to be made in the Immigration Rules for the grant of leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens in specified circumstances. I am therefore pleased to see that he has tabled Amendment 9B in lieu, which reiterates the Government’s commitment to him in this area.
The original Amendment 9 is unnecessary and should not be insisted upon for the following reasons. Currently, confirmed victims of modern slavery who are foreign nationals from non-EEA countries and who do not already have immigration status are automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain. By “automatic”, I mean that they do not need to apply for it. Our national referral mechanism arranges for that consideration after a decision has been reached that there are conclusive grounds to believe they are a victim of modern slavery. EEA citizens are currently not automatically considered in this way.
However, in line with assurances given in the other place, following the end of free movement, EEA confirmed victims who do not already have permission to stay in the UK, for example through our EU settlement scheme, will be treated in the same way as other foreign national victims and therefore receive automatic consideration for a grant of discretionary leave. The published policy will be amended to make this clear.
The published policy already provides for a grant of leave in cases where the victim is supporting the police in an investigation; is to be a witness in court; is pursuing compensation for the exploitation that they have suffered; requires medical treatment that needs to be provided in the UK; or because there is a risk they may be retrafficked if they are required to return to their country of origin. This is substantially the same as the qualifying criteria set out in the original amendment.
I hope that, in the light of the assurances I have given, the House will agree that Amendment 9 and Amendment 9B in lieu should not be insisted on. There are further issues to take forward about how we can best identify and support victims of modern slavery and I have undertaken to discuss these matters in further detail with the noble Lord, Lord McColl. However, it is important that, for immigration purposes, EEA victims are treated in the same way as other victims from abroad once free movement ends. I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
“Consideration of discretionary leave to remain for confirmed adult victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that a person aged 18 years or over is automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain when—
(a) the person is either a Swiss national or an EEA national who is not also an Irish Citizen; and
(b) there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person is considered for the grant of leave to remain immediately once a conclusive determination is made that they are a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
(4) In this section—
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings;
“conclusive determination” means a determination that a person is, or is not, a victim of slavery or human trafficking when the identification process conducted by a competent authority concludes that the person is, or is not, such a victim;
“EEA national” means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at
Oporto on 2 May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time);
“victim of slavery” and “victim of human trafficking” mean a person falling within the definition of a “victim of slavery” or “victim of human trafficking” in section 56 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (section 56: interpretation).””
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I should make it clear from the outset that I will not be pressing the amendment in lieu to a vote. I am very grateful to the clerks who have advised me through the intricacies of ping-pong procedure, enabling me to speak today to thank those noble Lords who supported my amendment on 6 October, and to put on the record my response to events in another place on Monday and various undertakings that have been given by the Government.
I have decided not to move a Motion today to insist that what was Clause 12 be reinstated into the Bill for two reasons. In the first instance, I am very grateful for the Minister’s assurance that the Government will amend the guidance on discretionary leave to remain for victims of modern slavery to make it clear that, from 1 January, all confirmed victims who are EEA nationals should be automatically considered for DLR. This is very welcome. While it will not address the fact that many non-EEA confirmed victims of modern slavery will be able to access additional recovery routes, including asylum and humanitarian protection, it means that, as far as DLR is concerned, EEA and non-EEA confirmed victims of modern slavery will be treated in the same way. I thank the Government for this clear commitment.
My amendment in lieu effectively demonstrates what the Government have committed to doing in relation to automatic consideration and, for this reason, I will not be pressing it to a Division. I very much hope that, under this new arrangement, the Government will publish statistics on the immigration outcomes for all confirmed victims of modern slavery following their automatic assessment for DLR. I also welcome the assurance of the Minister in the other place that being a confirmed victim of modern slavery will be considered an acceptable reason for late application for settled status; that again is very positive.
The second reason I have decided not to move an amendment to reinstate Clause 12 is that the Government have agreed to a series of meetings with the right honourable Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and me on our Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill to work through the issues with the objective of trying to identify common ground around victim support. I particularly welcome this.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no notice of unlisted speakers. Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In that case, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and hope that she has been unmuted.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
This stage does not need a long speech, so I will say only that I understand why the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is not pursuing matters today. I know that he will continue to press for all the things his Bill covers with regard to victims of trafficking and exploitation, and no doubt many other things as well. Of course, we support him. We, too, are concerned about this dreadful crime and the importance of supporting all those who have been victims of it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has received assurances. I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has given him assurances regarding what she will do to help progress this, and it was also good to hear that he has accepted them.
We all know that the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, is highly respected, not only by me but by the whole House. He is a wonderful Member of this House, both in his previous professional career as a surgeon and in his work on the Mercy Ships. While I have been in this House for the past 10 years, he has consistently campaigned on violence against women and violence against people in general and on modern slavery. As I have said before, it is high time that the Government agreed with the noble Lord and moved things forward. The noble Lord’s Bill, which he referred to, which he and Iain Duncan Smith are promoting in the other place, is reasonable, sensible and practical, and the Government should be proud to support it. I hope that, in the not too distant future, we will see the Government give active support to the Bill because, sadly, it has left this House twice only to be wrecked in the other place by a group of people who seemed to get pleasure out of wrecking good Private Members’ Bills, so I hope that will stop and that we will get the Bill through. In his Private Member’s Bill he asks only that people are treated with dignity and respect and that if you are accepted as a victim of modern slavery in England and Wales, you should be treated exactly the same as you are treated in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, because their legislation is superior to ours, and we want it all the same.
I am therefore delighted that there will be a discussion and that the Minister and the noble Lord will be involved in that, and I hope that we will have some good news in the weeks and months ahead.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
I thank everyone for their support, and I particularly thank the Minister, who is a real star and who has been so helpful in this whole business. Without further ado, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Messages as at 4 November 2020 - (4 Nov 2020)
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 4B. If Lords amendment 4B is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Lords message considered forthwith (Programme Order, 19 October).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4B.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 4B.
Kevin Foster
Lords amendment 4B relates to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I am sure that hon. Members will have in mind the tragic events in the channel last week. Let me reiterate very firmly that the Government are determined to end these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings to ensure that lives are not lost and that ruthless criminal gangs no longer profit from this criminal activity.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced at the Conservative party conference, we intend to reform our broken asylum system to make it firm but fair. We intend to bring forward legislation next year to deliver this, allowing for a wider debate on the subject. Our reformed system will be fair and compassionate towards those who need our help by welcoming people through safe and legal routes. It will also be firm and stand up for the law-abiding majority by stopping the abuse of the system by those who raise no founded claims through protected routes but do so purely to frustrate the implementation of our immigration law and procedure.
Let me reassure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to the principle of family unity and to supporting vulnerable children. We have a very proud record of providing safety to those who need it through our asylum system and world-leading resettlement schemes, and we are determined that that continues. We have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019, and 20% of all claims made in the EU are in the UK.
The Government understand the importance of this issue, and it is right that we continue to debate it. Lords amendment 4B is well-intentioned in seeking to ensure that adequate protection is in place for vulnerable asylum-seeking children. However, we have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It remains our goal to negotiate such an agreement. As my noble Friend Baroness Williams announced in the other place on 21 October, in the event of no negotiated outcome, we will pursue bilateral negotiations on post-transition migration issues with mutual interest countries, including on family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Government policy has not changed on this matter.
However, it is worth noting that the UK already provides safe and legal routes for people to join family members in the UK through our existing immigration rules, all of which are unaffected by our exit from the EU, as they apply globally. In the year ending June 2020, the Government issued 6,320 refugee family reunion visas and have issued more than 29,000 in the last five years. This shows that our existing refugee family reunion routes are working well, and these routes will continue to apply, including to people in the EU, after the transition period. Our resettlement schemes were the largest in Europe over the last five years, directly resettling more than 25,000 people from regions of conflict and instability, half of whom were children. During the debate in the other place on 21 October, the Government committed, as part of this vital work, to conduct a review of safe and legal routes into the UK, including those for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in EU member states to reunite with family members here in the United Kingdom.
The substantive amendment that the Government have tabled in lieu, amendment (a), makes important statutory commitments, demonstrating the Government’s assurances to review legal routes to the UK for people seeking protection in EU member states or seeking to come to the UK to make a protection claim, including for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to join their family members here in the United Kingdom; to publicly consult on legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the EU seeking to join family members in the UK; to lay a statement before Parliament providing further details of that review and public consultation within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent; and to prepare a report on the outcome of the review, publish it and lay it before Parliament. Amendments (b) and (c) concern commencement of the commitment in amendment (a) to lay a statement before Parliament and specify that it will come into force within three months of Royal Assent.
I trust Members will agree that amendment (a) in lieu is substantial and clearly demonstrates how seriously this Government take the issue of family unity for vulnerable children. It is important that we consider these routes, to discourage vulnerable children from making the dangerous and illegal journeys that can result in the kind of tragedy we saw last week. Due to the scope of the Bill, amendment (a) refers only to legal routes for those who have made an application for international protection in an EU member state or are seeking to come to the UK from a member state to claim protection here. However, I can confirm that the review we conduct will be concerned with legal routes from all countries, not just EU member states. That is in line with our new global approach to the future immigration system and ensures that there is no advantage to making a dangerous journey across the Mediterranean, often organised by criminal trafficking gangs. Those granted permission under these routes can instead travel safely—via scheduled air services, for example—to the United Kingdom.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister tells us that the system is working well and that it would be dangerous to change it, and for that reason, the Government are not going to change it. What purpose is served by a consultation in those circumstances?
Kevin Foster
We are happy to look at a proper review of the rules. Our current rules apply alongside Dublin for those who are within the EU. We think it is appropriate to take stock, as we are doing with the rest of our migration system, as our arrangements fundamentally change with the European Union. We are happy to make the commitment to review them for the future; that is part of the general stock-take we are doing. It is not unreasonable to highlight our record on resettlement and this country’s commitments and the actions it has taken, compared with the commentary we sometimes hear. I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Member does not see a review of the rules as the way forward, but I am sure that he and his colleagues will look to proactively and positively engage with the discussion that this amendment and the review will engender.
It is now essential that the Bill receives Royal Assent without further delay if key elements of the Government’s future border and immigration system, including the new skilled workers routes as well as social security co-ordination, are to be implemented as planned. Further delay would put at risk the ending of free movement at the end of the transition period, which means the UK would effectively continue to have free movement, but unreciprocated by the European Union, into 2021. We cannot accept a delay to that key manifesto commitment. I therefore hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined today, the House will now support our amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu, and the statutory commitments they contain, and disagree with the Lords in their amendment 4B.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I want to start by thanking the Minister for taking the time earlier this week to explain the Government’s amendments in lieu, and for writing to me and others today with further details. Although we do not have a problem with the Government’s amendments—on the contrary, we welcome the opportunity to review all the safe and legal routes available to those fleeing war, torture or persecution and who have grounds to seek asylum in the UK—the review offered still falls a long way short of the commitment that we have asked for in Lords amendment 4B.
The review is a welcome addition to the Bill, but the fact that it is to be introduced through an amendment in lieu of ours makes it feel somewhat hollow by comparison. The Minister will be aware that support for our amendment in the only slightly varying drafts in the other place, spearheaded so ably by Lord Dubs, has resulted in two significant Government defeats, and efforts in the Commons have consistently had support from Members on his own Back Benches. I want to thank them for their work on this, not least the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), through their work on the Home Affairs Committee, have championed the merits of continuing the routes for unaccompanied child refugees.
We ask the Minister one more time to reflect on why adopting the Dubs amendment in its entirely is not just critical but time-critical. We debate the amendment today with 56 days to go until the Dublin regulations end, and with them the lifeline they offer, and we fall back on the immigration rules. We also debate the merits of our amendment, as the Minister has already said, in the shadow of such tragedy in the English channel this year. The sinking of just one of those insecure boats just last week resulted in the loss of life of four people, two of them children who were just six and nine. A further 15 people were taken to hospital, and three more are missing, presumed dead, including the 15-month-old baby of the Iranian Kurd family who died. It is a truly harrowing reminder that people are making more and more desperate decisions as this Government’s squeeze on safe and legal routes continues. It demonstrates that the morally bankrupt traffickers, who allow children and adults alike to get into their dangerous boats and set off to sea in bad weather, will continue to exploit people in the worst possible ways unless we reopen and continue those safe and legal alternatives, family reunion being one of them.
The deliberations and ping-pong between the two Houses on the matter of family reunion or the question of accepting unaccompanied child refugees should not be politically contentious. We are a decent and humanitarian country that takes seriously the requirement, enshrined in international law, to consider asylum claims and offer refuge to those fleeing persecution and destitution, and the Minister has rightly spoken of our country’s proud record on that.
When the House previously considered Lords amendments to the Bill, the Government rejected Lords amendment 4—the earlier version of this amendment—citing financial privilege, as is so often the parliamentary way. I am inclined to agree with Lord Dubs when he said:
“Given the time we spent on the issue and its importance, to say that the technicality of financial privilege is sufficient to dispose of it…falls short of being humanitarian”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1595.]
I heard the Minister’s contribution and read his letter earlier today, and it remains the Government’s goal to seek new arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied child refugees. However, when he responds, could he update the House further? We understand that the Commission simply does not have a mandate from the member states to enter into negotiations on this issue with the UK, so those talks simply cannot progress as things stand. With that in mind, the Minister will know that his review does not commit to continuing the route, and he has offered no substitute to bridge the gap between the European co-operation ending and the possible restart of routes or any new routes that result from his proposed review. The Government’s rhetoric on the anticipated sovereign borders Bill has not given us hope on that front, but if he is serious about finding a way forward and continuing the family reunion co-operation that we are currently committed to, I urge him to support the amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am going to call the Minister at 6.27 pm, and the questions will be put no later than 6.32 pm. There are a number of MPs on the call list, so please show some self-discipline in order that we can get in as many as we can.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 4B. I was disappointed to hear the Minister dismiss it as just well intentioned. I think it is absolutely essential. With just eight weeks to go before the Dublin arrangements for family reunion fall, we have had the tragic drownings in the channel recently; mercifully, but surprisingly, such cases are rare.
Here we go again. This is the last remaining amendment that has come back from the Lords, and it has done so with a vengeance. It was a big defeat for the Government in the other place, by 320 votes to 242. Lord Dubs has led the charge on this ably and eloquently over many months, and he spoke with huge passion. The debate in the other place was just about financial privilege; as he put it, that
“falls short of being humanitarian and falls short of respecting the opinions of this House.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1595.]
Many in this House think we must do better, and I find it extraordinary that the Government are still digging their heels in for the sake of about 500 highly vulnerable children.
The Government have produced their own amendment. I have no objection to it; it is perfectly innocuous. It commits to a review of safe and legal routes, and that is welcome. It is the least that can be expected, however, because it is what the Government have promised all along in the light of the welcome overhaul of the immigration system and the continued suspension or non-renewal of previous safe and legal routes. Simply adding the Government’s amendment to the Bill will not guarantee the replacement for the Dublin family reunion scheme that we have been promised for so long—despite the fact that, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) has said, there is no negotiating mandate from EU member states.
The amendment gives no timescale for when measures may be introduced, if they are to be. Neither does it give details about how extensive a replacement scheme may be, given that the Government’s separate refugee family reunion scheme is much more restrictive about family members who can reunite. Part 11 of the rules applies only to pre-flight children seeking to reunite primarily with parents, and provisions on reuniting with uncles or aunts, for example, are subject to very strict criteria and high evidential thresholds.
Let us look at those thresholds by considering the ability of a young teenage boy on the Greek islands to reunite with an aunt or uncle in the UK—a case that we raised with the Minister in the Home Affairs Committee this morning. The Minister made it sound as though that would be no problem, but it will not work in practice for most cases. That child would have to apply under rule 319X, which technically allows children to join uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings or any other family member who is not a parent and who has the refugee status of humanitarian protection. However, the requirements that have to be met are very onerous, and there are strict evidential requirements.
The child would be able to apply under 319X, but only if the uncle or aunt is a refugee, not if they are British or have other status, unlike in the Dublin regulations. The child can apply only if the uncle or aunt can maintain and accommodate them. That is a very high threshold, and it is much higher than the one in Dublin. The child can apply only if they can show that
“there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”—
that is a very high test that is hard to meet, and there is no such test under the Dublin regulations—
“and suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care”.
The child can apply only if the uncle or aunt can afford the £388 fee to make the application. The uncle or aunt cannot be a refugee with indefinite leave to remain; they must only have limited leave to remain as a refugee. That is an absurdly high bar to meet, and I suspect the Minister knows it. Frankly, it is no substitute for the safe and legal routes that are available now, which have worked well and have been responsible for saving hundreds of highly vulnerable children.
That was the only alternative scheme that the Minister could offer the Home Affairs Committee this morning. He claimed that some 7,400 refugees—it fell to one of the officials to look this up on the computer in front of them—had been issued family reunion visas in the year to March 2020. But they are from outside the EU. The scheme is welcome, as is the fact that we have brought those people in. The Government are to be applauded for targeting some of the most vulnerable families and children, who are genuine refugees from some really dangerous parts of the world, and that has worked exceedingly well. They are all from outside the EU, however, so the scheme does absolutely nothing for the children we are talking about. As things stand, on 1 January 2021, an unaccompanied child in a squalid French refugee camp or on the streets of Italy, or any of the 1,600 unaccompanied children on the Greek island of Lesbos—where a refugee camp recently burned down, as the hon. Member for Halifax mentioned —or a child orphaned because their parents were killed by a bomb in Syria, by terrorists in Afghanistan, or by disease or famine in sub-Saharan Africa, will have no obvious mainstream means of applying to join a last remaining sibling, aunt, or other relative in the UK. Safe Passage, to which I pay great tribute for its work on this issue, says that some 40% of the cases that it supports in France are of siblings trying to reunite. That is the reality.
Given that, I am afraid that all the assurances given by the Minister at the Dispatch Box and at this morning’s session of the Home Affairs Committee pale into absolute insignificance and irrelevance. I have set out what the position will be on 1 January 2021, in eight weeks’ time, unless a deal is negotiated and agreed before then—and a deal on a Dublin replacement is not even being discussed at the moment.
I have asked previously for a serious replacement for Dublin III, and a Dubs 2 scheme; the previous Dubs scheme did an extraordinary job of rescuing 480 very vulnerable unaccompanied children from dangerous parts of the world. I ask the Government, as a last-ditch effort to show their good will and commitment to a practical scheme that we know works, to roll over the terms of Dublin, at least until a new scheme is in place. I also ask them to give the go-ahead to the more than 30 councils across the country that have offered places to over 1,400 refugees like these refugee children, and to provide the financing for that.
We are not talking about a huge number of children. We are, however, talking about some of the most vulnerable children, who find themselves in hopeless and dangerous circumstances through no fault of their own—the sort of children we have a proud record of helping, and the sort of children whom we helped through the Dublin scheme, and can continue to help if the Government will make this concession. The Lords amendments would achieve that. Let us not let those children down.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We provide safe, legal routes so that fewer people feel compelled to try the more dangerous alternatives, with all the tragic consequences that they can entail, as we saw recently. The simple fact that should determine how we vote tonight is this: if the Government successfully resist Lord Dubs’s amendment, there will be fewer, not more, safe, legal routes for people from the start of January.
Bilateral agreements that might replace some features of Dublin are months, if not years, away. There is no prospect of a negotiated settlement with the EU on this issue by the end of December, so in just a few weeks, people who could previously have reunited with family members in the UK will not be able to. They will turn to people traffickers and smugglers instead, or attempt other dangerous crossings themselves.
The Minister has pointed to the domestic immigration rules on family reunion. While some who will lose rights under Dublin will be able to use those rules, very many will not. Those domestic rules are indeed very different from Dublin and more restricted in scope, and often include significantly more difficult legal tests and evidential hurdles, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out.
I think the Minister knows that the domestic rules are not a substitute for Dublin, so he pointed to the possibility of a review. I thank him for speaking to me about that earlier this week; we will engage constructively with that, but the offer of a review is too little, too late. It simply holds out the possibility that something might appear further down the line to fill the gap left by the loss of the Dublin rights. First, we should be sceptical about whether anything robust enough will ever appear. Even the Government’s proposal to the EU for a post-transition successor to Dublin was in reality a significant watering down of Dublin, under which children’s rights would be subject to the Government’s discretion and appeal rights would be abolished, while other individuals would lose their rights altogether.
Secondly, even if the Government were to come up with something acceptable down the line after this review, the gap between the start of January and that replacement appearing will be hugely damaging in itself. People are not going to wait to see what might happen. From January, with the safe Dublin route closed, more vulnerable people in Europe with family here in the UK will be tempted by and driven towards the traffickers and the dangerous routes. If the Government want a sensible compromise, and it has already been suggested a couple of times in this debate, at the very least they should offer to keep the Dublin routes open for now until the promised review takes place, and alternative proposals come forward and are approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for keeping his comments brief. I do not intend to put on a time limit, but if people can keep to roughly Stuart C. McDonald’s length of speech—about four minutes—we will get fairly well everybody in.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This Lords amendment should not be a point of party political disagreement. I agree with every word that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said. He is a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is also a member of the Select Committee. We may disagree on many things, but on this we are in strong agreement, as we are with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch).
When in the past we have helped child refugees, we have done so on a cross-party basis—be it, generations ago, with the Kindertransport or, in more recent years, with the Dubs amendment put forward by Lord Dubs, himself a child of the Kindertransport. We have done so with the investment through the aid budget supporting refugees across the regions, and with the resettlement scheme, which many of us called for and the Government rightly brought forward, to help many Syrian families restart their lives. The same principle should apply here as well.
We have always had cross-party agreement that we should do our bit to help children and teenagers who are alone with no one to look after them, and who have fled conflict and persecution but have family here in the UK who can care for them, put a roof over their head, try to make sure they get back into school, look after them and give them back a future. It is something that every one of us would want for our own families if we, for a moment, just think about walking in others’ shoes and about the awful plight of families in this situation, torn asunder by conflict or by persecution. I have teenage and adult children and, like so many of us, I would want them to be back together or to find others who could care for them from within our family if something terrible happened.
While the Government’s proposed review will, I hope, be important in looking at safe and legal routes to sanctuary, it is not an alternative to the Lords amendment. Reviews take time and consultation takes time. All of those things take time, and we do not know yet where it will end, but at the moment the rules change in January, and therefore it is not an alternative for the children and teenage refugees who may be in need of support to rejoin family now.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out clearly why the current rules do not suffice to provide that support, but Safe Passage provided us with the reason why there is so much at stake when it described the case of a 14-year-old teenage boy on the streets of Paris, whose brother is here. Safe Passage had worked with him to get him off the streets into secure accommodation, to get him support from social services and to get him into the legal process to apply to rejoin his adult brother, who is in Scotland. However, the boy and his brother became deeply anxious that the rules were about to change at the end of December, and he has now left that accommodation. He has absconded, and nobody knows where he is. The message he left behind said, “I have heard that the law will change. What will happen to me?” The huge risk is that he may now end up in the arms of people smugglers or people traffickers, trying to make a really dangerous journey. We have seen the consequences of those awful, dangerous journeys in flimsy boats, with lives having been lost so recently—children’s lives have been lost as well.
I urge the Minister to think again and go with the spirit of the things he told us this morning about wanting to be compassionate towards child and teenage refugees. I urge him to keep these provisions in place, to accept the Lords amendment and to recognise our continuing obligation to reunite desperate families. If he wants to look at this again once his review is in place, he will have done no further harm to those families in the meantime.
For the sake of these teenagers and young people, whose safety and lives may otherwise be at risk, I urge the Minister to accept the Lords amendment.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s restating of the commitment to safe and legal routes, which we all recognise are critical to tackling the risks of trafficking. I also very much welcome the commitment to existing family reunion routes.
One issue that has not received enough attention in the debate around child refugees is the humanitarian issue of what happens to them after they arrive in this country. It is important that I ask the Minister to consider some of those wider implications, because they are enormously significant in making a decision about the UK’s attitude to so many of these questions. They are vital to our care system, to local authorities and, of course, to local communities, because the children and young people we are talking about in the context of this specific amendment and debate are a very small proportion of the number the UK is involved in supporting. Indeed, from 2015, we saw around a doubling of the annual number of unaccompanied children and young people coming into the care of local authorities in the United Kingdom under the terms of the Children Act 1989, partly as a result of the Government’s commitments, but also in recognition of the fact that determining the narrow legal status of a child refugee before they arrive here and ensuring that is sustained after their arrival is something with which this debate and the legislation struggle.
One of the big challenges I have always found, having worked with the noble Lord Dubs on these issues for some time, is that the idea that Dubs created a very specific route that opens up an opportunity often turns into an illusion for these children once they arrive,. I have personally come across many examples of young people who have been lined up to come here to be reunited with a family member only for it to transpire that the family member is in no position to care for them, and that young person is, in fact, simply being lined up to be taken into the United Kingdom care system. That, of course, is the ultimate destination for many unaccompanied child refugees, because that is what our legislation requires.
Although I very much agree with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), we need to consider not that Dubs is unique in and of itself but that, actually, it concerns a very small, flexible and variable number within a much larger number of child refugees who are coming into the care of the United Kingdom.
When the Minister looks at the wider capacity picture, he should speak to the 30 councils that have come forward and said they would like to take Dubs children. He should ask them why they are not willing to make those places available to the large numbers of existing asylum-seeking children who are in the care of local authorities while looking for openings under the national transfer scheme. That would enable many of these children, many of whom may turn out to be Dubs eligible anyway, to move into the care of a local authority in a different part of the country. That is a critical question.
In conclusion, I welcome much of what the Minister said. I simply ask him to provide in his response a commitment on the future of global resettlement. We all recognise that this is a very small part of that much bigger picture. A clear commitment from the Government about when the scheme will commence and what its resourcing will look like would provide assurance of what the future framework is for so many vulnerable people around the world and maintain the UK’s reputation as providing a safe and honourable route to a safe haven for those who genuinely need it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I have heard him speak on this matter in the past, and he does so with clarity and some experience and authority. Of course, he is right to bring these problems to the attention of the House. I would observe in passing, however, that the problems he highlights are, relative to the problems we will have if we remove the Dublin scheme, easy problems to have. The state, as we all know, is not a good parent. We have seen that not just in relation to refugees, but in relation to our own constituents. Frankly, however, those are problems that can be solved when you have used the safe legal route to get children here. That is really what is at stake here.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was absolutely forensic and clinical in his dissection of the Government’s policy and response. It was an absolute masterclass that should be played to future generations of new Members. He is absolutely right. He laid bare the paucity of the position the Government have taken for reasons that I still fail to understand. The Minister said we would doubtless engage proactively with the consultation he referred to. Of course, he is absolutely right. We will do that. My colleagues and I will never pass up an opportunity to put the case for the creation of safe and legal routes. However, it is no substitute for the House now stepping up to the plate and meeting its obligations and responsibilities, moral and legal, in providing those safe and legal routes.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Select Committee, said that we should walk in the shoes of those who find themselves in this position. She is absolutely right about that. I do not know if I am the only person in the Chamber at the moment who has ever gone to sea in November in a gale. Having been born and brought up on Islay and representing Orkney and Shetland, it is just part of what you do. It is absolutely terrifying. Being at sea when a gale blows up is absolutely terrifying. I remember one occasion waiting on a pier to go on a ferry with my own children. I decided I would not take them. It was a modern ferry. It was well-equipped and would have had every rescue availability if something had gone wrong. It was a ferry that would only go to sea because it had a responsible captain who felt it was safe to do so. But I was not going to put my children through that, because they were young and they would have been terrified.
So how bad have things got to be before any parent would consider the possibility of going to sea at this time of year, knowing the possible consequences that we saw in the channel so very recently? That is what at stake here. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is absolutely right. We should put ourselves in the position of those who find themselves in that position. If we do, the Dubs amendment looks like a very modest proposal indeed.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Rasoul Iran- Nejad, Shiva Mohammad Panahi, their daughter Anita, eight, their son Armin, six, and their 15-month-old baby, Artin—just the latest people to have lost their lives attempting an unsafe passage across the English channel. They are real people, not just a statistic. The Institute of Race Relations research found that 292 people have lost their lives crossing the channel to the UK since 1999, with the numbers steadily increasing since 2013. Those statistics are tragic enough, but behind each one lies the story of a human being so desperate to escape war, famine, destitution or persecution that they will take unimaginable risks to reach what they believe will allow them security and a safe life. It is not enough to express sadness, or thoughts and prayers as the Home Secretary did, because actions speak much louder than words.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call Tim Farron, I would like to say that at 6.27 pm and no later, the Minister will be up on his feet. You know that Jim Shannon is on the list and it would be nice if you could at least ensure that he is able to make a contribution.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow so many well-informed, logical and compassionate speeches in this important debate. In the Home Secretary’s party conference speech a few weeks ago, she talked about the vast importance of refugees using legal routes to come to the UK. I think all hon. Members present agree and all—or most—are bemused as to why she would close off a route such as this, which is relatively modest, as has been said.
The ire that is focused on criminal gangs is absolutely justified, but we push people into the arms of those criminal gangs if we close off safe and legal routes. Wherever the negotiations with the EU end up, the chances are that we will need to bring in our own domestic policy that offers young people and families the opportunity to be reunited on these shores.
I will make four quick points. First, the numbers are few. The reaction of some newspapers, and from the mouths of some Ministers and others, is a colossal overreaction to the numbers of people actually travelling. Yes, it is more than we would want—it is a sign of something utterly heartbreaking—but we are not talking about the tens or hundreds of thousands that some of us have seen in south-eastern Europe over the last few years. The numbers are few, so let us not overreact with the sabre-rattling rhetoric that we sometimes hear from the Government and the Conservative party.
Secondly, the stakes are high, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) encapsulated. I remember being on the shores of Lesbos a few years ago as a boat came in, and talking to a family afterwards—a five-year-old girl, three-year-old girl, mum and dad. The dad ran a garage in Syria and the mum was a nursery schoolteacher. They were relatively comfortable, but they took a colossal and unspeakable risk, because staying was more risky. The stakes are high, so how dare we put barriers in their way?
Thirdly, the objections are poor. I often hear people talk about the pull factor, but there is a push factor, for pity’s sake. Those people will try to find a way to our shores by a safe and legal way, or by utterly brutal and dangerous ways, unless we provide those safe routes.
Finally, this is not worthy of us. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) rightly talked about our national character. I think it was a couple of days ago that Sir Ben Helfgott was honoured in the Pride of Britain awards. I am massively proud of Ben Helfgott because he is one of the 300 Windermere boys. There were 300 young people—mostly children—rescued from the death camps after the end of the second world war who came here and were resettled literally on the shores of Lake Windermere. They were accepted, brought back into some kind of civilised existence and set on their way, and they achieved wonderful things like Ben did. That is the Britain that I know and love. Accepting refugees from Uganda, from Kosovo—that is what makes Britain Britain. It is just beneath us to be finding reasons and excuses not to say yes to the entirely reasonable Lords amendment that provides a safe and legal route for family reunion, and prevents people from being pushed into the arms of dangerous criminal gangs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for gently asking the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to leave time for me to speak; I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing so. I will take no more time than anybody else. I also thank the Minister for the discussions that he has had with the Democratic Unionist party, particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who said that they were very useful.
I have concerns about the long-term detention of mentally ill people, who would be vulnerable detainees. Will the Minister outline in his response how he believes the Bill addresses the deficiencies highlighted in the troubling cases of ASK and MDA in 2019? I am sorry that I did not have the chance to give the Minister these notes in advance; I intended to do so, but overlooked it. Concerns have been expressed to me that at-risk adults do not have sufficient protection, and everyone who has spoken has highlighted the importance of full protection, which is even more necessary for vulnerable people.
Like other hon. Members, I have some concern about children who have lost parents—children who are in France, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned, with a relative in the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that those families can be reunited; we should be trying to do that.
The Minister and I have talked on many occasions about immigration issues and the rights of European economic area nationals to come over here to work on fishing boats. I understand that the issue is not for this Bill, but the Minister indicated some time ago that we would have a meeting. In fact, if it had not have been for covid-19, we would have had that meeting in Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford over Easter. I feel very strongly about the issue and want to make sure that it is on the Minister’s horizon. I know that he was keen to have that meeting. I was also very keen, along with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and other Members who wanted to address the same issue, which is why I wanted to put it on the record again.
Let me quickly mention another issue. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We have asked the Minister and the Government to consider allocating a proportion of places to people who are fleeing countries in, for example, the middle east. I am thinking of Christians from Syria, Iran and Iraq. I would like to see whether it is possible to specify a percentage who could come to the United Kingdom. I thank the Minister and the Government for the relocation of some Syrian refugees, who were able to integrate into my constituency of Strangford. They came in from Syria with absolutely nothing—some were not even able to speak the language—and the whole community came together to ensure that they were looked after, including the Housing Executive, church groups, community groups and everyone else. That is a lovely example of how things can work. The Government enabled it to happen, and I thank them for that. However, there are other Christians and Christian families who, I believe, should have the opportunity to come and relocate here as well.
A nation is marked by its compassion for others. Every one of us in this Chamber for this debate, including the Minister, wants to see that compassion used in the legislation to ensure that those who our hearts burn for are able to come here.
Kevin Foster
It is always a pleasure to follow my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and to reflect on his comments. It would be a bit out of scope for me to get on to fishing, but I recognise his campaigning on freedom of religious belief. He raises again the points we make about the challenges that are still faced globally by those fleeing persecution, merely because they express the same faith that he and I, and many in this Chamber, share. He also talked about how those who relocated from Syria or the region had resettled and been integrated into life in Strangford, with excellent support, I am sure.
That brings me on to the interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I know he has long engaged with this issue, both since his arrival here and, crucially, beforehand, through his work as a councillor and through the Local Government Association. His reflections were interesting, particularly when he made the point about offers being mentioned, and asked why were they not actually made, in order to support Kent? Also, when we hear about offers being made in Europe, I think that it reveals the differences in the debate. The Government’s view is that now that we have left the European Union and the transition period is coming to an end, we are moving away in our wider immigration system from the idea of a two-tier approach to non-EEA and EEA. Why not offer places as part of our resettlement programmes more generally or offer them up to those coming straight from the region? This is one of the reasons why I have had very interesting conversations with the Lord Bishop of Durham about the idea of talent beyond borders, looking at how we can open some of our economic migration routes for those who are skilled migrants—who have skills and abilities—who are currently in camps in the region and have been identified as potentially even having skills that are in shortage in this country.
That is where the core of the discussion goes. We have left the European Union. Is it really sensible to carry on in a system that will replicate a unilateral system that effectively applies only to those who are in a collection of safe and democratic countries that we have now left? Yes, negotiations are ongoing. It would probably not be right for me to give a blow-by-blow account at the Dispatch Box. As we have said, if we cannot achieve a reciprocal agreement with the whole European Union, based on the generous offer that we made earlier this year, we will look to talk to individual countries within the European Union where there is a mutual interest in having an arrangement between us both.
Let me turn to why the Government will not and cannot accept Lords amendment 4B. Part of it requires the Government to lay a strategy for the relocation of unaccompanied children from Europe. Again, this would be rather difficult to deliver and is very broad in scope. My hon. Friend touched on this. Local authorities are already caring for over 5,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—146% more than in 2014—and any move in a policy sense has to be balanced in terms of ensuring what offers are made locally. My local council, not controlled by my party, wrote to me earlier this year saying that we should be doing more for refugees across the world in resettlement, particularly in Europe. I asked them, “What was their offer?” Answer: nothing—after quite a bit of chasing about places. We do need to ensure that what we are offering up is backed up, when people arrive here, by resources and an ability to make a life here.
The amendment in lieu sets out a clear path for a review of our migration rules and is about creating safe and legal routes, including from the region directly. This is not just about avoiding a dangerous trip across the channel; it is about avoiding it and having no reason for a dangerous trip across the Mediterranean as well. That is why I am proud that we are one of the global leaders in resettlement and proud of the record that we have as a nation. When we do this review, we will take forward that reputation and ensure that we have a functioning system, but this time based on our having a global set of migration rules and not on a system that we were part of due to being a part of the EEA.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4B.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 9th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list of motions for Consideration of Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu - (6 Nov 2020)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4B and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4C, 4D and 4E in lieu.
“Protection claimants: legal routes from the EU and family reunion
(1) The Secretary of State must review, or arrange for a review of, the ways in which protection claimants who are in a member State are able to enter the United Kingdom lawfully.
(2) For the purposes of this section a “protection claimant” is a person who—
(a) has made an application for international protection to a member State, or
(b) is not a national of a member State and is seeking to come to the United Kingdom from a member State for the purpose of making a protection claim.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular—
(a) consider the position of unaccompanied children in member States who are protection claimants and are seeking to come to the United Kingdom to join relatives there, and
(b) include a public consultation on that aspect of the review.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement providing further details about the review under subsection (1) and, in particular, about the aspect of the review described in subsection (3).
(5) After the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare a report on the outcome of the review or arrange for such a report to be prepared, and
(b) publish the report and lay it before Parliament.
(6) In this section—
“application for international protection” has the meaning given by Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted;
“protection claim” has the same meaning as in Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (see section 82(2) of that Act);
“relative”, in relation to an unaccompanied child, means a parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, brother or sister of the child;
“unaccompanied child” means a person under the age of 18 (“the child”) who is not in the care of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) by law or custom of the country or territory in which the child is present, has responsibility for caring for the child.”
“(1A) The following provisions of section (Protection claimants: legal routes from the EU and family reunion) come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) subsection (4);
(b) subsections (2) and (6) so far as relating to subsection (4).”
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the issue of family reunion, which relates to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Amendment 4B and his most recent Motion A1, which seeks to amend the Government’s Amendment 4C, agreed to in the other place.
I accept the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. I reiterate that this Government share the noble Lord’s sincere concerns about refugee and asylum-seeking children. We are determined to continue our proud record of providing safety to those who need it, and supporting vulnerable children remains a fundamental tenet of this. Within this, we also recognise the importance of family unity, which I know is such a vital issue for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords who will no doubt speak today. The Government absolutely share those concerns.
I take this opportunity to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht today. It was Kristallnacht that effectively gave birth to the Kindertransport scheme, which enabled 10,000 refugee children to come to the UK in the 1930s, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I am of course extremely proud of what the UK did then and continue to be proud of what we are doing now and our record in government.
The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019 and 20% of all claims made in the EU and the UK. There are more than 5,000 unaccompanied children being looked after in English local authorities alone. Our resettlement schemes were the largest in Europe over the last five years, directly resettling over 25,000 people from regions of conflict and instability, half of whom were children.
I turn now to family reunion, with which the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is concerned—and on which, I hasten to add, Commons Amendments 4C, 4D and 4E also include significant commitments. On 1 January 2021, the UK will cease to be bound by the Dublin regulation. Instead, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe with family members in the UK will be able to apply to join eligible sponsors, such as those with refugee leave or who are beneficiaries of humanitarian protection, those with British citizenship or those with settled status under the Immigration Rules. Anyone who might currently have been transferred under Dublin will have a route through which they can apply, where the sponsor has the relevant status. I will make sure that guidance is updated to ensure that this is clear and transparent.
While these routes are already available to them now, historically, the Dublin regulation has been the preferred transfer route. This is not surprising where children have been in the care of a member state which can refer cases to other states via Dublin. Noble Lords and others have raised concerns that our existing Immigration Rules may not provide precisely the same routes for unaccompanied children to reunite with family members in the UK as the Dublin regulation currently does. I want to reassure noble Lords about what our existing rules do and the opportunities they provide for children to reunite with their families.
The rules already make provision for a child to be reunited with a parent in the UK, either under the refugee family reunion rules or via Appendix FM, depending on the immigration status of the parent. There are no financial requirements or fees for applications under our family reunion rules. In addition, paragraphs 319X and 297 of the rules are extremely flexible provisions that already allow for children to apply to join a wide range of family members who are not their parents, if there are serious and compelling family considerations and those relatives can maintain and accommodate the child. Under these rules, we do not restrict the range of those family members. For example, an uncle or aunt with refugee status or British citizenship, or who is settled in the UK, could sponsor a nephew or niece to join them here where those basic requirements are met.
It is important to say that these rules are global; it could be a child coming from Syria, Lebanon, France or Greece. Noble Lords may also wish to note that the vast majority of unaccompanied children who came to join family members under Dublin in 2019 joined British citizens, refugees or those granted humanitarian protection, or settled persons.
Following our departure from the Dublin regulation, I expect to see a greater number of applications for unaccompanied children to reunite with family members in the UK under our existing rules. While applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis, I anticipate unaccompanied children in the EU whose best interests would be served by reuniting with family members in the UK who can support them—where they cannot reunite with family elsewhere—clearly to be strong candidates to meet the criteria.
I know that noble Lords have raised concerns about the requirements of these rules. However, the Dublin regulation also has requirements. While the processes are different, the Dublin regulation and our Immigration Rules both rightly examine safeguarding and welfare issues. For example, any Dublin transfer must be in the child’s best interests, and the rules also consider the child’s best interests in our decision-making. Both Dublin transfers and the rules also require evidence of family links, which is essential for safeguarding purposes. For a child to join extended family members—which make up the majority of cases—under Dublin, the sponsor must be able to take care of the child, which is very reasonable. Under Dublin, trained social workers conduct family assessments at the sponsors’ home, including assessing their accommodation, to ensure that these requirements are met. It is also right that our rules examine, for example, whether a child can be accommodated in a home that does not breach housing laws.
However, unlike Dublin, which simply provides for their transfer to the UK to have their asylum claim processed here, our rules grant children a form of leave—that distinction is very important. A child granted leave under family reunion rules will also immediately be provided with a route to settlement, or may even be granted settlement on arrival, depending on the immigration status of the sponsor. Under the refugee family reunion rules alone, we issued over 29,000 refugee family reunion visas in the last five years, and around half of these were for children. This includes 6,320 visas issued in the year ending June of this year. That is over 10 times the number of all family reunion transfers under the Dublin regulation in 2019.
Importantly, there is also discretion for immigration caseworkers to grant leave to enter outside of the Immigration Rules, where a refusal under the rules would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences, or on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR, on family life. This discretion is also used where other family requirements cannot be met, such as accommodation and maintenance. Use of discretion will be considered in every case where a child has applied under the rules to join a family member.
However, we are not complacent about the safe and legal routes that our existing rules provide, including for family reunion for unaccompanied children. That is why we have made generous statutory commitments in our substantive amendment in lieu, Amendment 4C. The amendment commits to: a review of legal routes to the UK, including for family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; a public consultation on those legal routes for family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; laying a statement providing further detail of this review and consultation before Parliament within three months of the immigration Bill achieving Royal Assent; preparing a report on the outcome of the review, and to publishing and laying that report before Parliament. Amendments 4D and 4E concern commencement of the commitment in Amendment 4C to lay a statement before Parliament: they specify that this will come into force within two months of Royal Assent.
Due to the scope of the Bill, the government amendments in lieu refer only to legal routes for those who have made an application for international protection in an EU member state, or are seeking to come to the UK from a member state to claim protection here. However, I can confirm that the review which we conduct will be concerned with legal routes from all countries, not just EU member states. This is in line with our new, global approach to the future immigration system. Noble Lords will remember that I have already committed on the Floor of this House that the UK will pursue bilateral negotiations with key countries of mutual interest on post-transition migration issues, which will include family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Government’s Amendments 4C, 4D and 4E—agreed in the other place—in addition to my commitment on bilateral discussions, are a generous package of commitments providing for a full consideration of our future approach to safe and legal routes as part of our new global immigration system, including on family reunion for these children. It clearly demonstrates how seriously this Government take the issue of family unity for vulnerable children and recognise the importance of these routes, to discourage vulnerable children from making dangerous and illegal journeys that can result in the kind of tragedy that we saw last week.
Amendment 4B, and Motion A1 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would also require the Government to replicate the Dublin routes for adults and families to join family members in the UK. Our family reunion rules, part 8 of the rules and appendix FM all provide existing routes for adults and accompanied children to join immediate family members in the UK. Again, there is discretion for caseworkers to grant leave to enter outside of the Immigration Rules where a refusal under the rules would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences, or on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR, on family life.
“(5A) Until such a time as the report under subsection (5) has been published and either any included recommendations on the position of unaccompanied children under subsection (3)(a) have been implemented or a reason has been given for non-implementation, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for protection claimants who are in a member State after 1 January 2021, and who would have been eligible to enter the United Kingdom under a relevant provision of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 if the United Kingdom remained a party to that regulation, to enter the United Kingdom.”
““Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013” means Regulation (EU) No. 604/ 2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council including the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast);
“relevant provision” means any of the following articles of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013— (a) Article 8; (b) Article 9; (c) Article 10; (d) Article 16; (e) Article 17;””
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement and I am grateful for the civil conversations I had with her over the weekend about it. I very much welcome the review that the Government have initiated, and I obviously look forward to seeing the outcome.
I appreciate what the Minister said about the anniversary of Kristallnacht; she also talked about Kindertransport children arriving here. All I would say is that, as one of them, I have always been enormously grateful to this country for the safety and the opportunities it has given me. I only want to achieve for other children coming here in similar circumstances the same sort of opportunities I have had in the United Kingdom.
The purpose of the amendment was to seek assurances that the ending of the family reunion provisions under the Dublin treaty on 31 December would not disadvantage refugee children who were seeking a route to this country. The amendment simply seeks to put in place interim arrangements for refugees seeking to reunite with family members in the UK after the transitional period is over, until the government review is completed, so that there should not be a gap in the provision for refugees seeking to reunite with their families.
Clearly the Minister’s wish was to make it unnecessary for me to pursue my amendment, so let me deal with that in a little detail, although, as I have said, I welcome the Government’s plans to review the whole issue. I remind the House that we are talking about children, many of them in Calais, Dunkirk or on the Greek islands, sleeping rough and at the mercy of traffickers. We have seen the tragic consequences of what the traffickers do to make money while risking the lives of very vulnerable people. It is my belief that the British people are essentially humanitarian, and that the majority of people in this country support our being generous to child refugees—not all, but the majority —so we are not flying in the face of the majority of public opinion in what we do for child refugees.
I listened very hard to t the Minister and I welcome many of the things that she mentioned. Let me put three questions to her. If there are to be changes in the Immigration Rules—maybe there are not, but if there are—could the Minister arrange for these first to be published in draft form, so that we have the ability to suggest possible changes? My understanding is that normally Immigration Rules are like subordinate legislation, and we cannot simply amend them—we can either reject or accept them.
Therefore, the possibility of influencing changes in the Immigration Rules by having them first published in draft form would be a sensible measure, and I hope the Minister will agree. I believe it has been done before on occasion. We do not want to be in the position of having to either accept or reject them without having first had the chance to debate and, possibly, influence them. If these changes to the Immigration Rules are to happen, I imagine they have to happen by 1 January 202, to give effect to the policies that the Minister just described.
Secondly, the Minister referred to policy guidance to give effect to the Immigration Rules. Obviously, I welcome that, but can it be published in due course—that is, before the end of December—so that we can see the nature of the guidance? The difficulty is that the Immigration Rules are more restrictive than the Dublin treaty provisions. The problem is whether what the Minister said will enable an element of flexibility in the interpretation of the Immigration Rules by officials to be achieved. If that can be done, all well and good.
I hope the Minister will indicate that the Government’s aim is that no child should be disadvantaged by any restrictions in the Immigration Rules tighter than those contained in the Dublin treaty. If the Minister can do that by the end of December, we have a positive way forward for the interim, until the Government’s review is completed, when some of these discussions can happen again. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the position taken by my noble friend the Minister in her Amendments 4C, 4D and 4E. As noble Lords will know, I am not entirely in favour of the Bill. I do not like the fact that it applies to migrants from the EU only and, with other noble Lords, I sought amendments to the new system. For example, I remain unhappy about permitting those coming to work here to take jobs that have not first been advertised to talent here in the UK. This is perverse and will simply serve to increase unemployment. I am astonished that the trade union interest is so unconcerned about this.
However, the Bill is already overdue and, across the House, we all have an interest in getting it on to the statute book in time for people to understand the new rules when transition ends. I cannot support continued ping-pong and I ask the Opposition proponents of the proposals on unaccompanied children to show more responsibility. If they cannot—I detected a certain softening from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I hope that others across the House will do so and that this latest attempt at ping-pong will fail.
The fact is that the Government have made very substantial concessions—further than I would have gone, with experience of these matters from Downing Street in the 1990s. In particular, they have promised a review of legal routes to the UK, including for family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and committed themselves to meeting various parliamentary milestones. They have also promised bilateral negotiations with key countries on post-transition migration issues. That will be especially important in the unlikely event of a full breakdown of the FTA with the EU.
The government package should be accepted now and we should avoid the embarrassment of another round of ping-pong. To inform the review and thinking today, I make the following observations. Although I, too, celebrate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, we are no longer in the 1930s. In the Bill, we are talking about children coming from the EU—all countries that observe decency and freedom and are subject to the EHRC. Moreover, in the UK, despite beating ourselves up on occasions, we have a good record. There are various avenues for entering the UK as a minor. My noble friend the Minister has explained these in detail and why Dublin is not the only route. I will not repeat what she said, but I emphasise that since 2010, we have granted protection or other forms of leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection. In 2019, we received 3,775 asylum claims from unaccompanied children—more than any other EU member state.
The latest tragedies in the channel do not change any of that. They do, however, underline the view, shared by us all, I think, that we need a system that encourages safe and legal routes and does not encourage child trafficking of any kind. However, we know from Swedish and US experience, which I am happy to share, that special arrangements for admitting unaccompanied minors can, sadly, be counterproductive. Done in the wrong way, they can mean that the criminals have an incentive to separate children from their relatives, and then they can, unfortunately, end up being trafficked for sex or as drug runners. Some have also suggested that where children come on their own—for example to link up with an aunt or a sibling—it often does not work out and they end up in care. Despite the best efforts of many well-run local authorities, this, as we know from a series of appalling metrics and individual cases, is the worst possible place for a good start in life.
A review, as now proposed by the Government, is needed before further changes are made. Moreover, as I argue on everything from pensions and agriculture to coronavirus, a proper costing must be done and resources identified to make any change of policy a success. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that a defeat today for the Government on this will not help them with the important negotiation on these and other issues currently taking place with the EU. I thank the Minister for the amendments tabled by the Government and urge noble Lords to let the Bill get on its way to Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In doing so, I speak not only on my account but also in place of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who is locked down in the north-east and therefore, because of the procedures for consideration of Commons amendments, is unable to speak on this amendment, although that had been very much his intention.
Family life and kin relationships are vital in many parts of the world to ensure survival. Even in the UK, family means the difference between misery, destitution and poor mental health and a life where, even in the most difficult circumstances, there is practical care, support and love. Thus, I, too, welcome the Government’s steps towards ensuring safe and legal routes, including the commitment in case of a no-deal Brexit, to pursue bilateral negotiations on arrangements for family reunion, which I trust they will seek to ensure are equivalent to the Dublin regulations. I welcome the Minister’s commitments and await with interest her further comments following what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, just said.
However, a step in the right direction is not the end of the journey. While a review of safe and legal routes is welcome, these steps do not directly deal with what will happen when the UK leaves the Dublin system at the end of the year. Nor does a review safeguard existing routes, which we already know to be worth while and effective. These high standards and guarantees in refugee protection will fall away and the routes will close down.
Throughout the Bible, there is teaching on the necessity for our actions to match well-intended words. Thus, in the Old Testament, the prophet Micah reminds us that we are to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly, not just to speak of justice or mercy. I therefore point out that your Lordships are seeking action rather than reviews. We are asking for a concrete commitment to walk down the path of justice and mercy for those seeking refuge, most especially unaccompanied children.
There are many areas of government migration policy on which we already await reviews. In particular, we wait for one on asylum seekers’ right to work and another on the impact of hostile environment measures, to which the Government have already committed as part of their response to Windrush. In neither case is there as yet a clear timetable. A review is not action. A review without a timetable is not a review any time soon. In the meantime, the need is pressing and ongoing. We require action to fill the legislative gap that will otherwise open up in January to the detriment of some very vulnerable individuals.
Securing satisfactory family reunion rights is an important part of a wider picture, ensuring not only safe and legal routes but also an effective, functioning, humane asylum system. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, recognises this. As he has explained, his amendment seeks to remove a gap in provision. He is an individual of great sensibility and experience in these matters and commands widespread respect across the House. On an issue in which compassion and humanity must be at the forefront of our response, I hope that your Lordships will demonstrate the necessary independence of spirit which these children and their families require of us. I support his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In which case, I shall call the speakers listed, the first of whom is the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. When we travel on the London Tube, there is a warning to “mind the gap”. In their contributions, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have said that there is potentially a gap in provision between Dublin III and whatever is brought forward for January of next year. It is right that we should mind that gap.
On 21 March 2016, by a margin of 306 votes to 204, your Lordships carried an amendment on unaccompanied child refugees. Four years later, the noble lord, Lord Dubs, valiantly keeps us focused on the plight of refugee children. Four years ago, the noble Lord asked me to be a signatory to what in shorthand became known as the Dubs amendment. I readily agreed. I said at that time that the repeated use of the argument about the so-called pull factors—some of which were mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—cannot, in the case of children, outweigh our duty to do all in our power to safeguard and save any child at risk. Not to do so would leave a lasting stain on our reputation.
In the four years since we first considered the Dubs amendment, we have seen shocking reports of children dying, abandoned, disappearing, trafficked or exploited during perilous journeys. The recent death of two little children in the English Channel, after their boat capsized, simply underlines yet again why it is crucial that we find these safe and legal routes, and long-term solutions that hit hard the criminal gangs that profiteer and exploit desperation, while tackling the root causes that create such phenomenal displacement.
In 2015, we were all deeply affected by the harrowing picture of a little Syrian toddler, washed up like so much flotsam and jetsam on a beach near Bodrum. The tragic deaths of a five year-old and an eight year-old in the English Channel starkly remind us that little has changed since then.
The Dubs amendment will not save the life of every child. Family reunions provided for in the Dublin III regulation are, at best, a safety net. But its absence after 31 December—the gap mentioned—could make a bad and tragic situation even worse.
Against this background, the House of Commons has once again returned this amendment to your Lordships House. I know that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, believes that the plight of children should be a top-tier priority for the Government—in her remarks a few moments ago, she used the phrase “a fundamental tenet”. She is justifiably proud of the help we have given. Thanks to parliamentary pressure, the Government have been able to tell a better story today than might otherwise have been the case. Surely that shows the importance of parliamentary debates such as this. However, she must also accept that the talk and rhetoric from others of nets and water canon to disable or push back boats and of the use of oil rigs or remote islands to lock up migrants, and the absence of any international initiative—ideally led by the United Kingdom—to tackle the root causes, are deeply dispiriting.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, of the 79.5 million people around the world who have been forced to flee their homes, nearly 26 million are refugees. The UNHCR estimates that 40% are children and 68% come from just five countries. It cannot be beyond our wit—our collective genius—to drive this issue to the top of Governments’ agendas. Even if they do not accept that there are altruistic and humanitarian reasons to act, there are plenty of self-interested reasons why they should do so.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us, today we commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht—the night of broken glass—which included the destruction of 267 synagogues. Eleanor Rathbone MP established the Parliamentary Committee on Refugees. Two years later, on 10 July 1940, in a six-hour debate, she intervened on no fewer than 20 occasions to insist that Britain had a duty of care to the refugees being hunted down by the Nazis. She said that a nation had an obligation to give succour to those fleeing persecution—in her words,
“not only in the interests of humanity and of the refugees, but in the interests of security itself”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/1940; col. 1212.]
She said that discussions about asylum seekers and refugees
“always begin with an acknowledgement of the terrible nature of the problem and expressions of sympathy with the victims. Then comes a tribute to the work of the voluntary organisations. Then some account of the small leisurely steps taken by the Government. Next, a recital of the obstacles—fear of anti-semitism, or the jealousy of the unemployed, or of encouraging other nations to offload their Jews on to us”.
In 2020, nothing much has changed, and it is hard not to see the parallels.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was one of the few rescued by Kindertransport, and his commendable determination for us to remain focused on the needs of refugee children was born in those shocking times.
The clock is ticking towards 31 December. The Government’s amendment legislates for a review on safe and legal routes in the new year, including specifically on family reunion. I welcome that, but, on 1 January, children will potentially have impaired access to family reunion, and many may be left stranded alone in Europe. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, adds a requirement that current family reunion laws are kept until the review and report are complete, so that no child loses out from accessing this vital safe and legal route.
Like the noble Lord, I am pleased by the spirt and tone of everything which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said this afternoon. However, I would prefer to see this written in the Bill, and I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—metaphorically anyway—into the Lobby and vote to send this back to the Commons one final time if he does not believe that the Government’s assurances go far enough.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, safe routes are needed now. We know that people will not and cannot wait. And who can blame them?
I want to question the Minister about the review, particularly to seek an assurance about one aspect. Proposed new subsection (1) in the amendment refers to the review of ways in which protection claimants can enter the UK lawfully. This suggests that the review is to be limited to considering existing ways, when what is needed are proposals to enable safe mechanisms for family reunion without the current hurdles and restrictions. Siblings must be able to reunite and close family members—not only parents—able to sponsor entry without having to find fees or demonstrate that they have the means to look after the child.
I am concerned that there is no stated objective for the review; that seems to be missing. Also missing, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is a timetable for the completion of the review. The three months mentioned is the period within which the Government are to give further details. Can the Minister help us with the wider timetable and consultation, which surely needs to be wider than just unaccompanied children?
Reference has been made to the use of guidance. Can guidance achieve what is proposed? It cannot override the rules. I endorse and support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the importance of seeing drafts both of rules and guidance. Parliamentarians can then have input and amendments can be gently suggested, if not formally proposed. We cannot do this with unamendable rules.
It is beyond me that what is necessary now is to show
“serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”,
in the words of the rules. Putting it that way round, rather than the converse, has always seemed perverse to me. So, too, is the policy that an application under Article 8 of the European convention, on the right to family life, will not succeed unless there are “exceptional circumstances” with refusal resulting in “unjustifiably harsh consequences”.
On the timetable again, one of the government amendments refers to two months from the date of commencement, which is beyond the end of the year. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no lacuna as a result and that work on plugging the gap, as it were, will start immediately and apply notwithstanding the commencement date? If there needs to be a change, can it be made in the Commons? I appreciate that that would require the Bill to go back to the Commons.
In practice, it is very difficult to show that a child is in an unsafe environment. Other current problems that need to be considered are getting a child to a visa application centre to make an application under the rules, and the fees which, under one of the paragraphs of the rules, are well over £3,000. I make these perhaps slightly random points because, alone, they show the importance of consultation on the whole situation.
The Minister in the Commons referred to
“dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/20; col. 182.]
I stress “unnecessary”. Would the crossings be made if they were? And was it appropriate to refer to lives lost and profit made by criminals as if they were of equal weight?
The noble Baroness referred to bilaterals. If she can give us an update, it would be welcome, but I appreciate that it may be difficult to refer to negotiations with the EU at the moment. Bilaterals would have to come after the end of the year, but we should not depend on them being in place for some time yet.
I realise that I am not taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as I should, who always succeeds in using the most moderate language. He started by welcoming Amendment 4C, so I will end by confirming that these Benches are pleased that he has again pointed the way forward. We support him. If he decides to divide, we will certainly go with him. In any event, like him, we will continue to seek a much more satisfactory arrangement for asylum seekers, who want the most natural thing in the world: to be with their family.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We welcome the government amendment providing for a review of legal routes to the UK, including for family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and for a report on the outcome of the review to be published and laid before Parliament—which I hope will be within a matter of months, rather than years.
The concern that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dubs seeks to address is what will apply in the interim, between the end of the transition period—and thus the end of the Dublin regulations—and the introduction of any revised or amended arrangements on legal routes to the UK, following the outcome of the review. In other words, there needs to be provision for those, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, who would have come in successfully under the Dublin regulations—had they still been in existence after the end of this year—still to have an equally accessible and achievable safe and legal route in that interim period, which would continue to enable them to come to the UK.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The gap was mentioned. I hope that I outlined in my speech the substantial number of routes available, whatever people’s circumstances, to apply to come here and seek our refuge and asylum.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked me three specific questions. The first was whether, if there are changes to the Immigration Rules, we can publish them in draft form. The answer is yes. He asked whether we could publish the guidance before 31 December. I said in my speech and will reiterate that I will ensure that the guidance reflects the position and update it if necessary. I would be happy to update it if changes are needed by 31 December. I am also happy to take his views on the review process on board. I think that was it from him so, in a nutshell, I am happy to do all those things.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe stressed the importance of safe and legal routes, not the child trafficking that we see at the moment. She talked about the cost of these things being important. Of course it is; it will be considered in due course.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark talked about Dublin ending and routes closing down. I have explained that, as we are leaving the European Union, Dublin will come to an end, but we will not close any of our existing routes. Just to illustrate some of the numbers, as I mentioned in my speech, we issued 6,320 family reunion visas in the year ending June 2020, which contrasts with 532 family reunion transfers under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of Dublin. All the routes that I set out earlier are and will continue to be in force.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about children who are dying, trafficked and missing, and the criminal gangs who exploit them. I could not agree with him more, but this exists as Dublin does, so the safe and legal routes are absolutely essential. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is completely focused on this. I can also confirm this afternoon that the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme will restart as soon as possible. It has to be safe to do so, but it will restart. I have some lines on it but I cannot find them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the review being linked to safe mechanisms. That is why we are doing it: for safe and legal routes. We could not be clearer. She made an interesting point, asking why we are mentioning lives lost and criminals together. We are mentioning them because that is why people die—because criminals encourage them to take dangerous routes across the very dangerous English Channel and other seas. That is why they die. She also asked about the wider timetable, which we will include in the Statement that we are committed to. She asked whether the consultation is wider than just UASCs and, yes, it is. Family reunions for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is just part of the wider issue. She also talked about getting people to visa application centres. This morning I talked about that issue to my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister, who is looking at it.
I hope that I have demonstrated how the gap will be filled, and have demonstrated my commitment to all the things that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has asked of me, and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, giving evidence to support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that parliamentary debate is a good thing, which clarifies issues and highlights our concerns, and is therefore an essential part of our democratic process.
I will make a few brief comments before getting to the nub of what the Minister said. I believe firmly that, if there are safe and legal routes, fewer people are trafficked, and fewer people want to be trafficked. I heard of a refugee child, I think near Calais, who apparently said: “Does it mean that there will be no safe of getting to the UK after Brexit to join my family?” As Brexit has happened, he probably meant the transition period. Clearly he was concerned that, if there was no way of getting to join his family, he would be forced to do the dangerous thing of crossing the channel. I appreciate that the Minister quoted some numbers, but many of those have come as the result of trafficking. We want a safe and legal route so that children can come without the awful risk to their lives, a proper way of bringing them over without everybody arriving in Kent, which is a burden on the local authorities. However, I am sure that we will scrutinise the Minister’s words very carefully. They will be subject to forensic analysis, to see what the Government are saying.
The Minister did not say that she would publish the guidance but that it would be updated. One argument in favour of publishing it is that the Immigration Rules give officials a lot of discretion, and a concern underlying my amendment is that this discretion has in the past been used against the interests of refugee children. If the guidance ensures what I believe is the main aim of this debate—that no child should be disadvantaged through the ending of the Dublin regulation—then we are there. If the Minister can only assure me that the guidance will be published and that, while it cannot guarantee it in every case, it will aim to ensure that no child will be disadvantaged, I would be persuaded. Can the Minister comment in the middle of my speech?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am quite happy to speak now if the noble Lord will take the intervention. He and I spoke last night, when he asked me for that commitment that no child be disadvantaged. Clearly, I cannot speak on every single case that may or may not happen. As I told him last night, I would be lying if I said that I could make a judgment on every case. I hope that I have outlined clearly—although I start to doubt myself, given that some noble Lords have come back on it—that there are clear routes and humanitarian grounds on which we can accept children. Therefore, I hope that through the commitments that I have made to him today, any person who has applied under Dublin will have a route open to them, as long as the sponsor has the relevant status. I hope that that comforts the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister. We had three conversations yesterday, and I recall her saying that. I take the point, but my niggle or concern is that the interpretation of Immigration Rules will still be with officials, who may not be as generous in their attitude as the Minister is. That is why I am keen to see the guidance. If the officials are going to interpret the Immigration Rules for this interim period in the same spirit as the Minister has addressed the House today, I can rest content.
I am delighted that the Minister said that the vulnerable persons refugee scheme will be revived, as that was a very good scheme as well. If the Minister’s assurance is to be accepted by me—and I think I will accept it—I do so on the understanding that the House will carefully scrutinise what happens, that we shall raise individual cases where we feel that the assurances have not been acted upon, and that we will look to the review and the future legislation—there is another Bill coming next year—to have further scrutiny of the arrangements for unaccompanied child refugees. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list of motions for Consideration of Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu - (6 Nov 2020)